add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
GlobalRPH - Bio-terrorism/Terrorism News globalrph.com | Hatred, Terrorism and Trauma - Terrorism, Domestic And International mentalhelp.net | Orthodontist Enterprise AL Alabama : Orthodontists Enterprise Alabama AL... orthodontist-directory.co... | Beckman/Coulter AcT Hematology Analyzer, Beckman/Coulter AcT Automated... blockscientific.com |
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a United States federal law (Pub.L. 109-374; 18 U.S.C. § 43) originally introduced in the 109th Congress by Republican Thomas Petri of Wisconsin and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and James Inhofe (R-OK). The final version of the bill, S. 3880.[1], passed the United States Senate September 29, 2006 and the House of Representatives November 13, 2006. It was signed by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, on November 27, 2006. Earlier versions of the bill were known as S. 1926 and H.R. 4239.[2] The bill is described by the author as being intended to "provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror."[1] The law amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-346) and gives the U.S. Department of Justice stronger tools to respond to recent trends in the animal rights movement. The AETA broadens the definition of animal enterprise to include academic and commercial enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products. It specifically addresses the "tertiary targeting" system used by animal rights activists by prohibiting the intentional damaging of property of a person or entity having a connection to an animal enterprise. It increases existing penalties for intentionally causing a person bodily injury or intentionally placing a person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. It includes penalties based on the amount of economic damage, not including lawful boycotts. It allows animal enterprises to seek restitution. For example, under the law, a research facility could seek restitution for the cost of repeating an experiment. First Amendment activity is expressly excluded from coverage under the AETA's Rules of Construction. The law prohibits "force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises"[1] by penalizing damage or interference to animal enterprises or conspiring or attempting to damage or interfere with an animal enterprise.[1] The law does not "prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution,"[1] The House passed the bill under suspension of the rules, a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills. Six Members of Congress were present on the House Floor when the bill was passed. The lone dissenting statement was made by Representative Dennis Kucinich, who said that the bill was "written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest... people who, the law says, well, their first amendment rights are protected... I think for that reason, this bill has not yet reached its maturity."[3] However, Rep. Kucinich chose not to formally object to the bill under House legislative procedural rules, and left the floor immediately after his statement without voting "nay", thereby allowing the bill to pass. The bill was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent, a Senate procedure that is used to expedite the passage of non-controversial bills, on September 29, 2006 and was unanimously approved by the House of Representatives by a voice vote in November 13, 2006.[4][5] It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2006.
[edit] ReactionThe American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), though not opposing the final version of the bill, sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, requesting "minor changes" to the bill to address concerns that "legitimate expressive activity" which economically damages or inhibits the business of an animal enterprise, could be classified as terrorist activity. The ACLU also expressed concern that the bill could be used against those interrupting illegal animal enterprises, such as animal fighting.[6] The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals opposed the bill and "is sorry" it passed into law.[7] Animal rights activists have criticized the bill on the grounds that it does not provide explicit protection for whistleblowing and undercover investigations,[8] and complained they have been unfairly singled out. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claimed that "no other industrial sector in U.S. history has ever been given such legal protections against people's exercising of their First Amendment free-speech rights.
According to PETA, this bill is an attempt by corporations to manipulate people's fear of terrorism in an effort to stop the peaceful animal protection movement".[8] The Humane Society of the United States believes the law's language is overly broad and vague, the current law is satisfactory, and that the AETA could be interpreted to protect unlawful animal enterprises.[10] Alliance for Animals director Lori Nitzel suggested "it heavily criminalizes civil disobedience, and just for animal rights activists."[11] However, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, suggested the bill would have little impact on the movement because underground activists "don't really care about those laws" and law enforcement agencies had already "gone after" effective above-ground activists.[12] The American Kennel Club endorsed the bill, because it contains "explicit language" which protects the right of protesters to engage in "peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration."[13] Frankie Trull, president of the National Association for Biomedical Research described as "just silly" fears that peaceful protest would be criminalized by the bill, stating it would only apply when protesters "harass someone to the extent that they fear for their safety."[11] The bill was supported by the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, a coalition consisting of major colleges and universities, non-profit organizations and pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche and Wyeth among its members,[citation needed] leading the activist group Win Animal Rights to suggest it was "bought and paid for, by the pharmaceutical industry"[citation needed] [edit] References
[edit] See also[edit] External links
| |||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
