Seized terrorist weapon

Corporations are people, the courts have decided. So apparently investigating (ie, attacking via exposing) a corporation is the same as car bombing, in our new America.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

In a broader sense, soon it will be a terrorist activity to do anything outside the norm since it has a disruptive effect.

  1. Johan says:

    This is just fucking disgusting.

  2. orchidcup says:

    I wish to set the record straight.

    No court anywhere has decided that corporations are people.

    There was a legal precedent that was established in error way back in the 1800’s. The precedent has been embedded in case law ever since.

    The issue of corporate personhood has never been argued before the Supreme Court.

    Our civil liberties were hijacked by collective interests long before we were born.

    A corporation is not a person. I am a person.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Meh… You say you’re a person, but are you really?

      • orchidcup says:

        Personhood is the status of being a person.

        Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty.

        According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate.

        Historically, personhood was questioned during the abolition of slavery, the fight for women’s rights, debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights as well as debates about corporate personhood.

        Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of woman and slaves has been a point of social upheaval.

        Today, most adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of “person” may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries.

  3. dusanmal says:

    Two separate issues article intentionally confuses:
    -Investigation within bounds provided by our legal system is free and even Constitutionally protected. No one tampered with that right.
    -There is no right to break in, cheat, access property that is not yours for any reason, including investigation in general or investigation of animal treatment in particular.
    However, just try to explain the difference to PETA-like zealots… Or to supporters who’d immediately notice something wrong when police remotely senses heat distribution in private residence (business) to bust pot growing. Same thing.

    @orchidcup “There was a legal precedent that was established in error way back in the 1800′s. ” – why in error? It is presently popular to bash the Corporations. However think for a fraction of a second what Corporate personhood protects: Life of Corporation against GOVERNMENT killing it arbitrarily, Liberty of Corporation against GOVERNMENT seizing it arbitrarily, “Pursuit of Happiness” of Corporation against GOVERNMENT ordering it (in typical and now fashionable Fascist Economy sense) what to do and produce. Side benefits are indeed things like freedom of speech of Corporation so that if oppressed by the GOVERNMENT it can speak out same as you and me and alert to as well as fight oppression.
    Same as with “real people” these unalienable rights come with consequences. You’d love to lock up that KKK or Jihadist guy yelling at the corner, but you can’t. Because if you could, all rights would be lost trivially.
    Important thing is that Corporate personhood protects our economic system against GOVERNMENT dictate. People who want it removed (for all on surface good reasons) fail to understand that as soon as those rights are gone there is no limit on the Government. That is important limit. That’s why in 1800’s people said, we better prevent such interpretation in the roots or whole economic system can go batshit.
    Finally, all this does is establish limits on relation Government-Corporation. Nothing in it prevents you from using same free speech against Corporation (or other people) who you think are doing wrong. That is the free and open battlefield of ideas. Fight there, don’t ask for rights of others to be taken away even if you do not like them.

    • orchidcup says:

      “Nothing in it prevents you from using same free speech against Corporation (or other people) who you think are doing wrong. That is the free and open battlefield of ideas. Fight there, don’t ask for rights of others to be taken away even if you do not like them.”

      I disagree. There is no “free and open battlefield of ideas.”

      Human rights are enforced or affirmed by the courts. The real battlefield of ideas occurs at that level.

      Corporations have a distinct advantage in that battlefield. There is no level battlefield where the rights of corporations conflict with the rights of individuals.

      The legal system is money-driven, and corporations are far wealthier than most individuals. Consequently, corporations can much better afford effective legal representation where there is a conflict of rights.

      If legal representation were free of monetary constraints, then I would agree that there is a “free and open battlefield of ideas.”

  4. Guy Squawkes says:

    “…soon it will be a terrorist activity to do anything…”

    What do you mean “soon”?

  5. Todd P says:

    People who trespass, break and enter, and tamper with industrial machinery are not terrorists. They are criminals.

    • orchidcup says:

      A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Record continued “Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the ‘only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.’ Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls”.

      Without a comprehensive definition of “terrorism,” many criminal activities could be included within that definition.

      While trespassing, etc. may be a criminal act, the government could be free to define the act as “terrorism.”

      Who would prevent them from doing so?

  6. Animby says:

    Orchidcup: “…define the act as ‘terrorism.’
    Who would prevent them from doing so?”

    Why would they want to? If it’s burglary they have to read you your rights and give you a trial. If it’s terrorism they can send you off to Gitmo until the next ice age.

    • msbpodcast says:

      they can send you off to Gitmo until the next ice age

      Yup. We are witness the fearification of corporate America.

      These people who stared, steely-eyed, into the face of financial peril as they navigate the shoals of accountancy, are reduced into squeely nancy girls>/i> by the thought of being found out committing some perfidy or other, so you gotta be a terrorist, right?

      Never mind that they’re selling your children off by the pound as fresh, unused body parts.

      Your terrorizing them with your investigative journalism. Off to Gimo with you…

      • Animby says:

        “into the face of financial peril as they navigate the shoals of accountancy”

        Watch much Monty Python?

    • orchidcup says:

      From the F.B.I. website:

      There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

      Under this definition, animal activists that trespass and break into a facility are terrorists.

      Why? The unlawful use of force against property.

      The activists should know the law before they break the law. The activists should be arrested for being stupid.

  7. What? says:

    Interesting comments, please continue (all).

  8. NewFormatSux says:

    The breakin and distribution of climate scientists’ emails was investigated by the Counter Terrorism Task Force in England.

    Here, this is not a routine breakin, when you have the potential of messing with the food supply to a large population. PETA is not investigative journalism. They are vegetarian zealots, and I would not put it past them to poison a stock of meat just to make a point. Kind of like that environmental terrorist group will destroy housing complexes.

    • msbpodcast says:

      And when and if* they cross the line, they will be dealt with by the law.

      There is no need for all of this phony terrorism BS. I was next door to the World Trade Towers as they fell and I wasn’t terrorized (I was too busy filling the bath tub with water for the cats to drink, packing my pockets with what I thought I’d need over the next few days [turned out to be a month while I was a Gold Card Homeless, and another month while my wife and I lived with a friend of hers out in deepest suburban Noo Joysey])

      Terror is something that is intensely subjective.

      I’ve been robbed at gun point and I was not in the least terrorized.

      I thought my way out of the situation and kept the money I had in an envelope (over $300) while could be seen to give one of the goniffs $11 and change from my pocket.

      He was happy with that and I kept most my dough because it just looked like an envelope.

      The entire exchange took place in full view while I held my enveloppe in my hand and rummaged around in my pocket for my loose cash.

      Criminals are so stupid…

      We reported them to the cops after.

      *) If is very important. I mean I can’t actually climb into bed with Gisele Bunchen and screw her brains out, (for one thing my wife’d kill me 🙂 for another Ms Bunchen would kill me, even if she’d let me, she’d probably kill me, 🙂 ) but at least let a man have some fantasies…

  9. sargasso_c says:

    Breaking and entry for the purpose of taking private information, is generally regarded as a crime. Sabotaging an industry for political gain or point of philosophical protest, is generally regarded as a crime.

  10. ECA says:

    IF a corp is considered a CITIZEN..
    A few things need to be understood.

    Does this GIVE YOU a right to be a corporation?

    What rights DO you have, that the corp has..and NO more. what has been removed for his protections? Look up what LLC is..and I will bet, they have no protection in LLC as a PERSON.

    NO PERSON has the right to take ANOTHER persons rights..think about that. you cant sign away your rights.

    NOW as taxes go…as a LOW paid person..30% tax rate…LETS HIT THEM HARD..

    NOW lets goto court.

  11. Hmeyers2 says:

    Activists are free to protest, use free speech and all the other tools available.

    When they engage in a pattern of coordinated illegal activity against a company, it is illegal and it doesn’t matter whether or not you call it harassment or a conspiracy or terrorism.

    There are enough legal methods to your point across without harassment, trespassing and activities that would get a private individual slapped with a restraining order or in court over harassment.

  12. Animby says:

    Hmeyers2 : “There are enough legal methods to [get] your point across…”

    Agreed. But, there are also enough laws to prosecute offenders. Why do we constantly make up new laws that criminalize already criminal activity? If I go out and shoot a Muslim cleric, am I guilty of terrorism, a hate crime or just plain murder? Is my victim any more dead one way over another? What’s my defense against a charge of terrorism? “No, your honor, I just wanted to kill the man!” Will they use different drugs for my execution? Will I get sodomized by a better class of prisoner during my life sentence?


  13. Somebody says:

    Let me highlight the main points here.

    1) The last NDAA basically puts the US under martial law where any enemy of the state (terrorist) can be held indefinitely w/o trial. Oh, yes, and can be tortured the whole time.

    2) Any whistle-blower, copyright infringer, coin minter, constitutional absolutist, Christian, protester, etc., etc, is a terrorist.

    You do the math.

  14. Hmeyers2 says:

    @ Animby …

    Effective government has to continually make up new laws and phrases to get people’s attention and otherwise screw with their heads.

    Even if the laws are redundant and unnecessary. Or where the law hasn’t changed, the wording has …

    “Hate crimes” : Assault was already on the books
    “Piracy” : Already illegal to copy and distribute movies / music
    “Sex offender” : All of those things were already illegal
    “Littering cigarette butts”: Littering already illegal
    “Domestic violence”: Violence was already illegal
    “Substance abuser”: That guy that always smells like pot

    You can critique my list, but the reality is that governments love passing the same laws over and over again or rephrasing the crime in a socially “easier-to-digest” way. Like how calling someone a “stalker” sounds worse than “some ex-boyfriend who keeps showing up”.

    And really … if you’ve broken one of the “major” laws you are screwed anyway, the government keeps trying to figure out how to attach “social stigmas” to crime.

    And why not keep chipping away at problems with “new words”, usually by bundling the product with a “new piece of paper”.

    And Words are inexpensive so they save the taxpayers lots of $$$$, especially in the long run!

    • orchidcup says:

      Our legislators are paid to legislate.

      They write new laws when rewriting or amending existing laws would suffice.

      Over the course of 235 years, since the Constitution was ratified, thousands of legislators in all the individual states have been writing laws.

      We now have so many laws and ordinances and rules and regulations and other constraints against our liberties that only the wealthiest persons among us can afford the expense of a stable of lawyers to navigate the legal system.

      The wealthiest persons among us are not the billionaires.

      The wealthiest persons among us are the multinational corporations that have eternal life and no fealty to any particular country.

      Yet these corporations enjoy the rights endowed by the Constitution under the umbrella of Personhood.

      So the average person or the business on Main Street cannot compete with the giants that live among us, the multinational corporations, with their vast armies of lawyers.

      So we have ended up with too many laws and freedom is only enjoyed by those who can pay for it.

      A corporation is not a person. I am a person.

      Thank you for listening.

  15. RS says:

    I used to work in an animal research center. It was built and guarded like a fortress due to terror threats from animal rights zealots who promised publicly to “burn it to the ground”.

    Zealots can very easily cross the line from mere criminal to terrorist.


Bad Behavior has blocked 14038 access attempts in the last 7 days.