Activists Who Investigate Animal Abuse On Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted As Terrorists

So says the FBI. I would guess this law was in the recent defense bill passed. Pretty soon, I'll bet they'll be coming for those of us protesting the wars, writing angry letters to congress, or supporting Ron Paul for President. HAH!
www.greenisthenewred.com...

reply to post by GoldenRuled

nvm

i do not support animal abuse in any way but i do support law...these groups should be well versed on what laws
they are subject to.

(a) Offense. - Whoever - (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and (2) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b). (b) Penalties. - (1) Economic damage. - Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage not exceeding $10,000 to an animal enterprise shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both. (2) Major economic damage. - Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to an animal enterprise shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. (3) Serious bodily injury. - Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (4) Death. - Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), causes the death of an individual shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for life or for any term of years. (c) Restitution. - An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution - (1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; (2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and (3) for any other economic damage resulting from the offense. (d) Definitions. - As used in this section - (1) the term "animal enterprise" means - (A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing; (B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or (C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences; (2) the term "physical disruption" does not include any lawful disruption that results from lawful public, governmental, or animal enterprise employee reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise; (3) the term "economic damage" means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, or the loss of profits; and (4) the term "serious bodily injury" has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of this title. (e) Non-Preemption. - Nothing in this section preempts any State law.

so really can't say much about it.. to label someone a terrorist is a bit extreme. but who knows

reply to post by GodofWar411


Yes, what is the threat here. A Human being who has a big heart for animals?
I agree completely with your "in accordance to the law" post.
I could understand a trespassing charge or the like. But the "Terrorism Label."
That is being thrown around rather freely, like the Nazi Label in this case. Or is it?
So what is the big picture here?
I figure it is a matter of protecting the important business of the food supply.
I guess the demand of keeping up with the hungry mouths of 6 billion
people is taking a toll on the practices occuring in the back room at the butcher. That is understandable.
Then Again, there was that material concerning dog fur harvesting methods in China. (Not food)
That was a very graphic and delicate subject matter.
It might have resulted in a diplomatic incident.
That was extremely sensitive.
However, some of the most powerful,intelligent, and influential people I have met in my lifetime
happened to be dog lovers/pet lovers as well.
Those kind of practices would not be acceptable to them under any circumstances.
Sometimes you have to stand up and present the facts.

To be clear, I am not a vegetarian. Someone has to kill,dress,pluck, and quarter the chicken
I purchase at the store. These are facts, that I accept.
However,the fact that Cruel and unusual punishment does not yet apply to our fellow inhabitants
of The Earth as of yet is troublesome.
And yet, if you leave a dog in a hot car with no water in some places, you can be subject to arrest.
If you participate in animal fight gambling you may be subject to arrest.

Clearly there is a double standard occuring here.
Maybe the source to this article is nothing more than propaganda.
As this new "terrorism" threat somehow defies logic to me.
Please, will someone enlighten me . I would sincerely appreciate it.

That might be a lot of things - breaking and entering, criminal tresspass - a lot of things - laws already on the books - but sorry, no, that's not terrorism.

Now, if they are from another country and they break in to blow the place up - uh, YEAH.

Things are getting so stupid.
Factory farms are NASTY and inhumane -it doesn't have to be that way- the FBI has to eat that crap too.
The public NEEDS to know.

If the FBI is defining things so as to keep Americans in the dark and the evil doers doing evil - they might be part of the problem.

The act of filming something does not equal terrorism. If it did they need to go arrest those Israelis that were filming 911 from that rooftop.

I understand that putting the word "terrorist" in an editorial or story causes more people to read it and gets the pulse racing. But using it when it's not justified just hurts credibility. (I know the OP is just taking it from the article, not his fault.)

My understanding is that 18 USC 43 is entitled: "Force, Violence, and Threats Involving Animal Enterprises." There's no mention of "terrorists" there. As pointed out above, the law in this case simply provides punishment for anyone who crosses state lines to remove someone's animals. (I know I'm over simplifying, but be gentle)

It seems that the author of the piece, out of sympathy for the cause, is inflaming passions unnecessarily.

reply to post by Wildmanimal


when humans break GREATER LAWS of the universe by abusing animals while other humans stand idly by - or say, well, the law allows it ...

then it's going against universal law NOT to enter the farm and try to stop the abuse.

Far from terrorists, these people are just decent humans OBEYING THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF KINDNESS AND COMPASSION TO ALL CREATURES.

that you can sit on this forum and whinge about them breaking HUMAN laws that allow animal abuse is pretty DAMN PATHETIC.

reply to post by rapunzel222

I noticed that each of your sentences involved the universal law or the human law. Where do you think the universal law comes from and how do we know what it says? Can there be disagreement over what it says? Could some people believe that the universal law is ok with animal pain?

Seriously, not trying to be a jerk here. No mind games, I truly don't know.

I've heard God is the source. Ok, I can understand that.
Maybe the opinion of individuals over the years. Welll, maybe.
A universal energy. Can't believe that one.

Human law should be in tune with a "higher" law, right, absolutely. But what is your universal law?

Originally posted by charles1952
I understand that putting the word "terrorist" in an editorial or story causes more people to read it and gets the pulse racing. But using it when it's not justified just hurts credibility. (I know the OP is just taking it from the article, not his fault.)

My understanding is that 18 USC 43 is entitled: "Force, Violence, and Threats Involving Animal Enterprises." There's no mention of "terrorists" there. As pointed out above, the law in this case simply provides punishment for anyone who crosses state lines to remove someone's animals. (I know I'm over simplifying, but be gentle)

It seems that the author of the piece, out of sympathy for the cause, is inflaming passions unnecessarily.

Funny terrorists calling us terrorists.

So we water board dairy farmers, pig farmers, and chicken farmers. Bullfighters high on the list along with the entire rodeo circuit. Pass a dumb law like that but want pass anything to arrest wall street for stealing our money and bankrupting the country. No laws to put bankers in jail, or corrupt politicians.

I must be still a little fuzzy, I'm being wildly misunderstood.

Contrary to the thread headline, NO ONE IN THIS STORY IS BEING PROSECUTED AS A TERRORIST. People are being prosecuted under a law that doesn't have the word terrorist in it.

Thinking that people are being treated as terrorists here is similar to seeing a headline that reads "Rapist Terrorizes Neighborhood," then saying that rapists are being prosecuted as terrorists. It isn't happening.

True, there are "environmental terrorists," but that is a label, not a legal offense.