![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pseudoname on March 5, 2006, at 15:42:44
[Of interest to Babblers, since mental health scientists use tons (literally tons) of rats, mice, non-human primates, and other animals researching behavioral, drug, surgical, electrical, and other interventions.]
An animal rights group and six of its members were convicted of terrorism and Internet stalking yesterday by a federal jury that found them guilty of using their Web site to incite attacks on those who did business with or worked for a British company that runs an animal testing laboratory in New Jersey.
The case was the first test of the Animal Enterprise Terror Act, enacted in 1992 to curb the most aggressive tactics used by activists. The verdict, which came after 14 hours of deliberation, was called an insidious threat to free speech by some activists, but was cheered by research scientists, some of whom are lobbying Congress to tighten restrictions on protesters.
During the three-week trial, defense lawyers acknowledged that a Web site run by Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty posted home addresses and other personal information about animal researchers and others. But the activists said they were simply trying to shame their targets into dissociating themselves from the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, and they disavowed any involvement with the vandalism, death threats, computer hacking and pipe bombs against those on the Web site.
Although federal prosecutors presented no evidence that the defendants directly participated in the vandalism and violence, they showed jurors that members of the group made speeches and Web postings from 2000 to 2004 that celebrated the violence and repeatedly used the word "we" to claim credit for it.
Prosecutors also produced telephone records indicating that the president of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Kevin Kjonaas, called a man charged with bombing a California biotech lab shortly after the explosion.
Jurors were also shown a videotape of the group's director, Lauren Gazzola, at a protest in Boston, making reference to the previous acts of violence and warning a target, "The police can't protect you!"
The defendants showed little emotion as the jury foreman announced that they had been found guilty on all counts, but after jurors left the room, Ms. Gazzola wept and Mr. Kjonaas turned to the 20 supporters in the courtroom and offered a wan smile and a shrug.
They face prison terms of up to 23 years, but are likely to serve no more than 7 under federal sentencing guidelines, according to Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office.
Pam Ferdin, who became president of the group after Mr. Kjonaas was indicted, called the verdict an insidious curb on free speech and said she was "ashamed of the jury."
"Anyone who writes anything on an e-mail or on a Web site is being treated like we're in a fascist state," said Ms. Ferdin, a former child star who played Felix Unger's daughter on "The Odd Couple" and was the voice of Lucy in the "Peanuts" cartoons. "Our forefathers fought for the right to fee speech."
But the prosecutor, Charles B. McKenna, praised the decision, saying that jurors had correctly found that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is likely to incite violence.
Although Ms. Ferdin said that the verdict would most likely lead the group to disband, the group's campaign has succeeded in causing substantial economic damage to Huntingdon, where, the group claims, 500 animals a day are killed and dissected as part of drug and cosmetic research. By concentrating on a wide range of people who invest in, and do business with, Huntingdon, the campaign led many companies to sever their ties with the lab, including insurance companies like Aetna and Marsh and major financial institutions including Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America.
One group of researchers, Americans for Medical Progress, warned that the verdict would lead to more violence and called on federal lawmakers to strengthen the laws against animal rights extremists.
"We've seen a dramatic rise in the number of criminal actions against research over the past five years," said Dr. John Young, a veterinarian who is chairman of the research organization. "There's no doubt today's guilty verdicts will provoke still more acts of harassment, intimidation and violence. That is terrorism, and it must be stopped."
Ms. Ferdin vowed that the campaign against animal testing would continue, despite the verdict against her group.
• “Six Animal Rights Advocates Are Convicted of Terrorism” by David Kocieniewski, New York Times, March 3, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/nyregion/03animals.html
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 20:38:00
In reply to animal lab terrorists convicted, posted by pseudoname on March 5, 2006, at 15:42:44
I don't know... I don't think that activism and terrorism are quite the same thing. I didn't read where any people had died, and I understand how strongly these people feel against vivisection.
Many animals still suffer for no good reason. Testing still goes on to prove that nicotine is actually dangerous, and that other toxic substances are still toxic. Another thing that angers many is that after expirementation, even healthy animals are destroyed.
I think that a great deal of expirements are pointless and useless. I don't like the idea that healthy animals are destroyed after expirementation.
On the other hand, there are times when expirements on live subjects are necessary. Some things can't be learned with models or computer simulation.
Maybe the furor would subside some if only necessary expirementation were to take place on the minimum subjects required to gather the appropriate data. If we show that a chemical kills 99 out of 100 animals, do we really need to show that it will kill 990 out of 1,000? or 9,900 out of 10,000?
I'm not a researcher. I don't know what's necessary, responsible, or prudent. But I don't like the idea of needless suffering and death either. If it's really necessary, maybe some of the questions should be answered. Why do we need to know that nicotine is still deadly? If some of the expirements with Splenda showed it was dangerous, why is it still on the market? If, after expirementation, animals are still healthy, why are they destroyed? Couldn't some of them be adopted as are greyhounds? Or are they too wild? Why can't they be used for other expirements? What assurance do we have that these animals do have a humane life?
Some of the footage that SHAC has obtained was quite disturbing. I'll grant that it was probably obtained illegally, and that they only post the worst of the cases they find, but it's still disturbing.
I guess I just don't know. I don't think what the people of SHAC did rises to the level of terrorism. If it does, then those found burining down churches ought to be jailed for terrorism as well.
Inciting violence? perhaps. Stalking? I don't know. Maybe. They did publish names and addresses. Terrorism? I think this country is going too far. I remember a small town in Maine, and every time McDonalds tried to build, they burned it down. They were protecting the local restaurant, thinking that McD's would put it out of business. By current law, it seems that's terrorism. The government is putting concerned but agressive people, perhaps causing damage to facilities, in the same category as those who would kill hundreds or thousands of people to make a point.
To me, it's not the same thing. The word terrorist raises the blood pressure of the public, and maybe that's the way to gain public support. Most of the public isn't going to research and find out what these people actually did, they're just going to be happy to see another "terrorist" in jail.
I guess I've got a lot of thinking to do. If I was doing something that that many people didn't like, I probably wouldn't want my name and address on an activist web site either.
Lots of questions I have...
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 21:21:39
In reply to Re: animal lab terrorists convicted, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 20:38:00
I didn't post the URL for SHAC. If you want to find it, it's not hard to find. The American site has been shut down, of course. The UK site is still up.
If you do decide to visit it, you might want to be aware that you are visiting the web site of a now "known terrorist organization". I wouldn't be surprised if my IP address and possibly name and home address are sitting in a Homeland Security database just because I spent some time there.
Just something to be aware of if you want to check it out for yourself.
--Dee
Posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 12:00:57
In reply to Re: animal lab terrorists convicted, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 20:38:00
Hey, Dee, I’m glad you commented on this.
I can give partial answers to some of your questions, based on personal experience and some reading:
> What assurance do we have that these animals do have a humane life?
• All of the U.S. labs fall under state regulations and inspectors.
• To get accreditation, university labs also have to have meet association standards and submit to inspections.
• I just read that the USDA also has inspectors for some labs, but I'm guessing they would mostly respond to complaints.
• U.S. universities also under federal law must have animal care & use committees, including people from outside the department, who are supposed to oversee living conditions and experiments.Researchers usually need their animals to be as unstressed as possible because otherwise they can throw off the experiment. The scientists I mentioned in the other thread a couple weeks ago are upset that people seem more upset by research animals than by animals raised for food. They consider this an indefensible double standard. They say living conditions for lab animals are *SO* much better than they are for the billions of animals grown & kept for food. Even the stresses in experimental conditions are dramatically less than the day-to-day (much less end-of-life) stresses for factory-farmed chickens, pigs, and cows.
Lab animals also generally have it better in many ways than wild animals. For example, the standard amount of food a lab animal gets is enough to maintain the animal at 80% of its free-feeding weight. Animals in the wild aren't likely to attain, much less maintain, such a weight. Animals in labs live longer, physically healthier lives than wild ones, free of virtually all typical wild terrors and afflictions.
> If, after expirementation, animals are still healthy, why are they destroyed? … Why can't they be used for other expirements?
At least in psychology experiments when drugs are not involved, animals often are re-used. But drug experiments usually (not always) need fresh animals that haven't been contaminated by previous drugs; otherwise, someone could always say the result of this experiment was really due to the PREVIOUS experiment's drugs.
> Couldn't some of them be adopted as are greyhounds?
I've seen on TV a few sanctuaries for long-lived (and very expensive) animals like primates. I knew a few people at university who adopted the rat they used in class (thus saving its life). But I think the sheer number (hundreds of thousands) of rats & cats & so on left over every year after experiments would make significant adoption impossible.
Someone could ask of course, “Why doesn't anyone adopt the BILLIONS of cows, chickens, and pigs that are raised in terrible conditions for food we absolutely don't need?” The scientists I mentioned in that other thread were very upset about this double standard.
I don't know if I've said anything worth reading, and these answers would not satisfy animal activists who believe NO live animals should ever be used in most experiments. I think it's pretty easy to argue that no animal lab experiments are “really necessary”, since humans survived for thousands of years without them.
Posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 12:51:17
In reply to Re: animal lab terrorists convicted, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 5, 2006, at 20:38:00
The American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (obviously pro-research) has a page with lots of statistics here: http://www.kids4research.org/animals.html such as:
• Twenty years ago there were 22 million animals in U.S. research.
• In 2001 a USDA survey said only 9% of animal experiments were painful.
The reference citations are apallingly vague, however.There's an FAQ page with lots of references and links here: http://www.kids4research.org/debates.html
Posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 13:26:19
In reply to interesting links, posted by pseudoname on March 7, 2006, at 12:51:17
I’m at Dr Bob’s limit for consecutive posts, so this is the last one, I promise!
There’s a sympathetic article on one of the animal activists convicted last week as “terrorists”. Even the prosecutor’s spokesman admits there’s a disconnect between the defendant and the public’s idea of a terrorist. But it also says the activists posted the “names, ages, and SCHOOL ADDRESSES of Huntingdon employees’ CHILDREN” online.
The article contains an upsetting description of the government’s physical power (and the word *ss), so beware.
• “America’s #1 Threat” by Chris Maag. Mother Jones, January/February 2006 http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2006/01/america_no1_threat.html
(I love “•”s, can you tell?) ;-)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.