Thursday, March 02, 2006

Attack of the Terrorist Fax: SHAC Activists Convicted

By Pattrice Jones

Read full article...

Posted 03/02 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Knowing very little about the case, I wonder if animal rights activists were in fact the first target because of how they are isolated from other relevant groups.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/15  at  08:02 PM

  2. “The FBI says eco-terrorism—acts of violence in protest of harm to animals or to the environment—is the United States’ No. 1 terrorism threat from inside its own borders.” [See link to full story from today’s news.] This, despite the fact that both the ALF and the ELF utlize only non-violent tactics and have have never resulted in injury to a person. I’m inclined to believe that the high ranking is due to the fact that these movements really do pose the most fundamental challenge to the status quo, in that they argue for reforms that would undermine the very basis of private property. And, of course, the animal and environmental movements do use direct action more often and effectively than other movements right now. But, Micah raises an excellent point. The FBI can get away with this outrageous classification and with arresting activists for entirely legal activities precisely because it can count on the left to leave these activists hanging in the wind.

    Posted by pattrice jones from USA  on  06/16  at  12:45 PM

  3. It is understandable that the FBI would be more worried about eco-terrorists than say militia members who of course wouldn’t have killed anybody in 1995 if they hadn’t been put up to it by al Qaeda, Saddam and probably China. And over a decade after “Cop Killer” and “#### the Police,” what’s a plot to kill police officers? (http://www.cadillacnews.com/articles/2004/06/16/news/news02.txt)Beyond that bout of sarcasm, reading http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm, I love the distinction between “domestic” and “international,” which is one more way of implicitly stating that the U.S. did nothing to create the conditions that have lead to widespread antagonism to the U.S. and groups like al Qaeda. And what happens if some Canadians get involved? (Actually I assume they probably already are but I could be wrong.) Does that make it “international”?I guess this is one more bit of evidence that “terror,” “terrorism” and “terrorist” aren’t terms that have fixed meanings within the context of the “war on terror,” but rather are whatever at the moment serves the interests of those running the show.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  06/16  at  02:16 PM

  4. Wonderful article Patrice.  Warm, humane, thoughtful, empathetic.  If Americans could only be persuaded to abandon their TVs and read this like.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  06/17  at  08:37 PM

  5. Yes, lets all defend the furry animals against vivisection, thats great. Meanwhile 400,000 human animals (speciae homo-sapiens) are killed for other human’s convenience and to escape social taboos. Yes, I’m speaking of abortion.

    You’re problem is that you value a non-sentient being over your human brothers. Get a grip on that first and then you can go after the animal torture outfits.

    The point is that we shouldn’t sacrifice any of these for our human convenience. Including little bunny rabbits and human “fetuses”.

    Posted by Steve B. from Kansas City  on  06/18  at  05:59 PM

  6. Excellent article, but obviously not everybody gets it.

    Posted by Christine Baker from The high desert  on  06/20  at  05:26 AM

  7. Wow. Great article. Keep up the great work.

    Posted by Jeremy Beckham from Salt Lake City, UT  on  07/14  at  10:54 AM

  8. Jeremy-- I’m sure Press Action readers would be interested in your activities surrounding experiments on primates. Feel free to submit any news about your efforts for publication here. Thanks.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  07/14  at  11:10 AM

  9. I’m planning to submit an article to Press Action and elsewhere within a few days...titled PILGER’S PREFERENCES AND A ZINN ZINGER...which will address some of the main concerns touched upon by Pattrice here.  On target, P....  Best, R

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  07/17  at  08:38 PM

  10. An alternate to Top five things you can do to support the SHAC 7:

    1. Eat out of Dumpsters.  While most activism is speculative in nature, there is one thing you can do that will, without doubt, reduce the amount of wasted food for which you as a subhuman vermin are personally responsible, reduce the amount of ludicrously left-wing pap for which you are personally responsible, decrease your consumption of oxygen, and save the your hyperventilating for the therapy group. Going bloody left-wing whacko (BLW) allows you to do all of those things without in any way diminishing the absolute futility of your twisted little life. In fact, going BLW will probably give you more energy and more productive years in which to continue to be a net drain on the hardwaorkers in our society who support the second rate community colleges that you so clearly haunt. Visit http://www.BLWoutreach.org or givememoregovmoney.com for a free information to help you make the transition to SSI/SSP wisely and easily.
    2. Learn about The Left. Start by realizing that, like biotechnology, The Left is one of those groups that scientists associated with industry and for-profit health care have demonstrated to be a pernicious parasite on the American body politic. Then get the facts about The Left. You’ll learn that most Leftist lying vivisection is done to maximize the intrusive power of governemt to take from the productive and give to superannuated, ponytail wearing burnouts from the sixties still looking for one more hit on the bong on rabble rousing excitment they just can’t give up. You’ll have a better understanding of why many people believe that The Left would be unethical even if it weren’t so laughable unlike rats and rabbits (like dolphins and bald eagles) that have their own purposes. You’ll learn that it’s easy to morally posture while still sucking the teat of big government. Visit http://www.rushlimbaugh.com for information about The Left or http://www.nevershavelegs.org and click on “posturing guide” to access a free online or printed guide to government programs and benefits you can abuse.

    3. Stand up against police repression, slap a cop today!. Don’t let the SHAC 7 or other animal activists be tried and sentenced in silence. No, raise a chorus of huzzahs and cheers that this ragtag bunch is getting a chance to meet Bubba as a cellmate. Accord them the same respect and attention you would to a convicted multiple child molester. If they are convicted, show them the same solidarity you show to other political prisoners like O.J. Simpson. Some organizations already do this, encouraging people to support the scum that we naturally gravitate to; visit http://www.nambla.org for an example of such solidarity.

    4. Question assumptions. We’ve all been socialized to think certain things about each other and the world around us. In becoming pitifully laughable hairy-legged, man hating feminist, or limp-writed peace activist, or poor affirmative action race baiting agitator, you probably had to unlearn some of the things you had been taught about other…

    Posted by Zenobia Luther-Sims from Working to Support Your Public Benefits  on  08/02  at  12:59 PM

  11. What a load of crap.
    Of course all might feel differently if it was them and their families being harassed.
    I’m glad to see these people brought to justice and hope that laws will only become stronger.
    These so called activists...cough cough..are no less than terrorists, interferring with LEGAL businesses.
    You don’t like the LAWS, CHANGE THEM.
    Quit your incessant whining and hiding behind *freedom fighter*
    What a joke.

    Posted by SUQSTOBESHAC from  on  08/03  at  10:14 AM

  12. Reform is obviously not possible...within the electoral mode...respecting the dairy industry, etc.  Ditto with regard to experimentation conducted on animals.  We will come up with somewhat more clever tactics outside of the electoral arena to address “the wrongs” or things will get much more bloody, I’m afraid. When people say that The System treats prisoners like animals...they’re saying a lot that we should pay attention to; our history of torturing animals is one example of setting the stage for the callous way we treat human beings...today.  Best, Richard

    Posted by Ox from  on  08/04  at  10:45 PM

  13. *OUR* toruring?
    Speak for yourself.
    Now that the FBI is involved and people are becoming more savvy, I suspect more of these criminals will be caught and prosecuted.
    Besides it’s not really about the animals…
    I dare someone to show me anyone of these morons who refuse medicines and life saving techniques that have and/or use animal products..IOW...ALL of them.
    Hypocrites....indeed.

    Posted by SUQSTOBESHAC from  on  08/05  at  12:51 PM

  14. Personally, I would have no problem w relying on “life-saving techniques” applied by indigenous people...long before the advent of what you lionize...from the pharmaceutical industry.  Besides, even if a given ALF person might opt to embrace a given “tainted” drug...under dire circumstances...might be tempted to use something not pure...under pressure...that fact says zero about the issue of torture and death as it applies to our meat and dairy and cosmetic industries.  It’s NOT --in an immediate sense-- an either/or issue.  It’s...first...a matter of acknowledging that --with or without “terrorism” in the name of animals-- that horrid acts are being committed.  Acts which are not only unnecessary, but act which are damaging our environment irreparably...even if one cannot FEEL for the animals on the first level.  Loving regards, Richard

    Posted by Ox from  on  08/05  at  01:01 PM

  15. Of course you wouldn’t...not now or ever…
    nor would any of them.
    But that just proves my point about the hypocrisy involved within the movement.
    Yet the ALF would disallow those SAME meds/techniques for OTHERS!
    Cowards!
    Are you gettin my drift here yet?
    Think about the torture and death for all those FIELD ANIMALS WHO ARE SHREDDED IN VEGGIE PRODUCTION..WHY AREN’T YOU SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF?
    When ya gonna have a campaign *WHEAT IS MURDER*
    Yeah, that’s what I thought...hypocrites I tell ya.
    Plain and simple…

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/05  at  01:34 PM

  16. If by “hypocricy” you mean inconsistency respecting positions on issues, etc., fine and dandy.  However, ALF --any resistance group-- should not be held back from doing important work in the name of the (misguided sense of a)need for “no contradictions.” Any information you want to share about field animals or others that’s relevant SHOULD be put on the table for discussion.  And you should not be deterred by what may very well be extremist actions that are, by your standards, “too extreme.” There is much intelligent, necessary discussion on this topic to be found in the book above (FREEDOM FIGHTERS OR...?). Some of the writing...there’s plenty to complain about or question, but, I can tell you that there is NOT a single stance represented regarding tactics (and more) with regard to the concerns you bring up.  Respectfully, Ricardo

    Posted by Ricardo from  on  08/05  at  06:54 PM

  17. NO, I mean that if you expect OTHERS to adhere to a position that YOU yourself, do not follow, it’s blatantly hypocrisy. There IS no way to justify it...only rationalize it, as you have attempted to do. Again, it’s typical of the entire movement to do just that.
    Have you ever seen a field of veggies being harvested?
    Are you aware of the millions of animals who make their homes in these fields?
    Does the farmer avoid them with his machinery?
    Of course not…
    It really IS common knowledge.
    IN the past, people who have changed the world, who were true passive resistors, such as MLK, worked within the law to change things.
    But the ALF/ELF/SHAC hold themselves above the law.
    I say, if you can’t change the law within the law, and must instead, break the law, you deserve whatever punishment is prescribed by law.
    If everyone broke the law because they were unhappy with it, there would be total chaos.

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/06  at  09:16 AM

  18. I recommend --in the spirit of my previous comments here-- that you take your arguments to those in ALF/ELF/SHAC...and encourage members of those organizations/operations to satisfy what seem to you to be rational complaints. It will help to facilitate some back and forth if you watch your tone a bit, and be prepared for others to not be quite a civil...in the name of getting somewhere on these issues intellectually for starters.  Regarding your comments about MLK and others, you will note that once certain protesters pushed the envelope too much...they were eliminated...and not legally. As the late P. Berrigan --who was certainly willing to pay the price of prison-- said dissent without resistance is consent.  One has to break the law...as per John Brown --who also willingly submitted to his “legal” fate-- but the question today is whether or not activists should so easily put their heads on the chopping block.  In solidarity, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  08/06  at  10:41 AM

  19. I think the point you are missing, is that people like MLK fought for other HUMANS.  As did all the historical freedom fighters.
    And BTW, perhaps when you attempt to quote others, you might want to attribute the quote, correctly.
    IT was NOT P Berrigan who said, that. HE was quoting
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/
    is_2_67/ai_97910060
    THOREAU.
    Again, I must point out that P Berrigan’s method was NON-violent.
    The same, which cannot be said for ALF/ELF/SHAC

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/06  at  11:10 AM

  20. That IS a paraphrase of something Brother Berrigan said; neither he nor Thoreau “own” those words, BTW. His nonviolent approach is NOT necessarily the only efficacious approach to change, BTW.  And if increasing numbers of freedom fighters are only now waking up to the fact that there is a correlation between the treatment of humans and the treatment of animals...that doesn’t take away from the need for citizens to move on behalf of nonhuman life. It seems to be a huge mistake to lump ALL those taking part in the ALF/ELF movement together. It would help dialogue, help to get somewhere if you could delineate what aspects of their concerns you agree with...and what you recommend as far as going about achieving those particular changes desired.  Best, Ox

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  08/06  at  12:00 PM

  21. Any reference I can find, attributes that quote to Thoreau.  If you disagree, then point me to something to support your claim.
    Your statement was this:"As the late P. Berrigan --who was certainly willing to pay the price of prison-- said dissent without resistance is consent. “
    Which implies that P. Berrigan SAID those words.
    How could it be construed otherwise?
    While I am in support of Animal Welfare, animal rights are not only a false choice, but cannot be ethically supported, nor practically enforced.
    Please explain the correlation that you see between human and animal treatment.

    The changes that ALF/ELF/SHAC espouse are NONE that I would agree with.
    And the tactics employed (as clearly stated on their web-sites) advocate violence toward humans.

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/06  at  12:34 PM

  22. Berrigan not only said those words in print...posted just before his death in The Progressive, he essentially said those words in my presence at a rally.  I don’t know why you SEEM to be so anal retentive about the attribution.  As far as the correlation between human and animal suffering goes, the obvious line to draw is found in the fact that anyone who can mistreat animals is more likely to mistreat humans; it is much the same argument vis-a-vis the death penalty domestically and bombing people abroad. But the MANY points to be made can be found in the Best and Nocella work cited above...in the visual attached to the article...that is the point of departure for all this talk.  I come from three decades in academia...and I can tell you that there’s a plethora of documentation easily found --if you’re truly interested-- to support my contention above.  Children who are not brought up with animals are much more likely to be able to torture animals.  Children who are encouraged to torture animals are more likely to be “cold” about inflicting pain on humans.  Children who are shielded from the humanity of prisoners are more likely to condone the slaughter of innocents abroad.  And so on.  Respectfully, Rich

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  08/06  at  01:35 PM

  23. Perhaps you could explain why you are being so anal about 1) implying someone owned a quote, when in fact they didn’t 2) denying the real author, when it was pointed out to you.
    Is that what 3 decades of academia produces?
    I am questioning your integrity and ability to admit a mistake and telling an untruth about the real author of the quote.
    BTW, maybe you are familiar with the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy?
    I am aware of those studies that you vaguely refer to.
    However many if not all, ignore other equally and important socio-econimic factors.
    Are you aware of the studies that have been conducted that have examined THOSE CHILDREN OR ADULTS, who may have wronged animals or treated them cruelly who DID NOT GO ON TO CRIMES or END UP IN PRISON?
    Now perhaps if you compare the two percentages it may give an entirely different perspective.

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/06  at  02:03 PM

  24. SUQS,

    Might a suggest that you visit Carnevegan, where your annoying vitrol may be found to be more amusing…

    -lucy sunshine

    Posted by Lucy Sunshine from Fluffy Bunny Planet  on  08/06  at  02:27 PM

  25. If you find me annoying then I suggest you simply not read what I write.
    I know that I am stating the obvious, but obviously, the obvious has somehow escaped you.

    I suggest you take your suggestion elsewhere.

    Posted by SUQS2BESHAC from  on  08/06  at  02:37 PM

  26. The talk about “annoying” is not constructive. I recommend that the disgruntled contributor tune into the fact that field animals --that he/she professes to be concerned about-- are indeed a concern of many animal rights activists.  That a distinction should be made --at the very least-- between animals used for the cosmetic industry and others...in order to address the utilitarian aspect which he/she deems so instructive.  Finally, to quote Krishnamurti --certainly a nonviolent soul-- “...if you have no relationship with the living things on this earth, you may lose whatever relationship you have with humanity.” Best, Richard PS Your anger and refusal to take part in constructive dialogue is an obstacle.

    Posted by O'Xman from  on  08/06  at  03:21 PM

  27. Actions speak louder than words. If the field animals were a concern, as you claim, then how do you explain that nothing is being done?
    Why isn’t Peta protesting farmers and the machinery used in harvesting?
    Why aren’t they protesting the manufacturers of poisons that poison rodents around grain storage silos?
    I have a relationship with living things and I am completely aware of where my food comes from.
    I am no different from nature in that other animals will die for food.
    I am no different from the lion who kills the gazelle.
    I, like veg*ns, commission others to do the killing for me. Everyone has blood on their hands.
    Ethics are a feather in the wind when it come to the point of obstructing ones own personal convenience.

    Posted by suqs2beshac from  on  08/12  at  10:18 AM

  28. If you believe nothing is being done, why not consider contacting PETA to address these concerns?  As I remember, at the very least, some of what you’re concerned about IS addressed in the TERRORISTS book cited.  And surely...there is a difference between killing a gazelle --as a lion-- for survival...in a natural setting...and torturing animals in an unnatural setting for the purpose of dining on very unhealthy elements injected into beasts. Then...there’s also the matter of reverence for what one is eating, yes?  If one is going to eat the flesh of other animals...what about going about the whole business with some respect for the creatures involved?  The relationship between indigenous people and their sources of survival comes to mind.  OX

    Posted by Ox from  on  08/12  at  10:46 AM

  29. It’s not just a belief, but an obvious fact. I have contacted Peta about various inconsistencies and always, they fail to respond. I have seen no proof that a diet that includes meats is unhealthy. In particular there is no vegan substitute for B12 which is necessary to remain healthy. And I fail to see that torture is included when slaughtering animals for food.
    Why would you assume that I disrespect the animals that die for my food?
    Do veg*ns respect the animals that die for their diet?
    You see, I don’t have a problem with where my food comes from.
    I only have a problem with those who claim that their diet is somehow more ethical than mine.
    clearly, it isn’t.
    I only have a problem with those who would attempt to dictate to me what my diet should be.
    Those who have a problem with where their diet comes from should grow their own food, but they don’t.
    The only rule that veg*ns have is:
    Don’t put meat in my mouth.
    Those that don’t typically end up on our plates can be ignored with impunity.

    Posted by suqs2beshac from  on  08/12  at  11:22 AM

  30. I think the definitive cure for what ails you is for you to consult the Mickey Z articles on the subjects touched upon here...so that you can become updated, more informed respecting what you speak about...too cavalierly...too arrogantly at times...too presumptuously...with unnecessary anger.  Once you do that...I’m fairly certain that Mickey would be open to addressing most of your concerns...that might remain.  If you direct inquiries to one PETA office...tactfully...and they don’t respond, I suggest that you try another one or two...chalking up the lack of response to an individual’s idiosycracies and/or your own tone. Regarding your attitude toward animals who die for your food, I think the most fundamental point to note is that you take the stance that animals are NOT tortured before they end up on your plate.  Perhaps I’m missing something here.  OX p.s. MICKEY’S ARTICLES CAN BE FOUND ON THIS SITE

    Posted by Richard from  on  08/12  at  11:48 AM

  31. Yeah Mickey’s article was here on February 14th or 15th at this site - and too powerful to desribe.  It convinced me to go vegan for health and ethical reasons.  Moreover, I found I enjoyed food more.  Because of surgery I am again eating meat but I am soon to wean myself off it I’m sure, and the easier for having adopted veganism for several months.  It is ridiculous to say that farming vegetables is harmful to animals in the way that factory farming animals is.  An animal is more that a commodity, and PETA is adept at showing pictures of and witnessing to the cruelty to animals on these farms.  I can’t imagine what animal it was that dies by farming unless it be the stray rabbit.  Anyway it is the mere dusky-hued Mexicans that harvest most of our produce, and indeed, foreign peasants who serve on export farms.  Fearing to resort to authority, it was no less than Einstein that said the single most effective thing humans could do to make for a better world would be to switch to a plant- rather than a meat-based diet.  I checked your Web page cite alleging to claim the Thoreau quote rather than what Richard referred to as being one of Berrigan’s.  Nothing there; nor do I ever remember Thoreau saying that.  Not that, as Richard pointed out, that was significant. 

    Richard, I thought you wrote much more clearly and lucidly here than in your two recent columns at Press Action.  Although that admits neither do your comments here elucidate the urgency and ecocide our planet faces that those articles did, nor the equation of US capital imperialism as being akin and worse than Nazism - two very salient things activists and others should be aware of.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  08/12  at  09:51 PM

  32. It’s worth repeating --once people can get off the understandable arguments about this and that-- that the whole Vegan status can be elevated to its rightful place by virtue of our use of ENERGY alone...the way things are. Simply put, we would not need a domestic nuclear industry if Veganism ruled; most of our water use (80%?) goes toward propping up the animal and dairy industries.  Once one starts marching out the personal health benefits/needs as per our admittedly obese citizenry...it’s a done deal. Torture of animals?  We don’t even have to go there.  Heartfelt, Ox

    Posted by L'Ox from  on  08/13  at  01:51 AM

  33. Yeah, well let’s just dismiss that random rabbit and consider ALL the field animals that are either killled by production of veggies or intentionlly poisoned.  Have you ever looked into what rodent posioning involves?
    Indeed, a captive bolt to the head of a pig or a cow is far MORE humane than a slow and cruel death from poisoning.
    Let’s include all the insects, too, displaced by cultivation.
    You’re a fool and a liar if you can so easily dismiss the deaths of ALL the animals that don’t typically end up on your plate.
    Do you grow your own food and live in a cave?
    Even computers that you use to post with, have all kinds of animal parts, as well as the electricity that you use.The car that you drive has animal products.
    Hypocrites, all of you.

    Shame on you, for expecting others to adhere to an agenda, that YOU, yourselves DON’T adhere to.

    Posted by suqs2beshac from  on  08/14  at  05:43 PM

  34. Dear Suqs:  Dont’ know what “random rabbit” you wish to dismiss, but if it’s what I brought up in #32, it can’t be dismissed on the basis you provide.  Furthermore, attempting to discount the work that animal activists support...by painting all of life as too involved in death-making to consider making distinctions of any kind...is too reductionist a stance for any activist quarter.  If you would take one point at a time, it might help for discussion purposes.  To wit, who advocates the poisoning of vegetables?  Not Rounding Up, Ox

    Posted by St. Ox from  on  08/14  at  06:58 PM

  35. And further, which field animals are you talking about that die due to cultivation of vegetables?  Raising of beef, chickens, pigs, and other meat products is a lot more involved than just a benign capitalist jolt in the head at slaughter.  I don’t guess you’ve seen pictures of these factory farms in which for example thousands of pigs might be penned together in an area which doesn’t allow the animal hardly enough area to turn around.  Or chickens stacked on top of one another in cages as big as they are, dripping their feces on the chicken below.  Or veal cages where a calf is held in a cage, its head stuck through bars, and can’t even lay down.  And then drawing the analogy between vegetable farming destroying rodents or insects, while ignoring the suffering of factory-farmed beef, chicken, and pigs is disingenuous at best.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  08/14  at  09:43 PM

  36. And then bemoaning the stray animal product in computers (find that a little hard to believe) and cars...as if the change is supposed to happen all at once and no process is necessary.  Tell you what, starting tomorrow if it has any animal product in it at all - and I’ll consider every possibility - I’ll shrink from it like the grinch from Christmas.

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  08/14  at  09:46 PM

  37. Good blog

    Posted by Pesho from Germany  on  09/01  at  09:48 AM
    38. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Bashing of Bennish

    Previous entry: Think Global, Act Local: Rinse, Repeat, Die

    [ads]

    Support Press Action