Statement
of
John E. Lewis
Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism
Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public
Works
October 26, 2005
Good morning Chairman Inhofe, ranking member
Jeffords, and members of the committee. I am
pleased to be here again to discuss the threat
posed by animal rights activists, and by the
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or the SHAC
movement, in particular.
I am here today to speak to you about how
members of the animal rights extremist movement
advance their cause by using so-called direct
action against individuals or companies. “Direct
action” is criminal activity designed
to cause economic loss or to destroy property
or operations. I see disturbing signs of success
in what they are doing, and legitimate business
is suffering. I will also touch on the limitations
of existing statutes.
It is critical to recognize the distinctions
between constitutionally protected advocacy
and violent, criminal activity. It is one thing
to write concerned letters or hold peaceful
demonstrations. It is another thing entirely
to construct and use improvised explosive or
incendiary devices, to harass and intimidate
innocent victims by damaging or destroying
property, or other threatening acts. Law enforcement
should only be concerned with those individuals
who pursue their animal rights agenda through
force, violence, or criminal activity. Unfortunately,
the FBI sees a significant amount of such criminal
activity across our investigations.
Let me begin with a brief overview of the
domestic terrorism threats that come from special
interest extremist movements such as the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) and the SHAC campaign.
Members of these movements aim to resolve their
issues by using criminal “direct action” against
individuals or companies believed to be exploiting
or abusing animals, as well as other companies
believed to be doing business with the target
of their direct actions.
The extremists’ efforts have broadened
to include a multi-national campaign of harassment,
intimidation, and coercion against animal testing
companies and any companies or individuals
doing business with those targeted companies.
This secondary or tertiary targeting of companies
that have business or financial relationships
with the principal target generally takes the
form of fanatical harassment of employees and
interference with normal business operations,
using the threat of escalating tactics or violence.
The best example of this trend is the SHAC
campaign. Since its inception in 1999, SHAC
has conducted a relentless campaign of terror
and intimidation specifically targeting Huntingdon
Life Sciences, an animal research laboratory.
SHAC’s overriding goal is to put HLS
out of business, by whatever means necessary—even
by violent means.
SHAC has targeted not just HLS, but companies
that are affiliated with it. SHAC’s website
publishes lists of these companies, ranging
from pharmaceutical companies to builders to
investors. SHAC has used a variety of tactics
to harass and intimidate these affiliate companies,
their employees, and family members, including
bombings, death threats, vandalism, office
invasions, phone blockades, and denial-of-service
attacks on their computer systems.
Unfortunately, this strategy has been quite
effective. Over 100 companies—many of
them in the U.S.—have severed ties with
HLS, including Aetna Insurance, Citibank, Deloitte & Touche,
Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. SHAC’s
current target list includes GlaxoSmithKline,
Roche, Novartis, UPS, and multiple financial
institutional investors. SHAC has targeted
not only the facilities of these companies,
but also their employees and family members.
However, when these companies or individuals
are threatened or attacked, it is not necessarily
the work of SHAC itself. There may be overlap
in membership in extremist movements, which
can make it difficult to identify the actual
perpetrators. Also, in the past 18 months,
a number of SHAC splinter groups have been
created, which use SHAC tactics and focus on
SHAC targets. This is most likely an attempt
by animal rights extremists to continue the
SHAC campaign while appearing to distance themselves
from the SHAC organization. However, while
the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself
merely as an information service or media outlet,
it is closely aligned with these groups, as
well as with the Animal Liberation Front. Many
of the ALF’s criminal activities are
directed against companies and individuals
selected as targets by SHAC and posted on SHAC’s
website.
Let me give you several examples. In August
2003, two improvised explosive devices detonated
at the Chiron Corp. A month later, an improvised
explosive device wrapped in nails exploded
at the headquarters of the Shaklee Corp. in
California. The companies were targeted because
they have ties to HLS. The previously unknown “Revolutionary
Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade” claimed
responsibility via an anonymous communiqué,
which stated: “We gave all of the customers
the chance, the choice, to withdraw their business
from HLS. Now you will reap what you have sown.
All customers and their families are considered
legitimate target ... no more will all the
killing be done by the oppressors, now the
oppressed will strike back.” Following
this attack, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism
Task Force in San Francisco identified and
charged known activist Daniel San Diego in
connection with the bombings. He is currently
a fugitive from justice.
In another example, last month an incendiary
device was left on the front porch of a senior
executive at GlaxoSmithKline in England. The
executive was not home when the bomb detonated,
but his wife and daughter were inside. Fortunately,
no one was hurt. GlaxoSmithKline is one of
SHAC’s main targets, yet it was the ALF
that claimed responsibility for the attack.
In a message posted on the Internet, activists
wrote: “We realize that this may not
be enough to make you stop using HLS but this
is just the beginning. We have identified and
tracked down many of your senior executives
and also junior staff, as well as those from
other HLS customers. Drop HLS or you will face
the consequences.”
That same week, British newspapers reported
that a chain of children’s nursery schools
had become a target of SHAC. Leapfrog Day Nurseries,
a major provider of childcare in Great Britain,
had a program that offered childcare vouchers
to HLS employees. A spokesman announced that
Leapfrog Nurseries had received letters from
animal rights activists threatening physical
force. One news account quoted a letter as
saying: “Not only you but your family
is a target. Sever your links with HLS within
two weeks or get ready for your life and the
lives of those you love to become a living
hell.” In order to ensure the safety
of the children and their employees, Leapfrog
Nurseries cut ties with HLS. Again, an extremist
group other than SHAC is believed to be responsible
for the victory—but by extension, it
is also a victory for the SHAC campaign.
And most recently, last month Carr Securities
began marketing the Huntingdon Life Sciences
stock. The next day, the Manhasset Bay Yacht
Club, to which certain Carr executives reportedly
belong, was vandalized by animal rights activists.
The extremists sent a claim of responsibility
to the SHAC website, and three days after the
incident, Carr terminated its business relationship
with HLS. These are just some of the examples
of SHAC’s use of threats and violence
to financially strangle HLS and permanently
mar its public image.
These examples demonstrate some of the difficulties
law enforcement faces in combating acts of
extremism and domestic terrorism. Extremists
are very knowledgeable about the letter of
the law and the limits of law enforcement.
The SHAC website has a page devoted to instructing
activists on how to behave toward law enforcement
officers, how to deal with interrogations,
and what to say—and not say—if
they are arrested.
Extremists also adhere to strict security
measures in both their communications and their
operations. The SHAC website advises activists
to “NEVER discuss illegal activity indoors,
over the phone, or email ... keep the discussion
of illegal activity on a need to know basis
only. This means working only with people you
know and trust and discussing your action with
the people you are carrying it out with and
no one else.”
Despite the challenges posed by the cellular,
autonomous nature of extremists and their high
operational security, the FBI and its law enforcement
partners have worked steadily to investigate
and deter extremist activity. Our job is to
protect all citizens from crime and terrorism,
whether international or domestic in origin.
We now have 103 Joint Terrorism Task Forces
nationwide, which investigate and protect our
communities from domestic and international
terrorists. We have used a wide variety of
techniques to investigate criminal activity
conducted by SHAC, and have collected vital
intelligence and evidence. And we are making
progress.
In one example of a recent success, last
May the FBI helped secure criminal indictments
in New Jersey against the SHAC organization
and seven of its national leaders, charging
them with Animal Enterprise Terrorism, Conspiracy,
and Interstate Stalking. They are known among
animal rights activists as the “SHAC
7.” Last September, a federal grand jury
returned a superseding indictment against the
SHAC 7, charging them with Harassing Interstate
Communications because of the posting of “target” information
on the SHAC website, which continues to result
in vandalism, harassment and intimidation of
victim companies and their employees. Their
trial is set for February 2006.
But despite successes such as this, the FBI’s
efforts to target these movements in order
to prevent and disrupt criminal activity have
been hindered by a lack of applicable federal
criminal statutes. This is particularly frustrating
as we attempt to dismantle organized, multi-state
campaigns of intimidation, vandalism, threats
and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate
interstate commerce, as exhibited by SHAC.
While it is a relatively simple matter to prosecute
extremists who have committed arson or detonated
explosive devices, under existing federal statutes
it is difficult, if not impossible, to address
a campaign of low-level criminal activity like
that of SHAC.
In order to address SHAC’s crusade
to shut down legitimate business enterprises
through direct action, the FBI initiated a
coordinated investigative approach, beginning
in 2001. FBI field offices that had experienced
SHAC activity worked closely with U.S. attorneys’ offices,
the Justice Department, and FBI Headquarters
to explore strategies for investigation and
prosecution.
First, we examined the idea of using the
existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute,
as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 43, which
provides a framework for prosecuting individuals
involved in animal rights extremism. In practice,
however, the statute does not cover many of
the criminal activities SHAC routinely engages
in on its mission to shut down HLS. The current
version of section 43 only applies when there
is “physical disruption” to the
functioning of an animal enterprise that results
in damage or loss of property. But, as you
have heard me describe, HLS has been economically
harmed by threats and coercion that did not
ultimately cause property damage.
For example, in 2004, SHAC targeted Seaboard
Securities, a company that provided financial
services to HLS. SHAC posted the phone numbers
and addresses for Seaboard Securities’ offices
on its website and also provided detailed recommendations
on how to harass the company. The SHAC campaign
against Seaboard included phone blockades,
office invasions and damage to property belonging
to Seaboard Securities and its employees. In
the wake of this pressure, Seaboard Securities
severed its relationship with HLS in January
2005.
Much of this activity cannot be prosecuted
under 18 U.S.C. § 43, nor are there other
federal criminal statutes that provide effective
prosecutorial remedies. Moreover, even when
section 43 does apply, the current penalty
of up to three years in prison has failed to
deter a tremendous amount of criminal conduct.
The activities of SHAC frequently fall outside
the scope of the statute, and because members
are well-versed in the limits of the statute,
they have tended to engage in conduct that,
while criminal, would not result in a significant
federal prosecution.
As we continued to examine these legislative
challenges, another option we considered was
prosecution under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951).
Under this legal theory, prosecution was based
on the premise that the subjects were engaged
in an extortion scheme against companies engaged
in, or doing business with, animal-based research.
Victims were subjected to criminal acts such
as vandalism, arson, property damage, physical
attacks, or the fear of such attacks, until
they discontinued their research or terminated
their association with or investment in animal-based
research companies such as HLS.
However, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision
in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women
removed the Hobbs Act as an option. The decision
states that such conduct by activists does
not constitute extortion as defined under the
Hobbs Act unless the activists seek to obtain
or convert the victims’ property for
their own use.
The FBI would support changes to the statutes
that will address the issue of secondary and
tertiary targeting by organizations like SHAC.
We will continue to work with our Department
of Justice colleagues and the Congress to refine
and amend existing statutes so that we may
have more effective tools to address this growing
crime problem.
Investigating and preventing animal rights
extremism is one of the FBI’s highest
domestic terrorism priorities. We are committed
to working with our partners to disrupt and
dismantle these movements, to protect our fellow
citizens, and to bring to justice those who
commit crime and terrorism in the name of animal
rights.
Chairman Inhofe and members of the committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
challenges we face in this area of our work.
I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
