cultureofresistance:

You’d be hard pressed, it seems, to find anyone who would publicly associate MLK with “terrorism.” But under a new law passed by Congress called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, King’s actions, and the tactics he advocated, are exactly that.

The law is ostensibly meant to go after underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front who commit sabotage in the name of animal rights. Calling people “terrorists” for doing things like releasing animals from fur farms is quite a stretch. But the law doesn’t stop there. It is so broad, so vague, that it also risks wrapping up mainstream, above-ground, non-violent activists as “terrorists.” Early drafts of the bill went so far as to specifically list non-violent civil disobedience as terrorism. For instance, when I testified before the House Judiciary Committee I noted that the offense section of the bill spells out prison sentences “for an offense involving exclusively a non-violent physical obstruction.” Later versions eliminated that controversial clause, but this “terrorism” law can still be used to go after the non-violent tactics of MLK and Gandhi.

Think that’s far-fetched?

Well, on the floor of the House on the day AETA passed, Representative Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia and champion of the bill, acknowledged that this “terrorism” law could still target non-violent civil disobedience. (Quotes are from the Congressional record)

“… there are some who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest the operation of animal enterprises to the extent of engaging in civil disobedience,” he said. “If a group’s intention were to stage a sit-in or liedown or to block traffic to a targeted facility, they certainly run the risk of arrest for whatever traffic, trespass or other laws they may be breaking…

“To violate the provision of the bill, one must travel or otherwise engage in interstate activity with the intent to cause damage or loss to an animal enterprise. While the losses of profits, lab experiments or other intangible losses are included, it must be proved that such losses were specifically intended for the law to be applied.”

In other words, those “who conscientiously believe that it is their duty to peacefully protest” through civil disobedience could be labeled terrorists. But only if they intended to make a difference.