Skip to comments.When Does Activism Become Terrorism?
Posted on 03/15/2002 8:48:47 AM PST by Tumbleweed_ConnectionEdited on 04/22/2004 12:32:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Should a second-year law student know better than to get mixed up with domestic terrorists, get arrested and then risk violating the terms of his bail — especially since dad is a prominent federal lawyer?
Though the term "duh" springs to mind, "just do it" seems to have been the thinking of University at Buffalo Law School student — and animal rights extremist — Bryan Pease.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Did you hear anything about this kid? His webpage is apparently empty or disabled for the moment...
While a student at Cornell University, Pease promoted a speech by an Animal Defense League member on the "historical uses of violence in liberation movements."
OK, you may have a point.
That's ironic. I hope the dog that he loves so much bit him up real good.
Pease was arrested at 1:15 a.m. while dressed in full camouflage for trespassing on Marshall Farms' property
This plus the theft and destruction of private property (what you called 'stealing puppies') is terrorism.
Ithaca is the City of Evil.
But I still can't get over it - real, live agitators! On this campus! I feel like we've graduated to the next level.
Of course, we're taking Cornell's rejects, but hey, this is SUNY -we'll take what we can get... ;)
Don't be so sure. What is the "paper of record" up North Rose way?
The Finger Lakes Times?
The Democrat & Chronicle?
Both are well known for burying information damaging to the politically or professionally connected (hell Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post actually once wrote a column about how the D&C spikes stories for pol. pals). This may be the only exposure this story gets...and politicians only really care about the local press that the local voters read.
SUNY Buffalo? I didn't know they HAD a law school.
It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
The Buffalo News -- May 27, 2001
This is in response to Donn Esmonde's recent column, "There's no accounting for outrage." His contention that people are more angry about animal abuse than human issues is incorrect. When a human is tortured or killed, there is a presumption that justice will be carried out and penalties will be severe, so people do not need to petition the district attorney's office in droves. But when people inflict horrendous cruelty on an animal, they usually get off with a slap on the wrist. People are reacting with so much anger and frustration to the donkey-torturing incident because they know that even with the maximum sentence allowable by law, justice will not be carried out.
It is telling that the burglary charge in this case carries a harsher penalty than the felony animal cruelty charge. Our government places a higher priority on property interests than on an animal. This is backward and conflicts with people's intuitive sense of justice and fairness, which is why the public is outraged. When penalties for harming an animal approach even a fraction of those for harming a human, people will calm down.
It is also no surprise that people are willing to eat and wear animals that suffer horrendous cruelty, because corporate and government interests do a very good job of hiding where our food and clothing come from. If they didn't, the same public outrage that we see in the donkey case would put animal industries out of business.
(OTHER CASES DELETED)
* Bryan Pease, 17, of Bristol -- charges of third-degree burglary and second-degree criminal mischief were not prosecuted.
Copyright 1999 Cornell Daily Sun --February 8, 1999
For at least the past five years, students at Cornell have campaigned for the use of alternatives to animal dissection in undergraduate courses. Despite promises from Cornell's animal usage committee to reexamine current policy and solicit student input, no change in policy has yet been considered. The current guidelines leave discretion to individual professors, who are "encouraged" not to force students who are opposed to harming animals to dissect them. However, professors are not compelled to offer decent alternatives for students to learn anatomy and physiology without the use of animals.
Last year, the Student Assembly unanimously passed a resolution recommending that high-quality dissection alternatives be explicitly offered to students in all classes using animals. President Rawlings has thus far largely ignored this issue, simply stating that students can just opt not to take classes which use dissection. This means students who are paying an Ivy League tuition are excluded from these courses and not given the best education Cornell can provide. Of the students who do take these classes, many probably feel ethically unsettled about taking the life of a once vibrant, aware and sentient animal. But since humane alternatives are not provided, dissection is currently the only way for these students to grasp certain principles at Cornell.
Sometimes students simply cannot avoid classes which use dissection, such as introductory biology. The few professors who teach these classes aren't very accommodating to those students who are opposed to harming animals. After years of grilling objectors for days about their ethical beliefs and sometimes bringing them to tears, Professor Carol McFadden now just tells these students not to take her class. The other option, Biology 101-104, allows students to use supplementary materials for the frog dissection, but improvements could still be made in the quality of alternatives provided. And for many of the invertebrate dissection, no models at all are offered. To this course's credit, however, the option not to dissect is now explicitly offered to students, making the experience less traumatic for those who would object.
Is anything equal or superior to dissection in learning value? Consider the fact that an animal can only be used once, but on a computer the exercise can be repeated as many times as desired and virtually anything can be done, with all organs on display, with the option to always go back and try a different route. Modern plastic and soft-tissue models are also viable options, as well as videos, charts, slides, etc.
Future surgeons will receive lessons on human cadavers in med school. It is not helpful to learn the layout of organs in a frog to operate on a human.
Innovative techniques can also be used to teach physiology. In Biology 103, students cut open freshly labotomized frogs, place them on ice and watch how fast the heart beats as a function of temperature. In contrast, students in Human Anatomy and Physiology rapidly clench and release their own hands before and after running them under cold water to see, feel and time the effects of temperature on their own muscle system. You choose which technique is better.
To voice their support for a dissection policy change, presidents of CSETA, The Greens, United Progressives, Socially Responsible Investing and both Student-Elected Trustees signed a letter to President Rawlings yesterday asking that he implement the Student Assembly's proposed policy. In the meantime, Dean of Faculty J. Robert Cooke has agreed to pass the issue on to the Academic Freedom Committee, which can then bring it to the floor of the Faculty Senate.
Hopefully this committee will recognize we are not working to dictate curriculum to professors. We want to protect students from being compelled to engage in actions which they are morally opposed to, by providing alternative ways to learn the same material.
To see this issue receive the full and immediate attention it deserves, students can write letters to President Rawlings at 300 Day Hall. To help with the campaign, come to a CSETA meeting, held every Tuesday at 8 p.m. in loft 3 of The Straight. CSETA has asked Rawlings to respond to students' concerns by Feb. 15, and we are fully confident he will be sympathetic after carefully considering the issues. We believe President Rawlings is committed to seeing Cornell provide the best education possible for its students.
In the face of such widespread and energetic student support, Cornell can no longer ignore nor set aside student's ethical beliefs. Nothing short of a policy change is needed to protect students from a hostile learning environment and animals from unnecessary pain and death. Nothing in the proposed policy infringes on the rights of professors, who should have nothing to fear of the change if they respect the rights of students.
Cornell Daily Sun -- September 21, 1998
Back in the good ol' days, political candidates took their message directly to the people. There were no high powered public relations firms and no fancy T.V. ads. It's little wonder voter turnout is presently so low, given that citizens rarely see more than glimpses of who they are voting for and only hear six second soundbites on where the candidates stand.
Last week, I was excited to find out there would be an old fashioned, fist clenching, foot stomping debate in Binghamton's Metrocenter between the candidates seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress. To make things exciting, I gathered up a few of my friends from the Animal Defense League and headed south. We intended to bring up the issue of fur trapping, which is receiving national attention as many U.S. states and other countries are banning this device due to its ethical, environmental and public safety shortcomings. The direct approach was most appealing, so we just marched in, distributed factsheets to the candidates and panelists, and unfurled large posters with gruesome pictures of skinned foxes. We stood firmly and accusingly, militantly compassionate, facing down the two biggest bigots in New York State's most backwards city. Don't try to change my mind on that last point either. I spent my summer in Binghamton directing an outreach campaign for NYPIRG, and I can definitively say that if that city is not the asshole of New York, it is definitely within farting distance.
Bigot number one was Randal Terry. When asked by one of the panelists what his stance on "gun control and animal rights" was (an ironic juxtaposition of dissimilarities as my old English teacher used to say), Terry responded that anyone should be able to walk into a store at any time, purchase the firearm of his choice, and be able to "shoot criminals dead." While saying this, he made the shape of a gun with his hand and unloaded a few rounds at my friends and me. He then went on to say "animals have the right to be eaten, worn and experimented on," which he later qualified with the statement that "people can, however, have loving relationships with dogs and cats."
Terry next turned his wrath to homosexuals, saying everything would be fine if they would just "shut up." He went on to claim that gays want access to "our children," and that "most of them are child molesters." Speaking of molesting children, Randall Terry is the guy who allegedly used to stand outside Binghamton High School with a megaphone shouting "you're all going to hell" as he shoved Bibles at the students coming out. I told you, Binghamton is a weird place and weird people come from there. That's why Rod Sterling based his Twilight Zone series on that city.
The other candidate, Douglas Drazen, had similarly outlandish things to say. When asked by a female panelist if he admired any female politicians, he responded with Madeline Albright, "because she has balls." When a member of the audience asked if he would support closing the School of the Americas, where the U.S. trains terrorists to control the civilian population of Latin America, Drazen replied, "I bet a few dictators graduated from Vestal High School over here, but you don't see people clamoring to shut that down."
What could have been Drazen's saving grace was that in order to maintain his integrity, he had not accepted a dime from special interest groups. I thought it was spectacular he had run his whole campaign on a shoestring budget funded solely by citizens, until I heard him speak that is. Now I suspect the reason he never accepted any corporate money was because no one ever offered him any.
In the end, neither Terry, nor Drazen won the nomination, although they achieved a frighteningly high percentage of the vote. The candidate who was victorious, Bud Walker, could be just as despicable as the other two and I wouldn't know it. He has remained a faceless bureaucrat throughout the campaign, hiding behind his ads and soundbites. Despite their anti-social attitudes, Terry and Drazen had the right idea in setting up an open public debate to bring democracy to the people. Unfortunately, they only managed to attract an audience of 16 (including my group of four), and the dead strip mall where they held the event had no sound system except for elevator music blaring out of a cheap speaker which they forgot to turn off.
So that's Binghamton, and that's the current state of politics, converging together in an evening of shame and sick humor. And I thought the Student Assembly was bad.
Cornell Daily Sun -- November 10, 1997
Cornell University laboratories and classrooms engaged in animal experimentation have been fiercely criticized by local animal rights activists. Protesting laboratory use of animals ranging from fruit flies to rhesus monkeys, some have even recently taken drastic action by vandalizing two research facilities. On paper, Sun columnist Bryan Pease has attempted to educate Cornellians about the "atrocities" occurring in research laboratories throughout the campus. Pease's column, The Way It Is, is a weekly look at the world through his eyes: a world of animal exploitation, senseless experimentation and the amazing menstruating chickens (as per his Sept. 10 article). From ordering a dijon burger to participating in classroom experimentation, Cornellians face situations where they must make difficult decisions based on practicality, personal ideals and moral judgment. These decisions should be influenced by truth, not assumption, speculation or ignorance. Those presenting their opinions and their perception of the facts need to be educated, not just sound educated (i.e. primates menstruate, chickens do not). As a physiology major having taken the classes vehemently criticized by Pease and the animal rights movement on campus for their dissection policies (BioG 105-106; BioAP 319), I feel sufficiently qualified to present my thoughts on the subject. When I was nine, my body was attacked by the bacteria streptococcus. It resisted my natural defense mechanisms and was harbored by the base of my trachea. It hurt when I swallowed. I was hot. My body ached. Soon the unopposed bacteria would monopolize my chest cavity and inflame the valves of my heart. Within weeks, I would be dead. But why am I complaining? I shouldn't have been born in the first place. My mother was infected by the same type of bacteria 30 years earlier and should have died as well. Except that in 1945, three scientists exposing laboratory mice to the streptococci bacteria developed penicillin and my mother and I are alive as a result. Think about it. How many of you would have died in early childhood if it were not for those mice? Who would have never existed at all due to the loss of a parent? Look around. Would you be around to tell us the way it is,
In January of last year, the animal rights group "Band of Mercy" broke into the Cornell Poultry Virus Isolation Facility and destroyed several research projects. In September, the same organization claimed responsibility for the break-in and theft of research at the Large Animal Testing and Research Unit. Now that they have graduate student Jennifer Ketzis' research, the Band of Mercy can read about her effort to treat parasitically infected goats with herbal remedies. Now, why would an "animal rights" group ransack a laboratory doing research so overwhelmingly beneficial to the welfare of animals? I can only think of the following scenario.
The Band of Mercy clad in black jumpsuits and ski masks are in a black van outside the Large Animal Research Unit on a warm September evening."Flashlight?" "Check." "Crowbar?" "Check." "Wire Cutters?" "Check." "Oh, and who found out what kind of research goes on in there anyway?" Silence.
We live in a world where cosmetic companies perform truly needless and redundant animal experiments; fur traders club baby harp seals for their white coats; and beluga whales, ridden with factory toxins, drift to the shores of the St. Lawrence. How can the atrocities occurring globally not be a higher priority for these so-called "animal activists?"
They are simply missing the point. A candlelight vigil was held last year to protest a rabbit dissection being performed voluntarily by students (including myself) training to be doctors and veterinarians. None of us wanted to kill a rabbit, but everyone who participated unanimously agreed on the necessity and educational benefits of such an experiment. What medical or veterinary student wants to pay $ 20,000 a year only to find out that they run to the nearest toilet upon seeing the internal workings of a mammal for the first time? Do you want someone operating on you who has only learned from models and computer simulations?
Similarly, Pease and five other students held another candlelight vigil at the home of Cornell researcher Dr. Peter Nathanielsz last month to protest his use of sheep and rhesus monkeys in the study of fetal development. It is Dr. Nathanielsz who has worked on the role of folic acid in the prevention of birth defects, the effects of in utero malnutrition later in life and is currently working on a nonintrusive method to detect and eventually prevent premature labor. One of the protesters at Dr. Nathanielsz's home asked that night, "Why can't we just accept our own mortality?" One day those six protesters may have children. What if one of them is born during the sixth month, without the use of its lungs, without full development of its liver or brain and -- if it were not for the research obtained from animal experimentation -- without a chance in hell to live? Would they be willing to accept their child's mortality? Or would they pray for the life of their child and thank God for Peter
Nathanielsz? Imagine this. I emerge from the operating room, my surgical scrubs soaked in blood. A golden retriever puppy had eaten one of those annoying squeaky toys and it lodged in his colon. It was a simple procedure. I could not have asked for an easier way to begin my veterinary career. Cut here, blunt dissect there, right by the book, just like the model. But the models didn't contract, glisten, pulsate and bleed. I had no idea what live tissue looked or felt like. Even the computer simulations and demonstrations could not prepare me for my first surgery. As I removed my scrubs and scrutinized my failed surgery, I was approached by a small boy. He saw the blood on my hands and the failure on my face, and a tear ran down his cheek. "Sorry about your dog, kid, but that's the way it is."
Bryan Pease, Ithaca resident and Director of Ithaca Coalition for Animal Defense, spoke in opposition to the woodchuck killing contest that is to be held on August 7 and 8 at the Seabring Inn in Newfield. Mr. Pease said he feels it is cruel and unjust for any type of killing contests to be held and asked that the Board support a resolution opposing these contests as well.
From Enviroweb On Terrorism
by Jesse Alt
During the last two years, the Cornell Coalition for Animal Defense (CCAD) has
come under attack for the group's tactics. Many of these attacks amount to absurd
accusations, backed by nary a shred of supporting evidence. Notable among these was
Martha Lyons September 9, 1999 testimony in Ithaca City Court that she consider[s]
Bryan Pease a terrorist. Ms. Lyon, of course, did not provide examples of actions that
Pease had carried out which could be equated with terrorism. In fact, she gave no
justification at all for this serious accusation, and to be fair, none was expected. After
all, evidence and arguments are optional when trying to whip up anti-terrorist hysteria.
More important are sensational claims about the danger posed by alleged terrorists, and
sufficient exaggerations of their willingness to pay any cost for victory.
This fact was clearly demonstrated during the closing weeks of 1999, when a terrorism
advisory was issued by the government warning of possible attacks on American
citizens. Following this alert, the major media outlets cranked out feature stories about
terrorism, most of them divorced from reality and contradicting the data available on the
subject. A December 22 report by NPR focused on a new breed of terrorist, the religious
terrorist, which is far more dangerous than traditional, political terrorists (Barbara
Bradley, All Things Considered). As media analyst Ali Abunimah points out in his letter
to NPR of December 23 regarding this program, these assertions simply do not bear
close scrutiny. In fact, they contradict the State Department's report Patterns of Global
Terrorism 1998, which establishes that most of the international terrorist attacks carried
out in 1998 were related to regional political conflicts (Facts and Myths About
Terrorism, www.abunimah.org ).
If public discourse about terrorism is not intended to uncover truths about the
nature of this problem, what purpose does it serve? An indication is given by a few
examples of propaganda on terrorism. The first is the war that Russia is currently
waging on Chechnya, which has been accompanied by a Russian media campaign against
Chechen terrorists. The aim of this campaign was straightforward: to win support for a
military assault on Chechnya. A second example comes from the US bombing, in August
1998, of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. This attack was justified by the State
Department (and the major media repeated the justification) as an assault on a plant that
was producing paraphernalia for terrorists.
In both cases mentioned above, the excuse of defense against terrorism was
enough to prevent public disapproval from swelling up too much. And, months later,
when the US media broke the story that the Sudan plant was indeed producing
medicine for that country, it made little impact. When the subject of terrorism is
introduced, it creates enough fear to smooth over any inconsistencies in the official line.
At Cornell, the pattern established above fits to a certain degree. When Pease's
trial began, other student groups had begun to raise questions about the University's
handling of CCAD protests. In the fall of 1998, when Cornell had animal rights activists
arrested and tried in city court for relatively minor disturbances, student groups expressed
support for the activists and outrage at the University's actions. But when the tactic of
terrorist-baiting was used, the debate over the controversial tactics of animal rights
activists began, and that support dissapated. Concerns about the force used to maintain
orderthe CUPD hauling away people who were merely holding signs were
supplanted by a fear of the people that force was used on. This is similar to the tactics
used to suppress outrage over the Sudan bombing. In both instances, a justification for the
use of force against terrorists was produced to divert criticism of that force.
How the hell did this guy ever get into law school, and how did he ever expect to get past the bar's character investigaiton?
A few months later, it was time to spay her. So we took her back to Cornell.
To make a long story short, the vet students botched the surgery. The cat lived but it took her approx 3x normal to heal, and we ended up taking the cat to our dog's vet, who was herself a Cornell graduate.
The vet told us that Cornell was now having a real problem training its students because of the animal rights movement and so, instead of getting as much practice as they used to get on "lab" animals, the students more or less went right to work on people's pets.
With predictable results.
Ithaca is the City of Evil.
Connections, my friend. Remember Geraldine Ferraro's son who had a couple of felony drug charges? Not only did he get through law and and character investigation but he got a job working in the Manhatten D.A.'s office.
Why, certainly they do. And as the US News rankings (charitably, IMO) put it, it is a "second tier" school - guess I was a little hard on them describing it as third-tier ;)
I confess - I'm sitting for the LSAT in a few months, but SUNY-Buffalo is not on my short or long list of possibilities...
Imagine yourself laying on the ground and a crowd of people standing around you, kicking the S**t out of you.
its called assault. war on terror/ new laws or not its already illegal.