Brian.Carnell.Com

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 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.

# # # # #