ACTION ALERT: Help Stop Damaging NM "Terrorism" Measure

Guest Blog from Anne Kass:
Everyone who is protective of civil liberties should be very concerned about the implications of HB 653, Prohibit Terrorism. Please contact NM Rep. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), who is sponsoring this "bill opposing terrorism" (Office 986-4248, Home 532-1145, email jeff.steinborn@nmlegis.gov), as well as Attorney General Gary King and FAIR BlogGov. Bill Richardson, both of whom are also supporting it according to an Albuquerque Journal article, and express your opposition to the bill's misguided focus.

According to the Journal, the bill makes it a felony to commit an act of terrorism. No problem there. However, the bill goes on to define terrorism to include any act or threat of violence intended to, "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or government and causing more than $20,000 in property damage. We must convince Rep. Steinborn to remove all references to property damage, in general, and any specific dollar figure, in particular. Including property damage in the definition of terrorism is an arrow at the heart of civil protest. It is a corporate sponsored undertaking which corporations already got through the Federal Congress.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico has announced plans to oppose the bill:

"This is an unfortunate attempt to re-create the Patriot Act in New Mexico," said Peter Simonson, referring to federal law passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "What this law would do is create an overly broad definition of terrorism that could easily be used to criminalize acts of civil disobedience and even non-violent protests."

He specifically pointed to language that would allow prosecution for a "threat of violence" that reasonably could be considered dangerous. That threshold could prevent protests similar to anti-World Trade Organization protests that occurred in Seattle in 1999, when protesters tore down barricades.

Let me tell you how the federal law works.

A few months ago I watched a news report about a group of animal rights activists who had seen actual video footage of horrible animal abuse being inflicted upon laboratory dogs by the employees of an animal research laboratory. The lab technicians shook beagles until their necks snapped and threw them to the floor for resisting whatever experimental protocol was being inflicted on them. It motivated people to organize to picket the accounting firm that did the laboratory's books. Apparently research had shown that the accounting firm might be sympathetic to abused animals.

It was a peaceful protest, and it worked. The accounting firm quit doing the laboratory's books. The laboratory then persuaded a Republican U.S. Attorney to charge the protestors with terrorism because they had intimidated or coerced (picketed) a civilian population (the accounting firm) and caused more than $10,000 worth of INTELLECTUAL property damage. (The laboratory claimed it cost them more than $10,000 to find and educate a replacement accounting firm, and $10,000 is the specific figure in the federal law.)

The protestors were convicted. I watched one young man interviewed just as he was about to begin his three year federal prison sentence.

I'm not making this up.

What Needs to be Done
Not only must Representative Steinborn remove the property damage language from his bill, but he should insert language that expressly excludes at least "intellectual property damage," expressly states that the bill isn't aimed at the economic damage that may result from peaceful protest (for example boycotting a product) and that further expressly protects peaceful protest in all its forms.

This is important. Please contact your own Representative and Senator as well, and stay on top of them until you get a commitment that in New Mexico corporations do not control ALL of our legislature. The bill will be heard first by the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, followed by the House Judiciary Committee.

Clearly, under current state law, acts of violence are already criminal offenses, as is vandalism. This bill may in fact need to be defeated, not just modified. Its intent is to impose far greater penalties on political activists than it would impose on others guilty of similar offenses.

Editor's Note: This is a Guest Blog by Anne Kass. If you'd like to submit a post for consideration as a Guest Blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand corner of this page.