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.

In 1970 nam het Congres de Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) aan, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, zogenaamd om de criminele activiteiten van de maffia in te perken. In de veertig jaar sinds de invoering van RICO heeft de toepassing van de wet zich ver buiten de activiteiten van woekeraars en de “Don” uitgebreid, en is deze gericht op constitutioneel beschermde protestactiviteiten. Na verloop van tijd hebben de federale rechtbanken de oorspronkelijke bedoeling van RICO – namelijk het stoppen van de criminele activiteiten van de maffia – steeds minder belangrijk gemaakt. In plaats daarvan hebben de rechtbanken interpretaties van RICO gegeven die deze intentie consequent negeren en toestaan dat de wet wordt gebruikt om voorstanders van sociale verandering het zwijgen op te leggen. Dierenwelzijnsorganisaties zoals People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), de American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), de Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), en vele andere zijn slachtoffers geworden van RICO-vervolgingen.

MYTHE: Senatoren Feinstein en Inhofe beweren op hun website dat “AETA wetshandhavers de middelen geeft die ze nodig hebben om radicale dierenrechtenextremisten die gewelddadige daden plegen tegen onschuldige mensen omdat ze met dieren werken, adequaat te bestrijden. Dit is terrorisme en kan niet worden getolereerd.".

In 1964 oordeelde het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof in de zaak *New York Times v. Sullivan* dat het Eerste Amendement individuen beschermt die smaadschriften uiten met betrekking tot publieke aangelegenheden, zolang deze uitingen niet met feitelijke kwaadwilligheid of roekeloze minachting voor de waarheid zijn gedaan. Het Hof nam deze beslissing “tegen de achtergrond van een diepgaande nationale toewijding aan het beginsel dat debat over publieke kwesties ongeremd, robuust en wijd open moet zijn.” (1) Hun beslissing zette de precedent voor een verhoogde bewijslast in smaadzaken die publieke aangelegenheden betreffen. (2)