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 Lyon’s 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
order—the 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?
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.