This is a typical hit piece designed to equate activism with "terrorism". In the whole of the article there was no mention of convictions of a crime committed by a SHAC member. If loose associations count, then by that degree, The International Right to Life organization should be held accountable for the actions of Eric Rudolph (a convicted abortion clinic bomber).

Business has been using the enforcement arms of the government to suppress decent. "Eco-terrorism", "animal rights - terrorism" are nothing more than propogandist terms used to put fear in the hearts of people, and to silence and jail the voice of opposition. Your source in this article for whether there is criminal behavior is the FBI. This is the same organization that, under J. Edgar Hoover, investigated political activists who were never accused of a crime. This is the same organization that "investigated" Martin Luther King. They created an illegal organization called COINTELPRO to do illegal domestic spying. This is also the organization that our own 911 commision has stated are partially to blame for not pursuing intelligence on foreign terrorists. This whole "eco-terrorism / animal rights - terrorism" bullshit is a complete smokescreen.

Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Peta, SHAC, or "any number of other advocacy groups" have all been targeted by the FBI and congressional hearings. All have been accused of being domestic terror organizations or the supporters thereof in finance or otherwise.

This article adds to the propoganda. It is submitted by John Cook. Who is John Cook? What other articles has he written? The only other reference to John Cook on Salon is an music review by a John Cook that puts him as an editorial assistant at Mother Jones.

All in all, you could take all the words out of the article and leave nothing but the video of the dog being beaten and abused, and that is all you would need to understand who is on the right side of this issue.

And anyone else who has the courage to speak his or her mind and to stand up to the oppresive fascists of this world. Print the cartoons you cowards.

Within your interpretation of the broad expansion of Presidential power, does the president have the right to dissolve Congress? Not does he want to, simply can he?

The "evil" despots, who are the bane to U.S. national security, are dictators whose governments are barely hanging on by a thread. Saddam stated his reason for all the empty rhetoric and threats were to disguise his own weakness. If we look at the threats of North Korea, Iran, and others as those of a fearful and terminal regime, we find strength in our own position. Kim Jong Ill's days as leader in North Korea are numbered. Iran's people are slowly awakening to the change that is inevitable in their country and do not desire to be ruled by a fundamentalist theocracy. The time for hawks is when a dangerous ideology is consolidating power and is on the rise in direct threat to our nation. Iran, Al Qaeda, North Korea, oppressive Chinese governments etc... are all waning entities. Saber rattling on our part only strengthens these weak governments as it polarizes the constituents of a nation into a unified self defense. Use the United States as your example.

Democrats, like the Republicans, are not reflective of the American people, but are reflective of the entity which compels them. Business. The military industrial complex. When hopeful candidates for office are compelled to address the issues of this complex, this is of it's design. Eisenhower coined the term "military industrial complex" in his speech of 1961. He also said, "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

These aggressive war posturing policies are costing us in American lives and in our economy. When we spend money on "star wars" missile defense, preemptive strikes, and "regime changes" this is money that would be spent on the American public. It is why you don't have health care. Corporate backed, military industry tied, conservative think tanks like the Project for the New American Century are setting the agenda and democrat candidates are falling in line lock step. When the question is "how hawkish?" and there isn't a dove in sight, who profits? When both parties are saber rattling, who profits? Exactly. Now you are starting to peek behind the curtain.

Oh that's right. I don't even have health insurance. Not only that, but I imagine if I had shot my hunting partner...I would be subjected to a toxicology test, and would probably be arrested until the details are sorted out. The separation between the rulers and the ruled is very wide.