Question. Are anti-terrorism laws meant to protect the public - or to protect corporate profits?

Well...looking at how the FBI is targeting animal rights activists - it appears anti-terror laws are being used in some cases strictly to protect corporate profits - at the expense of the public.

A recent Freedom of Information Act request uncovered an FBI file that identifies animal rights activists who snuck into factory farms and videotaped the horrific conditions the animals are kept in - as terrorists.

That's right - those who make videotapes like THESE - and distribute them to the public are on par with people like Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers according to the FBI.

Why? Because the FBI argues that actions like these do "economic damage" to farm factories.

And under a controversial law passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by President Bush in 2006 known as the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" - YOU can be brought up on charges of terrorism if YOU economically damage factories farms by vandalizing property - interrupting or invalidating experiments - or just simply costing a factory farm "profits".

And since videos depicting animals being tortured before they're slaughtered - and videos depicting unsanitary factories - may cause people to not buy from that particular factory - then the FBI says that these activists disrupted profits and thus are terrorists.

As the FBI file reads - these activists are:

Key leaders of [redacted] who direct activities which disrupt the normal business and cause economic loss to local establishments...there is a reasonable indication that [redacted] and other members of [redacted] have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act...

Here's the best part - that law that the FBI is referencing - the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - which Republicans rushed through Congress - guess who was behind it?

The American Legislative Exchange Council - or ALEC - the shadowy right-wing organization that writes custom-made legislation for corporate lapdog politicians.

Joining in the lobbying effort were lobbyists from Pharmaceutical corporations who love to test their drugs on animals - alongside lobbyists from groups like the Fur Commission USA and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association - all made sure that this legislation was passed.

Not because they were afraid activists would blow up their factories - but because they didn't want activists exposing what was really going on behind closed doors.

Back in 2006 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich knew that this law would be abused - and he went on to the House floor and said this:

There are some specific principles with respect to humane treatment of animals and my concern about this bill is that it could have a chilling effect on people who the law says, well, their first amendment rights are protected. But the law also is written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional right to protest. ...

I understand the intent here but I just think that you've got to be very careful about painting everyone with the broad brush of terrorism who might have a legitimate objection to a type of research or treatment of animals that is not humane.

Unfortunately - his colleagues didn't listen.

And today - it looks like these animal-abusing corporations have succeeded now that patriotic activists - who are well within their First Amendment rights to engage in protests, boycotts, and whistle-blowing - are being treated like and identified as terrorists.

But others are fighting back.

This week - the Center for Constitutional Rights announced it is working on a case arguing that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act itself is unconstitutional.

CCR writes in a statement:

The AETA is an unconstitutional law because it criminalizes a broad swath of protected First Amendment activities and is so unclear as to fail to give people notice of whether or not their conduct is lawful.

The Fourteenth Richest Man In America, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, showed the generation coming up in America right now how the power of the state can be used against people protesting corporate crimes - in that case the crimes of the banksters on Wall Street.

My generation saw that power when the military industrial complex had us gassed, arrested, and even shot and killed at Kent State protesting the War in Vietnam.

For Congress to create a category of crime called "terrorism" for which the normal rules of the constitution and law don't apply - from surveillance to detention to prosecution - is wrong on its face.

It's also unconstitutional.

And to extend that "terrorism" label to people who are hurting the profits of one particular category of industry - in this case the industries that use animals for food, fur, and research - is unconstitutional in the extreme.

Most Americans - and even most activists don't know so much about this - and many don't even think it's such a big deal.

But just wait until Congress passes the "Bankster Enterprise Terrorism Act" - which ALEC is likely working on as we speak - and you discover that if you encourage people to take their money out of a particular bank you're a terrorist and find yourself in Guantanamo.

Think it couldn't happen?

Animal rights activists didn't think the meat industry could buy enough members of congress to label them terrorists.

But it happened.

And if you're working to out the crimes of our banksters, you could be next.

That's The Big Picture.