Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Stepping Up the Attack on Green Activists

By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted September 30, 2005.


A coordinated campaign by conservative lawmakers and the FBI aims to label environmental protests the newest form of terrorism.
Activists Versus Terrorists
Activists Versus Terrorists
Advertisement

A remorseless rapist in Hamilton County, Ohio is sentenced to 15 years in prison for beating and raping a 57-year-old woman. An environmental activist in California is sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for burning three SUVS at a car dealership after taking precautions to harm no lives.

The disparity helps illustrates what animal rights and environmental groups say is an expanding Orwellian attack on American environmentalism being waged under the pretext of eco-terrorism.

In recent months, conservative lawmakers, right-wing advocacy groups and law enforcement officials have ramped up efforts to dismantle eco-terrorist groups and their supports. But critics say vague wording in the USA Patriot Act, new eco-terrorist bills and aggressive law enforcement tactics are ways of quashing civil dissent and tainting law-abiding organizations.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is at the forefront of this movement. On June 21, FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism John Lewis said eco-terrorists are one of the top domestic terrorist threats in the U.S., having chalked up some 1,200 acts of eco-terrorism since 1990 totaling $110 million in property damage. Eco-terrorist groups have caused no deaths.

As the FBI works to shut down elusive and decentralized eco-terrorist networks, civil rights groups say agents are going so far as illegally spying on activists. In June, a federal disclosure lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union forced the FBI to admit having collected 2,400 pages of files on Greenpeace, the most vocal critic of the Bush administration's environmental record, in addition to other groups.

In the courts, prosecutors work to convict activists charged with property crimes under vague and harshly punitive domestic terrorism laws. One activist, Tre Arrow, is facing life in prison for allegedly burning three logging and cement trucks in an Oregon forest. Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer, in an interview in June, said Arrow's alleged actions are considered domestic terrorism because "it is a systematic attempt to use the threat of violence to instill fear for political or social purposes."

"Animal liberation movements are being demonized not just as whacko or extremist, but also as terrorist," says Steven Best, an animal rights activist and philosophy professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. "A collective insanity is sweeping the nation [and is] no less absurd, outrageous, frightening and irrational than the Red Scare of the 1950s. The USA Patriot Act expands government's law enforcement powers nationwide as it minimizes meaningful review and oversight by an independent judicial body."

Even though existing laws covering crimes such as arson, theft and trespassing are used to charge eco-terrorists, conservative lawmakers in several states are proposing laws that define eco-terrorism as a distinct offense -- something federal law does not do -- and deepen penalties for environmentally motivated crimes.

These states are each taking different approaches. Since 2001, 14 states have introduced laws directly addressing eco-terrorism, according to an association that tracks state legislation. California was the first state to pass such a law in 2003, and a New York law outlaws, for example, clandestine taping of animal facilities, a key tool for animal rights groups. One Ohio lawmaker wants to prosecute eco-terrorists under racketeering laws to let the state seize assets of convicted activists and sue those who are acquitted.

"I believe legislative efforts that brand activists as 'terrorists' are largely aimed at intimidating compassionate Americans from speaking out against institutionalized animal cruelty, such as the abuse and exploitation of animal by the multi-billion dollar meat, dairy and egg industries," said Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy For Animals, an Ohio-based animal advocacy organization.

Larry Frankel, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, described a current bill in his state that ramps up penalties for criminal acts committed with a purpose involving animals or natural resources. Frankel says the measure restricts freedom of speech by boosting penalties for people who hold particular views.


Digg!

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who lives in Washington DC and Latin America. His work has appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, American Prospect, and other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gov't Trying To Brand Those Who Fight To Protect Our Planet
Posted by: decembrist on Sep 30, 2005 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government - terroristic, right now responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq- is desperately seeking to brand those who work to keep this planet habitable as "terrorists". The branding is designed to discredit and marginalize any group that could be seen as having views in line with SUV arsonists.

On a local level, guys like the Flathead Valley, Montana whacko named Stokes, flare irrational anti-environmentalist hatred by filling locals heads with outlandish lies and going around trying to get attention by burning green swastikas (he claims that environmentalism sprang from the Third Reich).

The ridiculously harsh sentences that ELF and ALF members are receiving is case in point. By branding these men "terrorists" and "top threats" (give me a break) the feds are following the lead of conservative land rapists who wish to criminalize and further marginalize environmentalists. We've all heard Limbaugh spew on and on about environmentalism and how its destroying our country. Yesterday I heard that Michael Crichton got to testify to the Senate about global warming, at the invitation of Sen. Inhofe!!!! A novelist, at the senate, plugging the premise of his new FANTASY NOVEL, pretending to be a fucking SCIENTIST! If you haven't heard, his book's plot has global warming being a great hoax perpetuated by greedy environmentalists.

Environmentalists are being made the next target of the irrational, hatred-spewing right. By target I mean physical target - in line with gays and people of color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Enviromentalism/3rd Reich Posted by: Swatopluk
» simply not fact Posted by: decembrist
» Nihilist on a stick Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Nihilist on a stick Posted by: LMNOP
welcome to god's country
Posted by: menckenman on Sep 30, 2005 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the puritan impulse which shallowly lies beneath the veneer of civil society impels religious fanatics to jail anyone who might interfer with man's god-given right to kill and torture any living thing that gets in his way of fulfilling his god-given destiny, which is absolute dominion over all life forms to Christ's everlasting glory. Power is rightous.

Anyone who opposes the torture of animals or a christian war or a housing project is a heathen terrorist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good description ssegallmd Posted by: WhatNow?
Look at the evidence
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 30, 2005 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is evident that crimes against people are not considered as reprehensible as crimes against business in our society. The reason for this is because big business controls our government. Both parties are controlled by campaign contributors. The only way for voters to control the country is to force both parties to support effective campaign finance reform. Click on - join the revolution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Look at the evidence Posted by: Money Over People
» RE: Look at the evidence Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Look at the evidence Posted by: Pepper
» RE: Look at the evidence Posted by: Pooty T
» RE: Look at the evidence Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: That's traditional Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: That's traditional Posted by: Lincoln fan
ok then
Posted by: crusty on Sep 30, 2005 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heres how I see it.... The government is being overealous in their punishment of eco-terroism. That said though there are those out there who will stop at nothing to save the planet. Burning buildings down and blowing cars up is the absolutely least intelligent way of making a point. Burning a building is terroism plain and simple. When ecoterroists burned down the ski area (cannot remember which one) in Colorado years ago, think about all the toxins and pollutants that were released into the air. It is along the same lines as the anti abortion crowd that thinks its ok to blow up an abortion clinic with the staff of such a place inside. (At least the ski area was empty of people)
The point I guess is the punishment should fit the crime.....22 years for blowing three cars up is just a weee bit on the steep side. I fully agree that the current administration is trying to sidestep our rights to protest and it is a damn dirty shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ok then Posted by: Pepper
» hell yes fight back. Posted by: Coleman
» RE: ok then Posted by: crusty
» RE: ok then Posted by: Pooty T
» Equally destructive? Posted by: decembrist
» RE: ok then Posted by: frosty
» RE: ok then Posted by: frosty
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Sep 30, 2005 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that "nearly any protest group can fit the definition of terrorists" should WAKE US UP that the staus quo will label/demonize anything and anyone who holds a contrary view to their world view as 'terrorism.'

Feydehen is translated as Freedom Fighters.
We label others as terrorists while they view themselves as seeking liberation from oppressors, occupation and despair by choosing the way of violence.

How ever one chooses 'to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion' will be labeled negatively by those in power because they upset the status quo.

The staus quo has got to go if we are to ever become fully human: compassionate and respectful of all beings and in awe, appreciation and nurturers of creation.

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: eileenflmng
» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Watch the framing
Posted by: nanobubble on Sep 30, 2005 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you read articles like this one

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1195

the cries about orwellian government fall on deaf ears. These people are guilty before proven anything. And when you put someone in solitary for two months with no oversight, who believes their confession? If they get one, they don't have to present proof and convince a jury. Therein lies one of the many loopholes in the usapatriot act, and it took circumventing due process to achieve it.

No American should be proud of that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meanwhile, the real terrorists in Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc ...
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 30, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are getting help from the insurgents in Iraq.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1235515.cms

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oregon, not California
Posted by: radicalmum on Sep 30, 2005 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeff "Free" Luers is the activist sentenced to 22 years in Oregon. You can help support and work for his release at www.freefreenow.org. You would get less time for arson involving schools and homes. Corporate rule must end and we all must unite to defeat it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing...
Posted by: Robba29 on Sep 30, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Worry – It'll All Be Over Soon
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 30, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How DARE that activist prematurely end the lives of three innocent SUV's?! We need all the SUV's we can get, the better to use up the world's oil, bring on Armageddon, and get us all to the The Rapture. ...Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Firebomb + Terrorism
Posted by: Rattlesby on Sep 30, 2005 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is indeed an act of terrorism to firebomb anything.

I like to e-mail many of the articles here to my less enoightened friends. The articles are well-written, they spark useful debate, and sometimes a changed mind. When I saw the title, and read the tease, I was excited about this artricle that must follow. The environment is indeed under attack by the Bush administration. How disappointing, then, to find out that this article is written in such a way as to prove the twisted point of the Republicans.
I am not thrilled that anyone would firebomb anyone's property. To try to make that act into something less than what it is, is obscene. Try as she might, the arsonist could have killed MANY innocent victims. What an arsonist INTENDS is not the point. After all, perhaps many other criminals are not consiously intending harm either.)
It is indeed an act of terrorism to firebomb anything.
I totally agree that the FBI and all other government agenices, have become little more than a means to carry out a Bush Vendetta agianst anything that gets in the way of corportate interests.
Why not look at the FBI as an agency that has been befouled in a similar manner that of FEMA, the FDA, Immigration, etc?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Firebomb + Terrorism Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» RE: Firebomb + Terrorism Posted by: crusty
» RE: Firebomb + Terrorism Posted by: placid
The Bush Idea of "Environmentalism" – Control Your Environment
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 30, 2005 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't decide – are we under Fascism, that we fought a World War to eliminate, or are we under Stalinistic Communism, that we also fought a "cold" war (and prosecuted our own citizens in a witch hunt) to eliminate? Or is the Bush Administration both, in its bid to develop the only 'hybrid' it understands?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately, property has been more important than persons since slavery
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 30, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it's absurd. Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's stupid.

Still, the ruling class has always held property higher than persons in the US. (Although the ruling that corporations are legal 'persons' challenges my generalization.) Whatever there is legitimate title to (even if originally enslaved, stolen, fraudulently acquired, etc.) is protected by due process of law.

I don't like it, just as I don't like immigration policies. But a nation without borders ain't a nation. And a system of law without private property ain't a system.

Look at the lessons from the Weathermen of the 60s-70s. Their property violence prompted the Lewis F Powell memo (Google it and read it) that declared war on all threats to capitalism.

Even warriors must battle wisely. Get real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The lesson of the Weathermen? Posted by: Sojourner
» Anarcho-syndicalism Posted by: decembrist
» Private property Posted by: Sojourner
How about this for a twist on their evil plans?
Posted by: chaoslegs on Sep 30, 2005 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the conservatives are so hell bent on bestowing all the rights of person hood on corporations. We use these anti terror laws to penalize the coercion that corporations use (like extortion for tax breaks for new buildings) on local and state governments. I mean who wouldn't love to see WalMart labelled as a terrorist? Or how about professional sports with their extortion (here in MN both Twins and Vikings want new stadiums)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember COINTELPRO
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 30, 2005 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Feds and their Corpie allies will stop at nothing to bring down environmentalists. The stepped up activities will no doubt include property damage, machine breakdowns,tree spiking,as well as acts of vandalisim to be blamed on the 'Activist of the Week'. The reason they do this is because we know the truth about their vision of 'The Modern Society'.
It's one where they get to poison every living thing for hundreds of years while we die so they can enjoy fabulous
wealth and privlidge. Thruth is there is no amount of money that can take the place of clean air,pure water.and healthy productive soils.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two-edged sword
Posted by: LouisFallert on Sep 30, 2005 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"According to the law, the crime of domestic terrorism is committed when a person engages in activity 'that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the U.S. and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion.'
Doesn't this pretty much define the Bush administration?
Someone (Scooter Libby) outed Valerie Plame in violation of US laws (the Espionage Act) to intimidate a civilian population (anyone who might follow Joe Wilson's example).
Where's a Kenneth Starr to investigate this administration?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'M ROOTING FOR SOMETHING TO STOP HUMANITY.
Posted by: LMNOP on Sep 30, 2005 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every day, I am more ashamed of my country. The American people are incompetent as citizens and allowed the most vile element in its midst to ascend to power. I don't trust the American people any more that I trust the criminals that they empowered.

I used to admire the U.S. Constitution, but now I see that it is just an inanimate piece of parchment with no more life to it than the American people. I wonder if the European democracies will be destroyed the same way this country was or if the nobler aspects of man can prevail anywhere.

I no longer believe in any 'ism'. Democracy and capitalism may be better than their alternatives, but they have both failed me and I don't trust them either. Religion is worse, at least the American form of it. Everything American is rotten and decadent now. In its current form, America is a threat to everything living. Its government is the ecoterrorist, and earth itself the victim. The counter-terrorists are something else.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the earth had a way to protect itself from mankind. If it does, that would surely entail a great killing. I don't know if it's just America that has to be stopped or the entire human race, but I'm starting to see the merit in another asteroid driven mass extinction.

I suspect that it would be sufficient if just the largest part of mankind was exterminated by some natural disaster and a few survivors remained and got a chance to do better. Fortunately, it's not up to me. If I could make that asteroid appear, I would.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am actually proud to be possibly labeled "Terrorist"
Posted by: gigospam on Sep 30, 2005 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've known for quite some time that because I care about the environment (the sustainability of the planet in general), and I make my opinions known, I can be considered a Terrorist.
I am not proud to be an American. I think the fact that a peace-loving, earth-loving citizen who participates in our democracy can be labeled "Terrorist" is just one more sign that this country is screwed up. The only down side of being considered a terrorist is that, if you look at the patriot act, the entire bush regime can also be labeled terrorists. I really don't like the idea of being categorized in the same clump as those folks. I'm just waiting for enough people to summon the guts to get the ball rolling and get this regime out of there.
(Note, I refuse to capitalize anything I have no respect for, hence I did not capitalize patriot act or bush regime.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow what a load.....
Posted by: Michiganman on Sep 30, 2005 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose kids at halloween soaping windows and smashing pumpkins are terrorist by the governments new thinking. I suppose it depends on WHO the target is whether or not it is terrorism. Probably tee-pee the neighborhood conservative who doesn't see fit to contribute to Unicef or keeps a baseball that lands in his yard and your guilty. Firebombing suv's is ridiculous but I see the point. Many in this nation are frustrated with our pitiful excuse for morals and have determined to fight back anyway they can. It's hard to blame them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow what a load..... Posted by: Habaro
» AGREE 10000% Good one.. Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Wow what a load..... Posted by: aedwards
It's about time
Posted by: popsicle67 on Sep 30, 2005 7:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now I know thay I will be in the minority here,but I feel that common sense has taken a back seat to misplaced sympathy.
Where is it stated that burning cars on a car lot full of other cars that are full of gas, oil, and other toxic and combustable
substances is a safe, non-threatening form of civil disobediance. It seems to me that unless great pains are taken to A.put the vehicles in an area where it is safe to burn them and B.keep any and all people or animals away, What you really have is a premeditated attempt to scare people away from whoever is selling the vehicles for fear of being injured. In other words TERRORISM!!!! Ugly word is it not. An ugly occupation also,but not so ugly as the attempt to paint these people as upstanding, and misunderstood wanting only to make themselves heard. I guess the next wave of apologies should be to all the Nazi's that were hung after the war-crimes trials. At least they had a state to defend no matter how misguided it was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old Fashioned? Maybe
Posted by: placid on Sep 30, 2005 7:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a line that I don't cross in my activism.I despise gas guzzling showboaters. I will protest and speak up,write letters try reason but I personally draw the line at destroying property. I think the damned things should be banned but burned or smashed, then there is something else going on and it is not ecological its pathological. O.K. O.K .
, O.k. I can hear some . I have had personal items destroyed that are not ecologicaly threatening but some made a value judgement and I paid.As far as an act of terror to me it is an act of violence. I am non-violent in my protests and the only time one might see "violence" from is self defence.This kind of expression out here in the pacific nW we have had fires started in protest, defenseless animals 'LIBERATED' into urban areas who have no chance to survive ,may have been experimented on with pathogens(which breaks my heart) that could get into general animal populations sicken other animals (sadly peoples beloved animal companions) or human beings. There have been labs burned with animals inside (that also is cruel) in the name of liberating them all of the animals or destoying peoples property (I know of neighborhoods where SUV after SUV after SUV have been severely damaged and spray-painted. Some acts are terrorist...they are done for a strong reaction, Believe it or not providing information on an SUVs window neatly typed with facts and courteously presnted anonymously educates, it also instills who did this? Ah,what is coming next also is instilled. And it really is amazing how many people seriously don"t understand just what their vehicle is do ing to the envirnment. No, they are not going to change vehicles in the a.m. but that anonymous typed letter of information W/no threatening or judgemental statements-Talk about "killing 'em softly with kindness". Mary Basombrio

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, I'm terrorist, he's a terrorist, she's a terrorist, don't you want to be a terrorist too?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 30, 2005 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm one along the likes of the Boston Tea Party and Jesus vandalizing the moneychangers in the temple. I feel no real sympathy for someone losing a SUV to vandalism. I would not mind if people were so worried about their SUV that they would get a car instead.

I also have no qualms with someone getting caught destroying garbage like SUVs being prosecuted for property crimes, but give me a break! Terrorists? Maybe they are but there should be some common sense in punishing offenders. The comparison in the article reminds me of the bs releated to pot. If you get caught with ten pounds of weed you are likely to get punished greater than if you assault somebody causing great harm. Hell, sometimes possession for resale can get you more time than molestation or murder.

This article reminds me of a Frank Zappa album, Joe's Garage. There is a little story in it about how the government can make us all the same in one aspect. It can make all of us "criminals." I do not have access to the album at the moment but I will quote it on some future post.

We all should be worried about pollution. On average a vehicle emits twice it's weight in CO2 per year. My 2700-2800 lb car is heavy to me but it's a lightweight compared to trucks and SUVs. I can not remember at this moment how much water is polluted to produce one pound of steel. Seems like I remember it being near seven gallons. Do you not want an environment where your decendents can have a good chance of being healthy? Not suffering from poor health or possible genetic mutations because of pollution. I guess it's the redskin in me that thinks we ought to try to live more in balance with nature. You see what capitalists did to them. They might just do it to you too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cowboy
Posted by: Cowboy on Sep 30, 2005 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who are Real Eco-Terrorists?
AUTOMOBILE DEALERS are so upset by graffiti on their $70,000 Land Rovers that they have asked the FBI to investigate. The president of their association is calling it an act of "domestic terrorism." The story even made headlines in "Eco-terror Watch," the newsletter of an organization called "Stop Eco-Violence!"
How did political tag artists get elevated to the status of al-Qaida, diverting strained investigative resources? My guess is that it all started when Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., wrote letters to the League of Conservation Voters, World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups asking them to "publicly disavow the actions of eco-terrorist organizations. ..."
Coming shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, McInnis' letter said, "While the attacks of eco-vigilantes have not yet reached the magnitude of what America experienced over the last several weeks, their tactics are no less deplorable, their methods of pursuing political change no less appalling, and their use of fear and terror no less repugnant."
Taking him at his word, I visited McInnis' Washington office last March and showed photographs to his staff of politically-motivated graffiti that had been scrawled on signs and spray painted across rocks on my family's Colorado property.
I showed snapshots of the seedling trees that were killed by vandals who use our land for off-road recreation. I showed copies of e-mailed threats to drive off-road vehicles across a wetland we are restoring. I even showed pictures of the vigilantes themselves, winching a boulder off our private drive.
After taking the law into their own hands, the posse had posted photos on their organization's Web site.
The graffiti on our property did not refer to a fictional monkeywrencher, but to "R.S. 2477," the repealed law that off-road clubs think gives them access to private property. ... The political motivation was not eco-protection, but eco-exploitation. And the value of our property is less than the cost of a Land Rover.
I've not heard back from McInnis, who has not so much as disavowed the actions of these groups. The FBI is not investigating.
This double standard reveals an unfortunate anti environmental bias within our government.
MARK BOSLOUGH
Albuquerque

orig

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eco Terriorism, Same old Game,
Posted by: Ashington on Oct 1, 2005 12:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ELF attack upon Humvee dealers may have been clearly illegal, but they did not harm a single human hair. Unless you count the insurance agents who recieved the dealer's claims ripping out thier own hair. Am i wrong to so callous as to think that the attack did not harm the business owners in the least? they recieved money to replace (sadly enough) thier merchandise, so fair is fair. I cannot have sympathy for a car dealer, as they surely have enough money to support themselves. They were not put out of work. Sure, it is frustrating, but so is day to day living, knowing that the economy and job system set up is dependent upon a shrinking resource, and therefore, so is your future security. I do not weep, and i am not angered by these eco attacks, especially when they are careful not to harm individuals.
We all have seen free speech undermined, and raped by laws. This name calling Terrorist crap is another fine example of bushite, (add two ll after bush) tactics. He thinks another opinion cant be right. Im surprised he hasnt called democrats terrorists, and anyone who voted independent "against us". Who exactly is us is up to arguement, but i do beleive "us" are a congolmerate of brainwashed suckups who do anything (including killing iraqi's for no reason) for a dollar. He dehumanizes us, demoralizes us, and debases the country that we prop up. Terrorist is an interesting word, and most certainly includes Warmongers and those whose desecrete freedom by conjuring up it's name to steal it away. Do you hear me Emperor Cheney and Darth Bush?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what the h***
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 1, 2005 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are you even compareing these trials? its apples and oranges.

The guy who did those things to the old lady should have definatly gotten a harsher punishment then he did, but you can't use that to condone the obvious terrorist acts of the eco-group in question. Two seperate trials, two seperate juries in no way connected.

There are better ways to protest then to blow up other peoples property. Thats like some kid setting fire to his school to protest school lunches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what the h*** Posted by: briancarnell
Is This Truly the Best Way to Help the Earth?
Posted by: placid on Oct 1, 2005 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After a day I came back here and find some feeling as I do and yet still others . I don"t suppose anyone espousing vandalism realizes the "CONS" see this ALL as liberalism and Progressivism and I geT"Yea,so Mary what about those asshole liberals that spraypainted X's car and alot of other things I have read here' I am not your enemy folks . I am trying change some hearts and minds and this behavior closes the door to any discussion before it starts.It seems to me that this behavior serves no one. It is like I don't like how you believe "smack' or 'gee , I don"t like the fact you used all that wood on your home' -crack,crack-sizzle" oh sorry about the baby and the cats, All of these have happened in the name of progressivism. Sorry, I can't buy or defend it. It is cowardly and not done with much intelligence and I thought (I do Know) there is a lot of creativity to change minds. we can do better. Enough of this. I can appreciate the anger but it doesn't make sense to toss ones own beliefs at another and destroy property.I'll probably erk someone with this but its the high school mentality of "getting even". Please use your mind. There is something wrong, arrogant, cowardly,lazy and young ,very young intellectually. I don't disagree with your beliefs but I sure do with lack of creativity and safety. Thank you.. Mary Basombrio

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Party of the Big Tent
Posted by: c.scott57 on Oct 2, 2005 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The expansion of the definition of "Terrorist" was forseable. It will continue until it includes any protest seen as impacting on trade. So-called terrorists will be found liable for even reasonably expected loss of income from their interference.

Sadly, the definition will also be expanded to include labor organizers and anyone engaged in a work action that can be construed as impacting trade.

Underneath it all is the sad reality that corporations, which are not mentioned in the constitution and are merely human constructs, are given more rights and protections that individual (human) people in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Party of the Big Tent Posted by: Yetzer-netzer
ON LANGUAGE. WHO ARE THE REAL ECO-TERRORISTS?
Posted by: envirojustice on Oct 2, 2005 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Priya Reddy – journalista1@yahoo.com

The FBI scares the public by framing the threat as one coming from activists instead of coming from global warming, and earth destructive corporations. It is dangerous to adopt the rhetoric of the FBI, as Hearn and other progressives seem to. The label “eco-terrorist” was originally coined by timber industry public relations firms, & quickly adopted by law enforcement and mainstream media. However, when progressive journalists uncritically adopt and use terms such as “eco-terrorist” and “extremists” they are not being accurate. You are only legitimizing the FBI’s point of view.

Eco-activist, Jeff Free Luers is serving a 22 year 8 month sentence (twice the sentence received by the Abu Grahib sadists) for burning 3 SUV’s at a deserted dealership in Oregon (not California). He once said, the “REAL eco-terrorists, are the ones terrorizing our eco-systems”. The terrorists are arguably companies such as Weyerhauser, Monsanto, Union Carbide and Halliburton, who have had an enormous destructive impact on both the natural world, and on human health. As Utah Philips said, these people “have names and addresses.”

The FBI’s attitude towards Greenpeace reveals that one does not have to break the law to become a target or be treated as a terrorist threat! The FBI put the ELF/ALF (who have never targeted or threatened life) in the same category as the KKK, which has terrorized, burned and lynched 100’s of black people.

Forms of dissent which cannot be easily controlled and safely neutralized like marching, voting, lobbying, letter writing, etc. are defined as “terrorism.” However, property destruction has been a part of American dissent since the Boston Tea Party. While some re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, the real life icebergs are melting from climate change. Jeff Free Luers, wants us to turn the ship around. With a corporate media blackout on environmental issues (as they sell millions of SUV’s) it becomes necessary to get the truth out through other means.

Recently CNN wanted to interview Jeff, but was denied access by the prison he is in. Why? Because Jeff is a well spoken, convincing, intelligent and passionate person, whose words and deeds have a power to inspire those who feel like this is a sinking ship. PLEASE SEE Jeff’s website to support his appeal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's new
Posted by: Yetzer-netzer on Oct 3, 2005 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't a surprise. It was merely a matter of time before any group that has an agenda/ideals differing from, and so potentially obstructing the official way of life. will eb considered Terrorists. Actualy, i also forsee liberal faiths and people of any 'threatening' lifestyle to become the New Evil on the Block. Jon/Yetzer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Private property
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 5, 2005 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rights of all americans include the right to own private property. When someone blows up someone elses private property in order to prove a political point and scare someone into doing what they are terrorists. You do not have to directly harm someone in order to hurt them.

Do you think it's ok that the employees of this car dealership have to suffer? What gives you or anyone the right to make this desicsion? They work on commision usally. Destroying these vehicles was like telling the employee that the do not have a right to live.

As for the expansion of terrorism to include all life styles that are deemed threatening, that just stupid and should be avoided at all costs. A terrorist is by definition an individual. Punish them accordingly.

Even if you agree with a persons cause don't support their methods if they are infringing on anothers rights. The ends will never justify the means.

The greatest and most important right a person has is that they will not be forced. Persuation is how you cause change not violence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Article Is Deceptive, and Factually Incorrect
Posted by: briancarnell on Oct 6, 2005 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The basic problem here is that the author of this article is a complete idiot who cannot do basic fact checking.

First, Jeff Luers -- the activist sentenced to 22 years -- was convicted in Oregon, *not* California. Although his guilt was easily established and obvious to the jury, Luers decided to go to trial rather than accept a plea bargain. His co-conspirator, Craig Marshall, received just a 5 and a half year sentence after taking the plea deal prosecutors offered.

By going to trial, Luers opened himself up to being charged with crimes of arson that potentially would invoke mandatory minimums in Oregon. Luers and his lawyers knew going in to their trial that if he was found guilty on enough charges, that he would be spending a very long time in jail. Why they proceeded to trial given the open-and-shut nature of the evidence is still the biggest mystery of this case.

The rapist she refers to -- and conveniently doesn't bother to name -- appears to be Terrell Wilkins. When he was a minor, Wilkins assaulted and raped a 50+ year old literacy tutor. He was charged as an adult and apparently reached a plea agreement where by he entered a plea of no contest to rape and assault charges in 2003, which ultimately netted him 15 years in prison.

The lesson is that if you are guilty of a crime and the evidence is obvious that you are guilty of a crime, take the frigging plea bargain.

The author is being deceptive by not noting that a) Jeff Luers' co-conspirator received a light sentence by accepting a plea bargain, b) Terrell Wilkins' sentence was significantly less than it might have been if he had gone to trial rather than take a plea bargain, and c) failing to note that by going to trial, Luers was charged with crimes that trigger Oregon's mandatory minimums.

Not surprising though -- this is typical of the quality of those who go to the mat to defend violent acts of extremism like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One More Lie
Posted by: briancarnell on Oct 6, 2005 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one additional lie in Kelly's article. This is false,

"An environmental activist in California is sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for burning three SUVS at a car dealership after taking precautions to harm no lives."

Luers was also convicted of attempting to set fire to a gasoline tanker in mid-2000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would It Be Different If It Were An Abortion Clinic?
Posted by: briancarnell on Oct 6, 2005 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One last thing. I am generally extremely disappointed with the left-liberal habit of excusing acts of violence by animal rights activists and environmental extremists as free speech, as Hearns does.

In the city I live, many years ago, some anti-abortion extremists set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic. I thought that was a violent act and, yes, terrorism. But now I find out that left-liberals actually believe that arson is a valid political tool and simply another form of free speech if it is done for the "correct" causes, and that attempting to crack down on such behavior is part of a "war" being waged on environmentalists.

I guess those anti-abortion nutcases can pat themselves on the back that they were on the right path after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]