Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
AETA4 face higher sentence than racist cross burners
Article from Will Potter of Green is the New Red, focusing on the AETA4 cases, the government's misuse of funds and bastardization of the word "terrorist." The actual article provides links with more information on the asterisked cases.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aeta-4-protesters-higher-sentences-than-cross-burners/2240/
Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners
Sep 30th, 2009 by Will Potter
Four animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.
The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to 30 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.
Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:
* Burning at a cross at the home of an African-American man, close to his home, while his family is inside: 3.5 years.
* Threatening president-elect Obama with statements including, “I’m going to assassinate the new president of the United States of America. PS you have 48 hours to stop it from happening”: four years probation.
* Setting fire to a hotel with people inside: 1 year.
* Police officer rapes a girl in juvenile custody: 8 months.
* Assaulting black men on election night because Obama was elected president: about 5 years.
* Enron exec guilty of $7 million in wire fraud and securities fraud: 16 months.
* Possessing child pornography: 4 years.
* Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party: six months.
* Mailing anthrax threats to the IRS: one year.
* “Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
* Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth kills a construction worker while driving drunk: 30 days.
* Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year.
* Drunken man drives over his brother during an argument: 1.5 years.
* Scheming to defraud an insurance company through arson: 2 years.
* Mailing anthrax threats to an assistant U.S. attorney: up to 5 years.
* Manufacturing and selling home-made explosive devices: 5 years probation
* Sending 65 anthrax hoax letters: four years.
* Dumping nearly 13 million gallons of untreated liquid waste: 15 months.
* Threatening to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building: up to 5 years.
* Setting a dog on fire and burning 50 percent of his body: 45 days
According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.
What kind of message do you think this sends?
Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support [at] aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.
Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners
Sep 30th, 2009 by Will Potter
Four animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.
The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to 30 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.
Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:
* Burning at a cross at the home of an African-American man, close to his home, while his family is inside: 3.5 years.
* Threatening president-elect Obama with statements including, “I’m going to assassinate the new president of the United States of America. PS you have 48 hours to stop it from happening”: four years probation.
* Setting fire to a hotel with people inside: 1 year.
* Police officer rapes a girl in juvenile custody: 8 months.
* Assaulting black men on election night because Obama was elected president: about 5 years.
* Enron exec guilty of $7 million in wire fraud and securities fraud: 16 months.
* Possessing child pornography: 4 years.
* Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party: six months.
* Mailing anthrax threats to the IRS: one year.
* “Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
* Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth kills a construction worker while driving drunk: 30 days.
* Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year.
* Drunken man drives over his brother during an argument: 1.5 years.
* Scheming to defraud an insurance company through arson: 2 years.
* Mailing anthrax threats to an assistant U.S. attorney: up to 5 years.
* Manufacturing and selling home-made explosive devices: 5 years probation
* Sending 65 anthrax hoax letters: four years.
* Dumping nearly 13 million gallons of untreated liquid waste: 15 months.
* Threatening to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building: up to 5 years.
* Setting a dog on fire and burning 50 percent of his body: 45 days
According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.
What kind of message do you think this sends?
Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support [at] aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.
For more information:
http://www.aeta4.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Eco- and animal- "terrorists" (people who have damaged only property) in the recent past have been sentenced to inordinate terms in jail. Look no further than Jeff Free Luers -- he was originally sentenced to like 20 years for torching 3 SUVs on a dealers lot. While that's probably the worst case, you don't have to look far to find plenty of people getting 5-10 years for similar or lesser political-based offenses. Meanwhile the sentences listed in this post are not surprising in the least as non-political rapists, arsonists that maim and kill, and so forth often get under 5 years if even.
That non-violent (to people) political and anti-capitalist "crimes" are hit with sentences more severe and totally disproportionate to how our current injustice system works in other cases involving actual violence is no joke.
That non-violent (to people) political and anti-capitalist "crimes" are hit with sentences more severe and totally disproportionate to how our current injustice system works in other cases involving actual violence is no joke.
Mr. Potter is whitewashing the charges when he only mentions "chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk.".
They are also charged with physical assault for hitting the resident of the house. They are charged with printing and distributing flyers that threaten the safety and life of the researchers.
The more I watch the supporters of the AETA 4 try to sanitize this case, and the more I watch them demand removal of any posts that counter their version of what occured....the less I respect them or think they are innocent. Classic disinformation campaign; akin to the governments efforts when they want to bury the truth. Are you they?
They are also charged with physical assault for hitting the resident of the house. They are charged with printing and distributing flyers that threaten the safety and life of the researchers.
The more I watch the supporters of the AETA 4 try to sanitize this case, and the more I watch them demand removal of any posts that counter their version of what occured....the less I respect them or think they are innocent. Classic disinformation campaign; akin to the governments efforts when they want to bury the truth. Are you they?
I love how keep it real's post is at 9:00AM. It's as if as soon as he arrives to work at the FBI office, the very first thing he does is check Indybay to see if there are any posts he needs to "take care of."
You were quick to try to discredit the messenger, but I notice you avoided the message. Care or dare to reply to those real issues? Specifically:
-Do you deny that the AETA4 is in fact charged with violence and threatening flyers?
-Do you deny that AETA4 supporters regularly post their views, then request that Indybay remove dissenting opinions?
-Do you deny that the AETA4 is in fact charged with violence and threatening flyers?
-Do you deny that AETA4 supporters regularly post their views, then request that Indybay remove dissenting opinions?
"You were quick to try to discredit the messenger, but I notice you avoided the message. Care or dare to reply to those real issues? Specifically:
-Do you deny that the AETA4 is in fact charged with violence and threatening flyers?
Almost of the asterisked cases are "violent," so what's your point? The reality of facing five to ten years for "threatening flyers," as you call it, when burning a dog will get you 45 days and raping a young girl 8 months (as long as you're a cop) is insane.
I'm not Will Potter, so I can't talk about the particulars of the article nor am I an attorney so I don't plan to address the particulars of the allegations. A jury will decide that. And I wasn't trying to discredit anyone, just pointing out the irony of this poster leaving identical comments on all of the articles on Indybay about the AETA4 case. Seems odd and makes me question whether this person is associated with animal experimentation or federal agencies. But maybe he/she does the same for all of the articles on Indybay, I haven't seen anything similar .
-Do you deny that AETA4 supporters regularly post their views, then request that Indybay remove dissenting opinions?
Indybay's editorial policy is pretty clear, and anything abusive or name-calling is removed. I personally have been cursed out for posts, and I thank the Indybay eds for keeping their forum clear of those type of posts.
-Do you deny that the AETA4 is in fact charged with violence and threatening flyers?
Almost of the asterisked cases are "violent," so what's your point? The reality of facing five to ten years for "threatening flyers," as you call it, when burning a dog will get you 45 days and raping a young girl 8 months (as long as you're a cop) is insane.
I'm not Will Potter, so I can't talk about the particulars of the article nor am I an attorney so I don't plan to address the particulars of the allegations. A jury will decide that. And I wasn't trying to discredit anyone, just pointing out the irony of this poster leaving identical comments on all of the articles on Indybay about the AETA4 case. Seems odd and makes me question whether this person is associated with animal experimentation or federal agencies. But maybe he/she does the same for all of the articles on Indybay, I haven't seen anything similar .
-Do you deny that AETA4 supporters regularly post their views, then request that Indybay remove dissenting opinions?
Indybay's editorial policy is pretty clear, and anything abusive or name-calling is removed. I personally have been cursed out for posts, and I thank the Indybay eds for keeping their forum clear of those type of posts.
Posts may be removed by indybay editors for trolling, and this has nothing to do with the AETA4 supporters.
My point is clear, and stated in my original post:
Will Potter is whitewashing the actual crimes these individuals are charged with. Will Potter is incorrect when he claims "Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone.".
My point is they are charged with doing harm. And they are charged with threatening further harm.
And as evidenced by the side posts, my secondary point is also being proven accurate: AETA4's supporters don't want to acknowledge these real facts, and they seek to suppress any posts that dare to voice them.
Will Potter is whitewashing the actual crimes these individuals are charged with. Will Potter is incorrect when he claims "Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone.".
My point is they are charged with doing harm. And they are charged with threatening further harm.
And as evidenced by the side posts, my secondary point is also being proven accurate: AETA4's supporters don't want to acknowledge these real facts, and they seek to suppress any posts that dare to voice them.
Will wrote;
"* Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
* Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year."
These were two examples given as comparisons by Will to show that other unnamed people are getting off easy while his comrades in AETA4 are being excessively punished.
What are the details of each of these examples? Maybe making threats are not deemed by the feds to be as threatening as actual animal rights actions, even when nobody is harmed in these actions. Nor do we know whether the people making the threats were even capable of carrying them out. The ranking for sentences for making terrorist threats is also based upon actual intent and ability to carry the threats out. In neither of these two examples was anyone actually harmed, so one year sounds like enough for only making a threat.
While i agree with Will that the sentences given to eco-activists like Jeff "Free" Luers and AETA4 are overly harsh, that doesn't mean that i think people who make threats over the internet against other targets should spend life in prison!!
Plenty of activists are against the U.S. military and unjust wars, so some individual(s) may decide to threaten an Air Force base without actually ever being capable of carrying the act out. Sometimes threats are just frustrated people blowing off steam, nothing more. We should not ask for harsher sentences to be given to anti-war activists or mentally unstable people who chose the Air Force base as a target instead of an animal research corporation.
Overall these two examples above are creepy and it sounds like Will is trying to say that the threats themselves should warrent longer prison sentences. It turns me off to the entire article, and i would not feel comfortable working with Will based upon these two examples.
As far as the other examples go, from drunk driving manslaughter to cross burning to other randomly selected crimes it is difficult to compare each one to the other without having further details on each case. Guess it depends on the value system of the individual readers as to what they feel would be appropriate punishments for each case. Outside of that, it is a bit disorganized and doesn't really get the message across.
If i were the Grand Poobah of U.S. Judges then all the AETA4 would be released immediately along with Jeff "Free" Luers and many of the other unjustly imprisoned eco-activists. However, all people can do now is continue to expose the FBI for using illegal methods of entrapment to sentence eco-activists.
Another example is cannabis users being given equal time as rapists, showing that our judicial system of law enforcement is clearly imbalanced. Most of the other examples Will listed were good ones, minus the two that i've highlighted above.
"* Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
* Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year."
These were two examples given as comparisons by Will to show that other unnamed people are getting off easy while his comrades in AETA4 are being excessively punished.
What are the details of each of these examples? Maybe making threats are not deemed by the feds to be as threatening as actual animal rights actions, even when nobody is harmed in these actions. Nor do we know whether the people making the threats were even capable of carrying them out. The ranking for sentences for making terrorist threats is also based upon actual intent and ability to carry the threats out. In neither of these two examples was anyone actually harmed, so one year sounds like enough for only making a threat.
While i agree with Will that the sentences given to eco-activists like Jeff "Free" Luers and AETA4 are overly harsh, that doesn't mean that i think people who make threats over the internet against other targets should spend life in prison!!
Plenty of activists are against the U.S. military and unjust wars, so some individual(s) may decide to threaten an Air Force base without actually ever being capable of carrying the act out. Sometimes threats are just frustrated people blowing off steam, nothing more. We should not ask for harsher sentences to be given to anti-war activists or mentally unstable people who chose the Air Force base as a target instead of an animal research corporation.
Overall these two examples above are creepy and it sounds like Will is trying to say that the threats themselves should warrent longer prison sentences. It turns me off to the entire article, and i would not feel comfortable working with Will based upon these two examples.
As far as the other examples go, from drunk driving manslaughter to cross burning to other randomly selected crimes it is difficult to compare each one to the other without having further details on each case. Guess it depends on the value system of the individual readers as to what they feel would be appropriate punishments for each case. Outside of that, it is a bit disorganized and doesn't really get the message across.
If i were the Grand Poobah of U.S. Judges then all the AETA4 would be released immediately along with Jeff "Free" Luers and many of the other unjustly imprisoned eco-activists. However, all people can do now is continue to expose the FBI for using illegal methods of entrapment to sentence eco-activists.
Another example is cannabis users being given equal time as rapists, showing that our judicial system of law enforcement is clearly imbalanced. Most of the other examples Will listed were good ones, minus the two that i've highlighted above.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network