Under AETA it is no longer just the radical underground activists that are targeted for harming the corporate agenda, but also the law—abiding, above—ground activists. AETA is so broad and vague that ordinary citizens may not know that they are acting outside the vast boundaries of this new law. Under AETA, it doesn’t take much to be labeled an “animal enterprise terrorist. ” Techniques that have been used for years in various social movements are now acts of terrorism if they cause profit loss, including increased security costs, to an animal exploitation business. Those who peacefully protest or engage in undercover investigations can be deemed a terrorist precisely because these actions are purposefully enacted to cause economic loss to a business so that it can no longer engage in the exploitation of animals.

The FBI claims that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are the number one domestic terrorism threat, stating that “from January 1990 to June 2004, animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents, resulting in millions of dollars in damage and monetary loss.”The government cites no human loss or injury because there has never been any. In fact, the ALF credo states that “it is a nonviolent campaign” in which activists take “all precautions not to harm any animal (human or otherwise).” Conversely, FBI statistics also show that there were more than 7,400 hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation in 2003 alone and 450 environmental crimes by industries violating clean air and water laws and inappropriate transportation and disposing of hazardous waste. Since 1977, there have been 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors, including 7 murders. Between 1991 and 2001 there were 2,100 acts of violence against unions including bombings, shootings, and near fatal injuries. So why, then, is it the animal rights activists who are the number one domestic terrorist threat? Why hasn’t the FBI focused their attention on other groups such as white supremacists or anti—abortionists who have and will continue to take human lives and pose an actual threat to the American public?

AETA is a redundant and unnecessary law. For one, there are already many federal and state laws that cover the Animal Liberation Front’s tactics. Trespassing, vandalism, burglary, menacing, harassment, graffiti, disorderly conduct, and arson are all crimes. The ALF knows that their actions are illegal, but they are willing to put their freedom at risk in order to “save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse” in the short-term and “to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business” in the long term. Existing laws that apply to all citizens are sufficient to penalize their actions. There is no need for an additional law that applies only to those acting in the name of animal rights.

En 1970, el Congreso promulgó la Ley de Organizaciones Corruptas e Influenciadas por Delincuentes (RICO, por sus siglas en inglés), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, ostensiblemente para reprimir las actividades delictivas de la mafia. En los cuarenta años transcurridos desde la promulgación de la RICO, la aplicación de la ley se ha extendido mucho más allá de las actividades de los prestamistas usureros y el “Don”, y ha llegado a actividades protegidas por la Constitución como la protesta. Con el tiempo, los tribunales federales han ido haciendo cada vez menos significativa la intención original de la RICO —es decir, detener las actividades delictivas de la mafia—. En cambio, los tribunales han emitido interpretaciones de la RICO que ignoran consistentemente esta intención y permiten que la ley se utilice como una forma de silenciar a los defensores del cambio social. Organizaciones de bienestar animal como People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), la American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), la Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), así como muchas otras, han sido víctimas de enjuiciamientos bajo la RICO.

MITO: Los senadores Feinstein e Inhofe afirman en su sitio web que “AETA brinda a las fuerzas del orden las herramientas que necesitan para combatir adecuadamente a los extremistas radicales de derechos de los animales que cometen actos violentos contra personas inocentes porque trabajan con animales. Esto es terrorismo y no puede ser tolerado”.

En 1964, en el caso New York Times v. Sullivan, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos dictaminó que la Primera Enmienda protege a las personas que hacen declaraciones difamatorias relacionadas con asuntos de interés público, siempre que dichas declaraciones no se hagan con malicia real o con una negligencia temeraria respecto a la verdad. La Corte llegó a esta decisión “en el contexto de un profundo compromiso nacional con el principio de que el debate sobre temas públicos debe ser desinhibido, robusto y abierto. (1) Su decisión sentó el precedente para una carga probatoria más alta en casos de difamación que involucran asuntos de interés público. (2)