See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: House Passes ‘Terrorism’ Act Against Animal Activists
Source:
http://newstandardnews.net
URL Source: http://newstandardnews.net/content/ ... .cfm/items/3887/printmode/true
Published: Nov 15, 2006
Author: M Tady
Post Date: 2006-11-17 17:43:02 by Kamala
Keywords: None
Views: 441
Comments: 41
House Passes ‘Terrorism’ Act Against Animal Activists by Megan Tady Nov. 15 – Monday afternoon, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that reclassifies unlawful animal-rights tactics as terrorism under certain conditions, even if they are non-violent. As reported by The NewStandard just hours before the House took its voice vote on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), the bill will classify civil disobedience actions – such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism. The AETA amends current law enabling the government to prosecute activists for intentionally damaging property used by "animal enterprises" – businesses that use or sell animals. The AETA expands those provisions to enhance penalties against activists who "interfere" with animal enterprises by destroying property or engaging in behavior that appears "threatening." It even includes perceive threats to companies that work with animal enterprises and takes into account resulting profit losses. The House passed the Senate's version of the bill, which was approved in September. Critics consider that version bad enough, but they had been especially alarmed that a House version of the bill swept in "non-violent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise" as an offense if it causes a loss of profits. While the Senate version does not explicitly ban such activity, critics believe it to be vague enough to encompass civil disobedience in its scope. The AETA does make specific provisions to safeguard activity protected under the First Amendment, but critics have raised concerns it could have the effect of discouraging even lawful protests. Because only a voice vote was taken, there is no record of who approved or opposed the AETA bill. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D–Ohio) spoke against the legislation, saying it compromises civil rights and threatens to "chill" free speech. Kucinich also addressed the animals he fears will be less protected if the legislation scares off protesters. "Just as we need to protect people's right to conduct their work without fear of assault, so too this Congress has yet to address some fundamental ethical principles with respect to animals. How should animals be treated humanely? This is a debate that hasn't come here." © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display http://newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, please see the TNS reprint policy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#1. To: Kamala, btp holdings, ferret mike (#0)
As reported by The NewStandard just hours before the House took its voice vote on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), the bill will classify civil disobedience actions – such as blockades, property destruction, trespassing, and the freeing of captive animals – as terrorism. Someone get a semi truck full of rope and meet me outside the capitol.
Got wire cutters? cut fence around any cattle ranch. The profit margins can't take the losses this causes. This law is fuel to the fire. All other activists are next. Any and all ways to harm animal based concerns is now on the table as to do agenda items. This law sets a precedent. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
I advocate shooting to death on sight anyone who does this to someones private property.
You think a fence is worth more then a human life? Actually, you would be the one committing the capital crime, cutting a fence at best is a class C felony or even a misdemeanor most places. Predator/prey relationship is different then vivisection, the fur trade, or some of the cruel animal husbandry practices opposed by PETA. I am an Earth First! activist who has nearly died when a security guard precipitated my fall three stories from a tree I was merely bannering. I know first hand about the dangers of overzealous tactics. I am not impressed by your bravado, in fact, for all I know with your constant expressions of contempt for Americans you were one of the crew who set the charges in the twin towers in NYC. Not likely, but who is to say? Someone did it. I often wonder what sort of personality would fit a well developed profile of those with that blood on their hands for a little bit of money. ;-)
Damn right I do.
The law punishes people who violate the continuum of force. If one is in no eminent danger of harm, one can't make themselves judge jury and executioner. It is precisely this out of context call for deadly force that someone would use to justify blowing up the twin towers and building seven of the NYC World Trade Center. They would -- and did -- rationalize those thousands who died as justifiable in the context of inciting an entire nation to war against the Muslim world. And seeing how you inappropriately loath Muslims, you might even agree that the rational for blowing these occupied buildings up was a necessary thing to do. So, if you didn't help set the charges as I hypothetically posed for argument you are capable of doing, how are you anymore then marginally better then those people who served the economic interests of those who owned the buildings that was going to cost so much to upgrade and had so much insurance on it, and the governments of Israel and the U.S. in making war and mayhem more palatable to the peoples of these two countries? It is precisely this mindset that makes people go to the point where they do property damage like fence cutting; the knowledge that if they do non-violent dissent, they are dealing with people who would operate in the modus that their lives did not matter. Kill a fence cutter, five more people will burn down your buildings, shoot them, even more will shoot you. That is my point, that escalating the violence only promotes more violence; it does nothing to end it.
Come now, non-violent dissent in the public square is guaranteed in the bill of rights (freedom of assembly and freedom of speech) as well as organized violence (right to bear arms as part of a well organized citizens militia). On my property though I am sovereign per English Common law.
Say you own property, and you want to cut trees down. A well known non-violent protester takes up residence in one of them protecting it, you actually think you can just shoot someone for protesting? Especially someone well known for being non-violent? You would go to prison, or be executed for committing a Capital crime. You just can't shoot or kill people like vermin because they annoy you, even on your property.
If I saw him sneaking on my property I would call the police and go out with a shot gun to make a citizen's arrest. I hope you don't have any gear that I can claim was used as a weapon against me.
I would say that if you lived in an area with a long police response and there was a history of people stealing or damaging your property, this would be appropriate. However, if they turned and immediately moved to leave your property, it would be best to let them go and let the police deal with it. Someone with a pair of wire cutters who is trespassing is not worth precipitating a major personal confrontation with. A hypothetical for you; you are in the World Trade Center before 9-11, you see someone installing wire with markings you know from experience denotes fuse or det cord. You try to take them into custody physically as they have dangerous explosive material in a building of a complex so big it has it's own zip code. A security officer working for the management of the building who are agents for the owner shoots and kills you for interfering with activity that is illegal, but sanctioned by the owner. Who is right? The owner who is doing to his property that he wishes to, or the good Samaritan trying to do a citizen's arrest of someone installing demolition gear to bring down the building?
You try to take them into custody physically as they have dangerous explosive material in a building of a complex so big it has it's own zip code. A security officer working for the management of the building who are agents for the owner shoots and kills you for interfering with activity that is illegal, but sanctioned by the owner. Who is right? The owner who is doing to his property that he wishes to, or the good Samaritan trying to do a citizen's arrest of someone installing demolition gear to bring down the building? I doubt Destro could answer this. But I will take a shot at it. The owner is in the wrong since what he has sanctioned puts society and the public at risk. Therefore, the security guard would be guilty of murder while acting as agent of the owner. And by extension, so would the owner be gulity of murder.
You answered as I would, but Destro's silence worries me. How about it Detro, have an opinion? Surely you who is so much more intelligent and educated then most 'dumb, uneducated' Americans has an opinion on this hypothetical. Or has your brain turned into a wet steel noodle?
'dumb, uneducated' Americans Nothing to be alarmed over. Destro is merely trying to rationalize how to best obfuscate the destruction of the towers as an inside job. I'll bet he would like to know if I am living in a trailer in the woods out here. :p
Nothing to be alarmed over. Destro is merely trying to rationalize how to best obfuscate the destruction of the towers as an inside job. No, it was Saturday and I was out. Get a life guys. You can use force to restrain. If the bugger who broke into your domicile while you try and restrain him dies then 12 peers can set you free if the prosecutor goes down that road.
You are talking about domicile, I am speaking of someone outside on your land posing no eminent danger to you moving to leave. You cannot kill someone you suspect of a minor crime like fence cutting if they are leaving, you don't need to become a cop, judge, jury and executioner.
Your Honor the fence cutter came at me with the fence cutting tool and I defended myself. I doubt you would get a trial much less a conviction of such a thing in cattle country. Case dismissed.
There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMonday afternoon, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that reclassifies unlawful animal-rights tactics as terrorism under certain conditions, even if they are non-violent.
#5. To: IndieTX (#1)
#8. To: Ferret Mike, IndieTX (#5)
Got wire cutters? cut fence around any cattle ranch.
#9. To: Destro (#8)
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
You think a fence is worth more then a human life?
#17. To: Destro (#14)
"Damn right I do."
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
that if they do non-violent dissent
#22. To: Destro (#19)
#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
A well known non-violent protester takes up residence in one of them protecting it, you actually think you can just shoot someone for protesting?
#27. To: Destro (#25)
(Edited)
"If I saw him sneaking on my property I would call the police and go out with a shot gun to make a citizen's arrest."
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#27)
A hypothetical for you; you are in the World Trade Center before 9-11, you see someone installing wire with markings you know from experience denotes fuse or det cord.
#29. To: BTP Holdings, Destro (#28)
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
Destro's silence worries me.
#31. To: BTP Holdings, Ferret Mike (#30)
(Edited)
Destro's silence worries me.
#37. To: Destro (#31)
"You can use force to restrain. If the bugger who broke into your domicile while you try and restrain him dies then 12 peers can set you free if the prosecutor goes down that road."
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#37)
You are talking about domicile, I am speaking of someone outside on your land posing no eminent danger to you moving to leave.
Replies to Comment # 40.