Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Monday July 27 2015, @10:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.

I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html

But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.

More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:

The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.

The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."

I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:57PM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:57PM (#214819) Journal

    Are you saying that whether or not "scaring and threatening people with violence because of their job/religion/skin color/sexual preference/whatever else someone didn't agree with" should be labelled "terrorism" depends on the number of people involved?

    I could disagree with that on semantic grounds [reference.com], but I won't.
    I will disagree with that on moral grounds instead.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2