Statement of Patrick Leahy on
“Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality”
May 18, 2004

Today’s hearing was originally noticed under the title, “The Threat of Animal and Eco-Terrorism.” I can understand why that title was abandoned. When most Americans think of threats that currently face this country, we do not mean “animal and eco-terrorism.” Indeed, most Americans would not consider the harassment of animal testing facilities to be “terrorism,” any more than they would consider anti-globalization protestors or anti-war protestors or women’s health activists to be terrorists.

This Administration aggressively stamps everything with a “terrorism” label and at various times has insinuated that it was Saddam’s link to the September 11 attacks that justified the invasion and occupation that has been so costly. Even President Bush had to admit that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on America. Many of us fear that the Administration’s fixation on Iraq, in fact, distracted it from finishing the job in Afghanistan and from focusing on Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have, regrettably, been something of a self-fulfilling prophesy in that that country is now teaming with terrorism and guerilla warfare against Americans. In addition, the occupation and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners has spawned resentment and additional recruits for those who hate America.

But even this Administration had not up until now, as far as I know, thought the Animal Enterprise Protection Act a major component of its “war on terrorism.” In fact, I understand that the statute has rarely, if ever, been used. Nor has anyone ever thought to include it in the ever-expanding laundry list of predicate offenses that make up the statutory definition of “federal crime of terrorism.” This hearing may be a signal that is changing.

Two weeks ago, despite the American publicÂ’s concern about the PATRIOT Act and the hundreds of city, county and State proclamations against its excesses, in spite of the bipartisan legislative efforts proposing amendments to the PATRIOT Act, and despite the Federal court rulings against vague provisions, the Administration came before this Committee to demand that the PATRIOT ACT be expanded further to include additional vague categories for serious charges. Today, the Administration may be adding physical disruption of a commercial enterprise that uses animals for testing to its laundry list of terrorist acts. We will see.

No one should be confused. I do not condone those who commit criminal acts against laboratories and other facilities that use animals for research, testing and other purposes. I do not condone those who commit criminal acts against family planning clinics or doctors, either.

Indeed, in the last Congress, I worked closely with Senator Hutchinson to increase penalties for criminal acts against animal enterprises, while fending off efforts to expand the Federal Government’s power to investigate and prosecute so-called eco-terrorism in ways that could chill legitimate First Amendment activity. Our compromise language was eventually included in the conference report on H.R.3448, the “Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,” which was signed into law on June 12, 2002.

But I think most Americans would be surprised that we are devoting a hearing today to this issue. I think that most Americans would rather that we address more urgent concerns that really do pose a threat to this country and to the world.

I have asked the Chairman to hold a hearing on the reported abuse of prisoners by Americans in Iraq. Given the wide-ranging jurisdiction of this Committee over civil liberties and prisons, the reported role of civilian contractors, our role in enactment of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, and the lack of other congressional oversight, I think we should be acting.

I have long urged the Chairman to hold a hearing on the Administration’s claim that it can designate U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and hold them incommunicado without charges. It is appalling to me that the Hamdi and Padilla cases have worked themselves all the way up to the Supreme Court – and will likely be decided by that Court – before this Committee has ever weighed in on this issue.

I have long urged the Chairman to hold oversight hearings with the Attorney General. It was a year after his last abbreviated appearance before the Committee on March 4, 2003, that he took ill. It has now been more than two months since he returned to work, after having been briefly hospitalized for a medical condition. He testified before the 9/11 Commission on April 13. There is no apparent reason for his continued delay in scheduling a time to testify before this Committee, and his continuing failure to come to grips with the many outstanding oversight matters that have been piling up since his last appearance. He has apparently recovered and we are all delighted that he is feeling better. It is past time to hold our long overdue oversight hearings with him.
We may be afforded an opportunity to have an oversight hearing with FBI Director Mueller later this week. I wish this morning had been devoted to hearing from him. Instead, the hearing with Director Mueller is not scheduled for any real time yet. It is floating in time, to be held at some time on Thursday not yet certain and contingent on a number of other events. I welcome that hearing, if it occurs. Like Senator Schumer, I wish it could have been held at a normal hearing time and scheduled in a way that the Director and Senators could plan to be available and participate. By contrast, this hearing on commercial enterprises engaging in animal testing was scheduled for a set time, with Democratic cooperation. Yet the important oversight hearing with an extremely busy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is still floating in time. We are told it will begin at the conclusion of the CommitteeÂ’s business meeting. That may mean 9:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m. or somewhere in between.
Finally, with respect to this hearing, I had suggested that the Committee might want to invite a third witness for the second panel to provide a different perspective on the issue of this morningÂ’s hearing. I regret that the Chairman declined to do so to provide balance to these proceedings. If we are going to devote time to this issue, then it seemed to me to be better if we were able to hear from all sides. I thank all of our witnesses for coming today. I regret that I cannot be in attendance but, as I had informed the ChairmanÂ’s staff some time ago, I have a long-scheduled obligation as the Ranking Democrat on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee to work on critical HIV/AIDS funding at our hearing that is taking place this morning.

# # # # #

STATEMENT

OF

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEFORE THE

UNITES STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

CONCERNING

ANIMAL RIGHTS: ACTIVISM VS. CRIMINALITY

PRESENTED ON

MAY 18, 2004

STATEMENT OF
MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEFORE THE

UNITES STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the threat posed by animal enterprise terrorism and eco-terrorism, and the efforts by the Department of Justice to meet this threat.
Animal enterprise terrorism and eco-terrorism is just that: terrorism. Whether intended to cause the destruction of property or, increasingly, harm to persons, eco-terrorism poses a significant threat to public safety in our country. Animal enterprise terrorism and eco-terrorists commit arson, trespass, burglary, extortion, and aggravated assault. They vandalize and destroy property. The FBI has reported that since 1996, these terrorists have committed more than 1,000 acts of terrorism, causing more than $100 million in damage. These crimes have included vandalizing an animal experimentation lab in California, burning a meat processor in Oregon, sabotaging logging equipment in Indiana and Washington, “liberating” more than 5,000 mink at a fur farm in Michigan, raiding a vaccine research facility in Wisconsin, setting fire to a ski resort in Colorado, and fire bombing BLM centers in Oregon and California. Increasingly, these terrorists are targeting not only property, but people as well, threatening violence against individuals who have done nothing more than work for or with a particular company or institution. Make no mistake about it, the individuals who commit these crimes are hardcore, dangerous, and well-funded criminals whose weapons are firebombs, timed detonation devices, Molotov cocktails, and poison. A recent review of one groupÂ’s website revealed how-to guides on “The politics and practicalities of arson” and “What to do if a federal agent tries to question you.” These groups are quick to point out that no one has yet been killed in one of their attacks, as if that fact somehow excuses their other criminal activity.
I should note that we are well aware that millions of Americans belong to legitimate animal welfare and animal protection groups. They speak for a longstanding tradition in this country that abhors cruelty to animals. They advance their cause and seek reforms by lawful means, in legislative votes, court decisions, and ballot initiatives. These advocates for the decent treatment of animals should not be confused with individuals involved in animal enterprise terrorism. This latter movement can be traced back to the early 1980s and the efforts of Earthfirst, an environmental group known for tree-spiking which involved driving metal spikes into trees to prevent them from being cut or milled into lumber. In the late 1980s, the movement became even more radicalized with the emergence of groups like the Earth Liberation Front (“ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (“ALF”). ELF became a household name in 1998 when it claimed responsibility for a fire at the Vail ski resort that resulted in more than $12 million in damage. ELF has also targeted housing developments, logging trucks, office buildings, and university facilities. ALF is closely related to ELF and is known for damaging and sabotaging facilities that house animals used for research and other purposes. Among ALF’s self-described “successes” include causing millions of dollars in damage on the campus of the University of California, Davis in 1987, setting fire to a U.S. Department of Agriculture building in Olympia, Washington in 1998, and causing a $1 million fire at a New Mexico primate lab in 2001. Another group, ironically known as “The Justice Department,” has its roots in Great Britain and has claimed responsibility for sending envelopes containing razor blades dipped in rat poison to 80 researchers, hunting guides, and others in England, Canada, and around the U.S.
It is important to note that the infamous Unabomber, who was successfully prosecuted in my own district, admitted during his trial that he had been in contact with eco-terrorists and identified at least one of his targets after reading about him in the Earthfirst journal.
In short, the animal enterprise and eco-terrorism problem is significant, wide-spread, and growing, and the Department of Justice takes it very seriously. Federal, state, and local authorities are diligently working together to investigate, prosecute, and whenever possible, prevent terrorist acts committed by these groups. Like terrorism generally, animal enterprise and eco-terrorism is a priority for the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorneys around the country. Just as we have stepped up our efforts to combat terrorism abroad, we must also recognize the growing danger presented by animal and eco-terrorism at home.
The Department of Justice, including both the FBI and the U.S. AttorneysÂ’ offices, have responded to the terrorism threat by significantly increasing the number of resources devoted to counterterrorism investigations and prosecutions. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) have been established in dozens of cities across the country in an effort to enhance cooperation among local, state, and federal counterterrorism assets. During the past few years, the FBI has made numerous arrests and the U.S. Attorneys have successfully prosecuted several eco-terrorism cases, including an arson and extortion case in Phoenix, arson cases in New York, and Michigan, and an animal enterprise terrorism case in Wisconsin. Despite these successes, however, investigating and prosecuting these cases is not easy. In fact, several cases remain pending with no arrests or indictments, including investigations into arson at BLM facilities in California and Oregon.

One of the difficulties in prosecuting these cases is the inadequate scope of 18 U.S.C. Section 43, which makes it a crime to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or use the mail for the purpose of causing damage to an animal enterprise. The current animal enterprise terrorism statute is insufficient to address the threat posed by terrorist acts committed against research laboratories, businesses, and other entities that use animals. At present, the statute applies only when there is “physical disruption” to the functioning of the enterprise that results in damage to or loss of property. Enterprises, however, have been harmed economically by threats, coercion and other methods of intimidation — often directed at employees, customers, or vendors of an animal enterprise — that do not fall within the existing criminal prohibition. For example, ALFÂ’s Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (“SHAC”) campaign has targeted an animal testing company called Huntingdon Life Sciences. ALFÂ’s strategy seems to include not only attacks on Huntingdon itself, including damaging Huntingdon property and the homes of Huntingdon employees, but has also included attacks or threats against HuntingdonÂ’s insurance carrier (Lloyds), banker (Bank of America), and even companies that merely trade HuntingdonÂ’s stock (Schwab and eTrade). Another example of ALF targeting a secondary or collateral entity is the recent bombing of The Shaklee Corporation, a California biotech firm. Even though Shaklee is generally considered to be a relatively animal-friendly company, its associations with other companies, including Huntingdon, has made it a target.
While animal terrorists are increasi
ngly targeting not only animal enterprises themselves, such as research facilities and companies that engage in animal testing, but also anyone who is believed to be engaged in the provision of services to such animal enterprises, federal law does not currently equip the Department with the necessary tools to effectively prosecute the perpetrators of such conduct. The Department therefore supports amending the animal enterprise terrorism statute to prohibit the use of threats, vandalism, property damage, trespass, persistent and harassing communications, intimidation, or coercion in order to cause economic disruption to an animal enterprise. This new offense is needed to address unambiguously harassing and threatening conduct directed at animal enterprises as well as their employees, customers, or vendors, conduct that currently causes substantial economic harm.
Additionally, the current penalties for those who violate the animal enterprise terrorism statute are inadequate and may fail to deter much of the criminal conduct prohibited by current law. For example, in the absence of death or serious bodily injury, those who perpetrate animal enterprise terrorism are now eligible for a maximum of three years in prison under the statute. In many cases, however, such a penalty does not reflect the gravity of the offense, and the Department therefore supports increasing the existing penalties for animal enterprise terrorism in those cases where terrorists cause substantial economic damage. If an animal terrorist, for example, causes millions of dollars in economic damage to an enterprise, he or she should be eligible for more than three years imprisonment.
Finally, the Department supports adding the animal enterprise terrorism statute as a predicate for electronic surveillance and monitoring. Law enforcement agents currently possess the authority to conduct electronic surveillance – by petitioning a court for a wiretap order – in the investigation of many terrorism crimes and ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, passport fraud, etc. However, current law does not allow investigators to conduct electronic surveillance when investigating animal enterprise terrorism. Such surveillance would be helpful in preventing this type of terrorism and should be allowed when investigators have probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a violation of the animal enterprise terrorism statute. Given the serious and often violent nature of animal enterprise terrorism, the Department urges Congress to correct this deficiency in current law.

In conclusion, animal enterprise and eco-terrorism poses a serious threat to the safety and security of our fellow citizens. Combating this threat is a priority for the Department of Justice, and in order to win this battle, federal prosecutors must have every tool necessary to effectively prosecute this criminal activity. As always, the Department stands ready to work with Congress to ensure that our efforts are successful. In particular, the Department looks forward to working with this Committee in the weeks and months to come to improve the animal enterprise terrorism statute.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this very important topic. I look forward to your questions.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LEWIS
DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
MAY 18, 2004

Good morning Chairman Hatch, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists in this country, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners to address this threat, and some of the difficulties faced by law enforcement in addressing this crime problem.
As you know, the FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States into two broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism involves violent acts that occur beyond our national boundaries and are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or similar acts of violence committed by individuals or groups under some form of foreign direction occurring within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Domestic terrorism involves acts of violence that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, committed by individuals or groups without any foreign direction, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the domestic terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the United States. During the past several years, however, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and related extremists, has emerged as a serious domestic terrorist threat. Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Such extremists conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to the extremistsÂ’ causes. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement only becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million.
The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized extremist movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in “direct action” against companies or individuals who, in their view, utilize animals for research or economic gain, or do some manner of business with those companies or individuals. “Direct action” generally occurs in the form of criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims’ company operations or property. The extremistsÂ’ efforts have broadened to include a multi-national campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies and any companies or individuals doing business with those targeted companies. Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is one such company. The “secondary” or “tertiary” targeting of companies which have business or financial relationships with the target company typically takes the form of fanatical harassment of employees and interference with normal business operations, under the threat of escalating tactics or even violence. The harassment is designed to inflict increasing economic damage until the company is forced to cancel its contracts or business relationship with the original target. Internationally, the best example of this trend involves Great BritainÂ’s Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) organization, a more organized sub-group within the extremist animal rights movement. SHAC has targeted the animal testing company HLS and any companies with which HLS conducts business. While the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself as an information service or even a media outlet, it is closely aligned with the ALF and its pattern of criminal activities – many of which are taken against companies and individuals selected as targets by SHAC and posted on SHACÂ’s Internet website.
Investigation of SHAC-related criminal activity has revealed a pattern of vandalism, arsons, animal releases, harassing telephone calls, threats and attempts to disrupt business activities of not only HLS, but of all companies doing business with HLS. Among others, these companies include Bank of America, Marsh USA, Deloitte and Touche, and HLS investors, such as Stephens, Inc., which completely terminated their business relationships with HLS as a result of SHAC activities. Examples of SHAC activities include publishing on its website as a regular feature “Targets of the Week” for followers to target with harassing telephone calls and e-mails in order to discourage that company or individual from doing business with HLS.
In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF and ELF’s operations, their stated operational philosophy discourages acts that harm “any animal, human and nonhuman.” In general, the animal rights and environmental extremist movements have adhered to this mandate. Beginning in 2002, however, this operational philosophy has been overshadowed by an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics, particularly within the animal rights movement. Individuals within the movement have discussed actively targeting food producers, biomedical researchers, and even law enforcement with physical harm. But even more disturbing is the recent employment of improvised explosive devices against consumer product testing companies, accompanied by threats of more, larger bombings and even potential assassinations of researchers, corporate officers and employees.
The escalation in violent rhetoric is best demonstrated by language that was included in the communiqués claiming responsibility for the detonation of improvised explosive devices in 2003 at two separate northern California companies, which were targeted as a result of their business links to HLS. Following two pipe bomb blasts at the Chiron Life Sciences Center in Emeryville, California on August 28, 2003, an anonymous claim of responsibility was issued which included the statement: “This is the endgame for the animal killers and if you choose to stand with them you will be dealt with accordingly. There will be no quarter given, no half measures taken. You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?” Just four weeks later, following the explosion of another improvised explosive device wrapped in nails at the headquarters of Shaklee, Incorporated in Pleasanton, California on September 26, 2003, another sinister claim of responsibility was issued via anonymous communiqué by the previously unknown “Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade.” This claim was even more explicit in its threats: “We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business from HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences). Now you will all reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered legitimate targets… You never know when your house, your car even, might go boom… Or maybe
it will be a shot in the dark… We will now be doubling the size of every device we make. Today it is 10 pounds, tomorrow 20… until your buildings are nothing more than rubble. It is time for this war to truly have two sides. No more will all the killing be done by the oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back.” It should be noted that the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Francisco has identified and charged known activist Daniel Andreas San Diego, who is currently a fugitive from justice, in connection with these bombings. While no deaths or injuries have resulted from this threat or the blasts at Chiron and Shaklee, it demonstrates a new willingness on the part of some in the movement to abandon the traditional and publicly stated code of nonviolence in favor of more confrontational and aggressive tactics designed to threaten and intimidate legitimate companies into abandoning entire projects or contracts.
Despite these ominous trends, by far the most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF to date is arson. The ALF/ELF extremists consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Activists are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications and other open source information, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, obtaining proprietary or confidential information about intended victim companies through theft or from sympathetic insiders, and posting details about potential targets on the Internet for other extremists to use as they see fit.
In addition to the upswing in violent rhetoric and tactics observed from animal rights extremists in recent years, new trends have emerged in the eco-terrorist movement. These trends include a greater frequency of attacks in more populated areas, as seen in Southern California, Michigan and elsewhere, and the increased targeting of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and new construction of homes or commercial properties in previously undeveloped areas by extremists combating what they describe as “urban sprawl.” Eco-terrorists have adopted these new targets due to their perceived negative environmental impact. Recent examples of this targeting include the August 1, 2003 arson of a large condominium complex under construction near La Jolla, California, which resulted in an estimated $50 million in property damages; the August 22, 2003 arson and vandalism of over 120 SUVs in West Covina, California; and the arson of two new homes under construction near Ann Arbor, Michigan in March 2003. It is believed these trends will persist, as extremists within the environmental movement continue to fight what they perceive as greater encroachment of human society on the natural world.
The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by domestic and international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2003, the number of special agents dedicated to the FBI’s counterterrorism programs more than doubled. In recent years, the FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance its abilities to carry out these objectives.
Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an important component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This cooperation assumes its most tangible operational form in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) that are established in FBI field divisions across the nation. These task forces are particularly well-suited to respond to terrorism because they combine the national and international investigative resources of the FBI with the expertise of other federal law enforcement and local law enforcement agencies. The FBI currently has 84 JTTFs nationwide, one in each of the 56 Field Offices, and 28 additional annexes. By integrating the investigative abilities of the FBI, other federal law enforcement and local law enforcement agencies, these task forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S. communities by domestic and international terrorists.
The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of animal rights extremism or eco-terrorism. Some recent arrests include eco-terror fugitive Michael James Scarpitti and accused ELF arsonist William Cottrell. Scarpitti, commonly known by his “forest name” of Tre’ Arrow, was arrested by Canadian law enforcement authorities on March 13, 2004 in British Columbia. Scarpitti had been a fugitive since August 2002, when he was indicted for his role in two separate ELF-related arsons that occurred in the Portland, Oregon area in 2001. William Cottrell was arrested by the FBI’s Los Angeles Division on March 9, 2004, and indicted by a federal grand jury on March 16, 2004 for the role he played in a series of arsons and vandalisms of more than 120 sport utility vehicles that occurred on August 22, 2003 in West Covina, California. Those crimes resulted in more than $2.5 million in damages.
Between December 8, 2003 and January 12, 2004, three members of an ELF cell in Richmond, Virginia entered guilty pleas to federal arson and conspiracy charges, following their arrests by the FBI Richmond Division and local authorities. Adam Blackwell, Aaron Linas and John Wade admitted to conducting a series of arson and property destruction attacks in 2002 and 2003 against sport utility vehicles, fast food restaurants, construction vehicles and construction sites in the Richmond area, which they later claimed were committed on behalf of the ELF. In addition, the FBI Richmond Division, working in concert with the Henrico County Police Department, successfully identified, disrupted and prevented another arson plot targeting SUVs by a second, independent ELF cell in February 2004. The four members of this alleged cell, all juveniles, are currently awaiting trial on federal and state charges.
In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and George Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to Title 18 U.S.C. 844(i), arson, and 844(n), arson conspiracy. These charges pertained to a series of arsons and attempted arsons of new home construction sites in Long Island, NY, which according to McIntyre were committed in sympathy of the ELF movement. An adult, Connor Cash, was also arrested on February 15, 2001, and charged under federal statutes for his role in these crimes. Cash is currently on trial in federal court for charges of providing material support to terrorism. The New York Joint Terrorism Task Force played a significant role in the arrest and prosecution of these individuals.
Despite these recent successes, however, FBI investigative efforts to target these movements for identification, prevention and disruption have been hampered by a lack of applicable federal criminal statutes, particularly when attempting to address an organized, multi-state campaign of intimidation, property damage, threats and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate interstate commerce, as exhibited by the SHAC organization. While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute extremists who are identified as responsible for committing arsons or utilizing explosive devices, using existing federal statutes, it is often difficult if not impossible to address a campaign of low-level (but nevertheless organized and multi-national) criminal activity like that of SHAC in federal court.
In order to address the overall problem presented by SHAC, and to prevent it from engaging in actions intending to shut down a legitimate business enterprise, the FBI initiated a coordinated investigative approach beginning in 2001. Investigative and prosecutive strategies were explored among the many FBI offices that had experienced SHAC activity, the corresponding United States Attorneys= Offices, FBIH
Q, and the Department of Justice. Of course, the use of the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism (AET) statute was explored. This statute, set forth in Title 18 U.S.C., Section 43, provides a framework for the prosecution of individuals involved in animal rights extremism. In practice, however, the statute does not reach many of the criminal activities engaged in by SHAC in furtherance of its overall objective of shutting down HLS.

As written, the AET statute prohibits traveling in commerce for the purpose of causing physical disruption to an animal enterprise, or causing physical disruption by intentionally stealing, damaging or causing the loss of property used by an animal enterprise, and as a result, causing economic loss exceeding $10,000. An animal enterprise includes commercial or academic entities that use animals for food or fiber production, research, or testing, as well as zoos, circuses and other lawful animal competitive events. Violators can be fined or imprisoned for not more than three years, with enhanced penalties if death or serious bodily injury result.

While some ALF activities have involved direct actions covered by this statute, such as animal releases at mink farms, the activities of SHAC generally fall outside the scope of the AET statute. In fact, SHAC members are typically quite conversant in the elements of the federal statute and appear to engage in conduct that, while criminal (such as trespassing, vandalism or other property damage), would not result in a significant, particularly federal, prosecution. However, given SHAC’s pattern of harassing and oftentimes criminal conduct, and its stated goal of shutting down a company engaged in interstate as well as foreign commerce, other statutory options were explored at the federal level in order to address this conduct. Ultimately, prosecution under the Hobbs Act (Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1951) was the agreed upon strategy.

The theory advanced to support a Hobbs Act prosecution was that the subjects were (and continue to be) engaged in an international extortion scheme against companies engaged in, or doing business with companies engaged in, animal-based research. In furtherance of this scheme of extortion, the victims are subjected to criminal acts such as vandalism, arson, property damage, harassment and physical attacks, or the fear of such attacks, until they discontinue their animal-based research or their association with or investment in companies such as HLS, engaged in animal-based research.

However, as a result of the Supreme CourtÂ’s 2003 decision in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women , the use of the Hobbs Act in prosecuting SHAC was removed as an option. In the Scheidler decision, the Supreme Court held that, while activists may be found to illegally interfere with, disrupt or even deprive victims of the free exercise of their property rights or their right to conduct business, this activity does not constitute extortion as defined under the Hobbs Act unless the activists seek to obtain or convert the victimsÂ’ property for their own use.

Currently, more than 34 FBI field offices have over 190 pending investigations associated with ALF/ELF activities. Extremist movements such as the ALF and the ELF present unique challenges. There is little, if any, known hierarchal structure to such entities. The animal rights extremist and eco-terrorism movements are unlike traditional criminal enterprises that are often structured and organized. They exhibit remarkable levels of security awareness when engaged in criminal activity, and are typically very knowledgeable of law enforcement techniques and the limitations imposed on law enforcement.

The FBIÂ’s commitment to address the threat can be seen in the proactive approach that we have taken regarding the dissemination of information. Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) are used as a vehicle for delivering FBI intelligence information to members of the Intelligence, Policy and Law Enforcement Communities. Since its establishment in March 2003, the Domestic Collection, Evaluation and Dissemination Unit has issued 20 IIRs to the field relating specifically to animal rights/eco-terrorism activity.

The commitment to addressing the threat posed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorism movements can also be demonstrated by the FBIÂ’s proactive information campaign. This campaign has included ongoing liaison with federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutors, relevant trade associations and targeted companies and industries. The FBI has established a National Task Force and Intelligence Center at FBIHQ to coordinate this information campaign, and develop and implement a nationwide, strategic investigative approach to addressing the animal rights/eco-terrorism threat in the United States. The FBI has also conducted liaison and cooperated in investigations with foreign law enforcement agencies regarding animal rights extremist/eco-terrorism matters.
In conclusion, the FBI has made the prevention and investigation of animal rights extremists/eco-terrorism matters a domestic terrorism investigative priority. The FBI and all of our federal, state and local law enforcement partners will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique challenges posed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists. Despite the continued focus on international terrorism, we in the FBI remain fully cognizant of the full range of threats that confront the United States.
Chairman Hatch and members of the committee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would like to express appreciation for your concentration on these important issues and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEEE TESTIMONY
JONATHAN BLUM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, YUM! BRANDS –MAY 18, 2004

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JONATHAN BLUM. I’M SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT YUM! BRANDS. WE’RE THE WORLD’S LARGEST RESTAURANT COMPANY, WITH ABOUT 33,000 RESTAURANTS AROUND THE GLOBE – WE OWN TACO BELL, KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, PIZZA HUT, LONG JOHN SILVER’S AND A&W ALL-AMERICAN FOODS. WE OPERATE IN ABOUT 102 COUNTRIES AND HAVE REVENUES OF $8.4 BILLION, WITH SYSTEM SALES EXCEEDING $24 BILLION SINCE THE MAJORITY OF OUR SYSTEM IS FRANCHISED.

I’M HERE TODAY TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT A ‘CORPORATE CAMPAIGN’ THAT’S BEEN WAGED AGAINST KFC FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS BY AN ORGANIZATION CALLED – PEOPLE FOR ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS – OR PETA.

WHAT IÂ’D LIKE TO DO IS OUTLINE FOR YOU HOW PETAÂ’S EFFORTS HAVE CROSSED THE LINE OF FREE SPEECH AND FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION, TO WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE INVASION OF PRIVACY AND HARRASSMENT OF OUR EXECUTIVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, OUR NEIGHBORS AND OTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

IN MY VIEW, PETA’S CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN NOTHING SHORT OF WHAT I’D CALL ‘CORPORATE TERRORISM.’ I HOPE THAT BY THE TIME I’M DONE TESTIFYING, YOU’LL AGREE, AND PERHAPS WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SINCE PETA HAS WAGED SIMILAR CORPORATE CAMPAIGNS AGAINST A NUMBER OF OUR COMPETITORS, INCLUDING MCDONALDS, WENDYS, BURGER KING AND APPLEBEES, JUST TO NAME A FEW.

AS BACKGROUND, PETA HAS ATTEMPTED TO PRESSURE OUR COMPANY INTO FORCING OUR SUPPLIERS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR PROCESSING METHODS. THEY WANT OUR SUPPLIERS TO USE A METHOD OF GAS KILLING OF CHICKENS RATHER THAN HUMANE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES THAT HAVE BEEN PERFECTED FOR YEARS.

WHAT PETA ULTIMATELY WANTS IS A VEGETARIAN OR VEGAN WORLD. NO COSUMPTION OF MEAT, NO POULTRY, NO PORK, NO FISH. NO LEATHER GOODS, AND NO DAIRY PRODUCTS.

NOT VERY LIKELY IN OUR SOCIETY.

TO BE CLEAR, KFC DOES NOT OWN ANY FARMS OR PROCESSING FACILITIES. WE BUY OUR CHICKENS FROM THE SAME TRUSTED COMPANIES YOU DO WHEN YOU BUY CHICKEN IN THE SUPERMARKET – COMPANIES LIKE TYSON, PILGRAM’S PRIDE AND GOLDKIST, AMONG OTHERS. KFC BUYS ABOUT 5% OF ALL THE CHICKEN IN THE UNITED STATES.

RATHER THAN CALLING ON THE FARMS OR PROCESSING COMPANIES TO CONSIDER THE CHANGES PETA RECOMMENDS, PETA HAS FOCUSED ITS ATTENTION ON KFC. THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DISRUPT OUR SUPPLY CHAIN AND PRESSURE KFC TO FORCE OUR SUPPLIERS TO MAKE THE CHANGES PETA SEEKS.

CHANGES THAT ARE IMPRACTICAL, UNNECESSARY, UNPROVEN AND VERY COSTLY. IN FACT, IT IS OUR ESTIMATE THAT THESE CHANGES, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD COST OUR COMPANY OVER $50 MILLION.

OUR SUPPLIERS HAVE TOLD US THEY WILL NOT IMPLEMENT THESE CHANGES – THEY’D RATHER NOT PROVIDE US WITH CHICKEN THAN MAKE THE CHANGES PETA DEMANDS. OF COURSE, THAT WOULD MAKE PETA VERY HAPPY, AS IT WOULD BE A STEP TOWARD A VEGETARIAN WORLD.

FIRST, LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT WE HAVE FULLY STUDIED THIS MATTER, AND WE BELIEVE OUR SUPPLIERS ARE ACTING RESPONSIBLY IN THE AREA OF ANIMAL WELFARE.

IN FACT, WE ESTABLISHED AN ANIMAL WELFARE ADVISORY COUNCIL, COMPRISED OF MANY OF THE WORLDÂ’S LEADING EXPERTS IN THIS AREA, AND THEY CONCUR WITH OUR ANALYSIS.

WE AUDIT OUR SUPPLIERS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO BE SURE THEY ARE FOLLOWING OUR GUIDELINES, AND EACH OF THEM HAS SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH US THAT THEY WILL HONOR OUR STRICT SUPPLIER CODE OF CONDUCT.

AND WE TOOK AN INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP POSITION BY WORKING WITH OUR ASSOCIATION TO ADOPT ANIMAL WELFARE GUIDELINES FOR POULTRY FARM.

SO WEÂ’RE COMFORTABLE WITH OUR CURRENT ACTIONS.

WHEN WE RESISTED MAKING THE CHANGES PETA DEMANDED, THEY BEGAN TO ESCALATE THEIR CAMPAIGN AND MOVED FROM RHETORIC AND DIALOGUE, TO HARRASSMENT AND THREATS.

THEYÂ’VE ENLISTED THE HELP OF A NUMBER OF CELEBRITIES, FROM PAUL MCCARTNEY AND PAMELA ANDERSON, TO RUSSELL SIMMONS, RICHARD PRYOR, DICK GREGORY AND BEA ARTHUR.

THEYÂ’VE SPREAD MISINFORMATION IN THE PRESS, AND HAVE LIED ABOUT FACTS THAT SIMPLY DONÂ’T EXIST. THEYÂ’VE PLACED BILLBOARDS ON HIGHWAYS ACROSS THE COUNTRY DOING THE SAME, AND DISPARAGING OUR BRAND.

THEYÂ’VE PICKETED AT OUR HEADQUARTERS, IN FRONT OF OUR RESTAURANTS AND THOSE OF OUR FRANCHISEES, LEGALLY HANDING OUT LEAFLETS AND FLYERS, AND HAVE ATTEMPTED TO GAIN ACCESS TO OUR BUSINESS MEETINGS.

THEYÂ’VE PLACED A PROXY STATEMENT BEFORE OUR SHAREHOLDERS, ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE US TO CHANGE OUR COURSE OF BUSINESS.

WEÂ’RE PERFECTLY FINE WITH PETA EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT, AND ACTING WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.

WEÂ’RE STRONG SUPPORTERS OF FREE SPEECH AND SHAREHOLDERSÂ’ RIGHTS, AND WEÂ’RE GLAD WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT PROTECTS THESE ACTIVITIES.

WE ARE ALSO FINE WITH COMMUNICATION TO US IN A NORMAL BUSINESS MANNER, CONTACTING US AT WORK OR THROUGH NORMAL BUSINESS CHANNELS.

BUT PETA HAS STEPPED OVER THE LINE OF PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, AND HAS RESORTED TO PRESSURE THROUGH INTIMIDATION, HARRASSMENT AND INVASION OF PRIVACY.

LET ME ALSO SAY THIS IS NO WARM AND FUZZY, GARDEN VARIETY ANIMAL PROTECTION GROUP. THIS IS NOT THE ASPCA. PETA’S BRUCE FRIEDRICH HAS ADMITTED UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW RECENTLY THAT HE HAS TOLD HIS SUPPORTERS AT A RALLY THAT ALL FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS SHOULD BE BOMBED OR EXPLODED, AND HE WOULD SAY ‘HALLELUJA’ TO ANYONE WHO PERPETRATED THESE CRIMES.

LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHAT MR. FRIEDRICH AND OTHERS HAVE DONE TO KFC, AND WHY SEVERAL OF US HAVE 24-HOUR A DAY, 7-DAY A WEEK POLICE PROTECTION AROUND THE CLOCK AT OUR HOMES DURING FREQUENT PERIODS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

I’M SURE YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT IS A HORRIBLE WAY TO RAISE OUR CHILDREN, AND PUTS A STRAIN ON OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS – JUST THE THING PETA IS HOPING FOR THROUGH THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL INTIMIDATION.

LAST YEAR, A LEADER OF PETA IN GERMANY WAS PROSECUTED FOR THROWING ACTORS BLOOD-PAINT AND FEATHERS ON OUR CHAIRMAN AND CEO AT A PUBLIC EVENT. PETA THEN PUBLICIZED THIS ACTIVITY BY SENDING THE PHOTO TO THE NEWS MEDIA IN A MEANS OF EMBARRASSING OUR CEO. HE WAS ACCOMPANIED ON THIS TRIP BY MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, WHO WERE HORRIFIED BY THE BEHAVIOR.

ADDITIONALLY, PETA HAS PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEBSITE THE HOME ADDRESSES OF SEVERAL OF OUR EXECUTIVES, INCLUDING OUR CEO AND ME, AND HAS ENCOURAGED THEIR 700,000 MEMBERS TO WRITE US REGULARLY AND FREQUENTLY AT OUR HOMES. EVERY DAY LETTERS ARE SENT TO OUR HOMES FROM PETA MEMBERS AROUND THE WORLD, IMPLORING US TO STOP KILLING CHICKENS.

PETA HIRED A PHOTOGRAPHER TO USE A LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHOTO LENSE TO SECRETLY TAKE OUR PHOTOS. WHEN CAUGHT, THE PHOTOGRAPHER SAID THESE PHOTOS WERE TO BE USED ON BILLBOARDS AND IN ADS SHOWING THE FACES OF QUOTE-UNQUOTE CHICKEN KILLERS.

PETA HAS GONE DOOR TO DOOR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS HANDING OUT PACKETS OF MISINFORMATION TO OUR NEIGHBORS, TELLING THEM WE ARE CHICKEN KILLERS AND INHUMANE. THEYÂ’RE TRYING TO MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WITH FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.

THEY ALSO THREATENED TO BRING A JUMBOTRON TELEVISION SCREEN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF KFC, TO SHOWCASE A VIDEOTAPE OF CHICKENS BEING SLAUGHTERED, UNLESS THE EXECUTIVE MET WITH PETA TO LISTEN TO THEIR DEMANDS.

ON HALLOWEEN EVE, PETA CAME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DRESSED IN A CHICKEN OUTFIT, AND HANDED OUT TRICK OR TREATS TO OUR NEIGHBORSÂ’ CHILDREN. INSTEAD OF CANDY, PETA GAVE THESE LITTLE KIDS VIDEOTAPES OF CHICKENS BEING SLAUGHTERED AND THE PACKETS OF MISINFORMATION PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. IMAGINE THE HORROR ON THESE KIDS FACES AS THEY WENT HOME AND PLAYED THESE NEW VIDEOS.

PETAÂ’S FRIEDRICH SENT ME AN E-MAIL THREATENING ME BY TELLING ME

May 18, 2004
Contact: Margarita Tapia, 202/224-5225

Statement of Chairman Orrin G. Hatch

Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on

“Animal Rights: Activism v. Criminality”

Good morning. I want to thank everyone for joining us today to examine the issue of when legitimate animal rights activism crosses over into illegal criminal acts. We have some very distinguished panelists with us today and we look forward to hearing from them.

As everyone in this room is well aware, the right to demonstrate, to protest, and to make your voice heard is as deeply imbedded in the American political fabric as is any other right that we collectively hold dear. We cannot and we will not violate that right.

However, where political activism breaches peaceful protest and dives headfirst into criminal conduct, we can, should, and will use every mechanism available to prosecute the individuals responsible. One area where it is abundantly clear that fringe activists have resorted to criminal conduct is where academic and commercial enterprises are conducting legitimate animal testing.

In recent years, some radical activist groups have gone well beyond what any reasonably minded person would consider protest. Their tactics include: vandalizing and pipe bombing research facilities; credit card fraud; threatening employees of businesses and research companies; terrorizing children of employees; and posting death threats against employees as well as employeesÂ’ names, addresses, and phone numbers on the internet.

These extremists target researchers, farmers, circuses and other lawful, productive, and beneficial organizations. There have been numerous bombings and vandalisms against farmers in my state of Utah. A mink breeders’ co-op in Murray, UT, has been attacked and fire-bombed. The farmers’ names, addresses, and phone numbers have been posted on the internet, together with complete instructions on how to build bombs, and cover up any trace of the crime. For instance, the instructions on how to make milk jug firebombs came with this caution: “Arson is a big time felony, so wear gloves and old clothes you can throw away throughout the entire process, and be very careful not to leave a single shred of evidence.” It is shocking, to say the least.

Additionally, as most of you know, I have long been devoted to health related issues. These actors target what could be life saving research. When research laboratories and university researchers are targeted and attacked, the ones who lose most are those who are living with a disease or who are watching a loved one struggling with a devastating illness. Those who target and attack peaceful organizations and individuals do not legitimately advance their cause, and promise no breakthroughs to society. Instead, they only promote a grave threat to the well being and advancement of mankind.

What is particularly disturbing about these egregious tactics is that they are not isolated instances carried out by a few persons acting alone; instead, they are part of a broad and carefully coordinated effort to threaten, terrorize and ultimately shut down lawful enterprises by systematically targeting their employees, and other persons or entities that do business with those lawful enterprises.

Our task here today is to help identify and show the line that distinguishes lawful expression and protest from criminal behavior.

Again, I appreciate everyone taking the time to be here today. We will hear from two panels of witnesses. On our first will be Mr. McGregor Scott, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and the Deputy Assistant Director for Domestic Terrorism from the FBI, Mr. John Lewis. We look forward to hearing from both of you.

On our second panel includes Mr. William Green, the General Counsel from Chiron Corporation, Mr. Jonathan Blum from Yum! Industries – the parent company of Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Dr. Stuart Zola from Emory University. We look forward to hearing from the three of you as well.

# # #