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, le Congrès a adopté le Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, ostensiblement pour enrayer les activités criminelles de la mafia. Au cours des quarante années qui ont suivi l'adoption du RICO, l'application de la loi s'est étendue bien au-delà des activités d'usuriers et du “ Don ”, et dans les activités de protestation protégées par la Constitution. Au fil du temps, les tribunaux fédéraux ont progressivement rendu l'intention originale du RICO – c'est-à-dire l'arrêt des activités criminelles de la mafia – de moins en moins significative. Au lieu de cela, les tribunaux ont rendu des interprétations du RICO qui ignorent systématiquement cette intention et permettent que la loi soit utilisée comme un moyen de faire taire les militants pour le changement social. Des organisations de protection des animaux telles que People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), l'American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), la Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), ainsi que de nombreuses autres ont été victimes de poursuites en vertu du RICO.

MYTH: Senators Feinstein and Inhofe claim on their website that “AETA gives law enforcement the tools they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals. This is terrorism and cannot be tolerated.

En 1964, dans l'affaire New York Times c. Sullivan, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a statué que le Premier Amendement protège les individus qui font des déclarations diffamatoires relatives à des questions d'intérêt public, tant que ces déclarations ne sont pas faites avec une malveillance réelle ou une négligence téméraire quant à la vérité. La Cour est parvenue à cette décision “ dans le contexte d'un profond engagement national envers le principe que le débat sur les questions publiques doit être libre, énergique et ouvert à tous ” (1). Leur décision a établi un précédent pour une charge de la preuve accrue dans les affaires de diffamation impliquant des questions d'intérêt public (2).