Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Eco-Activists Fight the 'Terrorist' Label

By Catherine Komp, The NewStandard. Posted February 8, 2006.


By labeling animal-rights and environmental defense activists as 'eco-terrorists,' business lobbyists hope to clamp down even further on nonviolent protest.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Why McCain and the GOP Are So Afraid of Discussing the Economy
Frances Moore Lappe

Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld

DrugReporter:
Lunatic Drug Warriors Still Ignore Powerful Pot Science
Rob Kampia

Election 2008:
Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church
Bruce Wilson

Environment:
Boatloads of Trouble: How We Are Importing Our Way to Destruction
Stan Cox

ForeignPolicy:
The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
Tom Engelhardt

Health and Wellness:
Pollution Can Make You Fat
Geoffrey Lean

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Leader of Anti-Immigration Movement Calls Issue a "Skirmish in a Wider War"
Eric Ward

Media and Technology:
Watch Rachel Maddow's Debut Show Launch on MSNBC Tonight: She Fights Lies Uttered by Politicians, Repeated by Media
The Masher

Movie Mix:
Does "Working Girls" Still Work?
Ariel Dougherty

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Rutgers Center Helps Women Enter Politics
Alison Bowen

Rights and Liberties:
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Emily Jane Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
What Republicans Can Learn from "Gossip Girl"
Sarah Seltzer

War on Iraq:
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
Willam Fisher

Water:
Is California on the Brink of Environmental Collapse?
Rachel Olivieri

More stories by Catherine Komp

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In an attempt to shield private property and development from saboteurs, business lobbyists are pushing new laws that would further criminalize the actions of radical ecological activists. Government officials and corporations are applying the rubric of anti-terrorism to penalize those who destroy company or government property when protesting mistreatment of animals and the ecosystem.

Last month, federal grand juries in Oregon and California indicted 11 people on various conspiracy charges for their alleged involvement in the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) -- underground groups responsible for dozens of acts of property destruction as a strategy for protecting vulnerable species.

While some federal officials and media reports liken the defendants to domestic terrorists, others, including some legal experts and free-speech groups, say the label is an intentional misnomer without legal basis.

The actions

In Oregon, a 65-count indictment charges the defendants with involvement in 17 arson and property-destruction attacks between 1996 and 2001. The incidents involve meat processing plants, lumber companies and other public and private targets.

Defendants in California are accused of conspiring to use fire and an explosive to damage property of the U.S. Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics, a fish hatchery, cellular telephone towers and electric power stations. Though their alleged plot was reportedly foiled by a federal informant, two of the defendants face up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Over the past quarter century, the ELF and ALF have taken responsibility for numerous crimes of arson, vandalism and property destruction against institutions the groups say harm people, animals or the environment.

The FBI says that these and related groups have committed more than 1,100 "criminal acts" since 1976, causing more than $110 million in damage.

In an October 2001 press release, the ALF claimed responsibility for one of the activities listed in the Oregon indictment: releasing 200 horses and setting four timed incendiary devices in Litchfield, Calif. The group accused the BLM of rounding up wild horses for slaughter to clear public land for cattle grazing.

Similarly, ALF spokesperson Dr. Jerry Vlasak said the motive behind the arsons of a ski resort expansion in Vail, Colo., in 1998 was to prevent the destruction of land inhabited by lynxes, which were added to the threatened species list after the attacks.

After the recent arrests, FBI Director Robert Mueller called animal rights and environmental "extremism" one of the bureau's highest domestic terrorism priorities.

But the activists say they are on a mission to defend, not terrorize. Vlasak said property destruction is used after other avenues of environmental and animal-rights activism are exhausted.

"There are people working on legislation, there are people working on public education, there are people holding protest signs, but those things alone will not achieve the end result of animal liberation," Vlasak told The NewStandard. "So people who are willing to break the law to stop animals being exploited are just one part of a liberation movement."

As a policy, the decentralized, anonymous groups do not harm humans during their activities. Rather than directly instilling a sense of fear in individual humans, the ALF and ELF engage in acts of property destruction as a means of raising the costs of doing business until they are a deterrent to conducting practices the activists oppose.

From buzzword to legislation

The groups railing against so-called "eco-terrorism" cite the public interest in their campaigns, yet private interests influence their policy initiatives.

One of the originators of the term "eco-terrorism," Ron Arnold, is the founder of the "wise-use movement," a loose network of groups opposing environmental regulation and pushing for more industrial development on public lands. Arnold, who once told the Toronto Star that he wished to "eradicate the environmental movement," currently serves as vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a pro-business research organization. He has pushed the concept of the eco-terrorist threat in his published writings, media appearances and congressional testimony.


Digg!

Catherine Komp is a staff writer for The NewStandard. She works as an independent radio news producer and reporter in Richmond, Va., and is the media section editor for Clamor Magazine.

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


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:
Please help!
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Feb 8, 2006 12:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been reading a lot about eco groups lately (there was an article on Salon about an animal rights group recently). I'm confused. Where is the line between nonviolent, passive resistance and criminality? Could someone, perhaps, nutshell the platforms of groups like ELF so that I can get a better idea of thier goals and ideas?

Don't flame me; I'm honestly confused!!!! About the strongest thing I've heard of up to this week was PETA.

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

» RE: Please help! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Please help! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Please help! Posted by: Xynyx
» No, I was right Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: No, I was right Posted by: triana1326
» Slippery Slope Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Please help! Posted by: mcurtis
» RE: Please help! Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: Please help! Posted by: brad
» Wrong distinction -- Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: Wrong distinction -- Posted by: beltower
another WAKE UP call
Posted by: eileenflmng on Feb 8, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"24 U.S. Christians marched over 60 miles to the Naval Base in an attempt to practice the Christian act of prisoner visitation. The group camped and fasted for four days at the gate of the militarized zone while awaiting access to
the base.

As the U.S. prohibits travel to Cuba, Witness Against Torture members risk a maxiumum of 10 years in prison or a $250,00 fine for their actions to bring attention to U.S. practices in Guantánamo.

Seven individuals from Witness Against Torture, a group protesting the denial of rights to prisoners at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were served papers by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control."-press@witnesstorture.org 2/7/06

public service message from WAWA:http://www.wearewideawake.org

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

Change
Posted by: cmur on Feb 8, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Among the center's other priorities is fighting against healthy-eating and anti-smoking campaigns."
If you don't eat their food, you're a big threat to the powers that be.

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

» RE: Change Posted by: jupiterwise
The resurrection of COINTELPRO
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look- the details of the California case involve an FBI informant who was paid $75,000 over two years. This person lived with the three suspects in a cabin rented by the FBI, and apparently showed them how to make explosives. This looks to me like a political setup - infiltrate a group, encourage them to act violently, and then arrest them, all for political purposes. I think the reporter on the above story should have been more thorough in researching that case. Also - this shows why violent and highly emotional individuals should be regarded with suspicion by any kind of activist. Think before you act!

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

The "eco-terrorist" debate is national
Posted by: LRayn on Feb 8, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really appreciate this article. The debate on the use of the label "eco-terrorist" is going on in my town right now, too, because one of the recent indicted activists lives here (Flagstaff, Ariz,.).

Yesterday, the following letter of mine was published in our local newspaper:

The Daily Sun is not consistent in its use of the term “terrorist.” The Sun uses the term to describe Muslims, environmentalists and animal rights activists who commit crimes or issue threats of violence for political ends. It has also inferred that high school environmentalists might be potential terrorists.

In the Saturday, Jan. 24 Daily Sun is yet another front-page headline about the “ecoterrorist” arson cases. Right next to that story is the headline, “Okla. City bombing conspirator released.” Why not, “Rightwing terrorist conspirator released”? Likewise, last July when Eric Rudolph, who bombed several abortion clinics, a gay bar and the 1996 Summer Olympics, was sentenced the Daily Sun headline was, “Abortion clinic bomber gets life in federal pen,” not, “Christian terrorist receives life sentence.” When televangelist Pat Robertson advocates assassination or publicly asks God to execute a world leader or direct a hurricane to destroy a city for supposed religious infractions, why not refer to Robertson as a “Christian terrorist”? To be consistent, shorten the term to something snappy like “Christo-terrorist.”

I think the “terrorist” label is both too broad and insufficiently inclusive. It lumps mass murderers together with someone who sets an empty SUV on fire, and can cast aspersions on someone wearing an anarchist symbol. On the other hand, corporate and government employees who order the destruction of ecosystems or the torture or murder of indigenous peoples and union leaders are not labeled terrorists because their crimes are not commonly considered political. What should we call them?

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

What if YOU had no voice.....
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 8, 2006 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to saving the environment,protecting wild mustangs,forests and wetlands,there's no such thing as an 'eco-terrorist'.Everything on this Planet is here because it's 'supposed' to be. Not just to be used up by we poultry humans. To stand up for those fellow lifeforms that have no 'voice' in policy making, is the HIGHEST CALLING. To be a warrior for the lower lifeforms takes a greater resolve than to be a killer for Uncle Sam. You must fight the most heartless of enemies...money!
There are no Medals of Honor for us. Instead it's the knowing that you've saved a stand of forest,led a march,freed a herd,stopped a mine. These are our badges,our Legion of Merit,our Purple Hearts. The forces we stand against show no mercy and give no quarter for their only motis operandi is 'get rich'. Sometimes we create havok,
sometimes 'THEY' do it to themselves and blame us. But the fight we wage isn't against humans. It's against stupid human greed!!! Our fight isn't only to save the lives of trees and rivers and horses and eagles,but, it's to save your life. The life of your family. Your children. Your Greatgrandchildren.
The Greatgrandchildren of the Greatgrandchildren we will never know.
Our purpose here isn't to 'make' a living out of destroying every living thing for profit. Our purpose here is to 'insure'
LIFE for every living thing and ourselves by 'Protecting' the
Creation and 'Respecting' everything in it. Afterall it was by a greater will than yours or mine that brought us all here.

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

» RE: What if YOU had no voice..... Posted by: Reload_237
» reload, Reload. Posted by: decembrist
» You're firing blanks Posted by: decembrist
The point was...
Posted by: MegOnTheMountain on Feb 8, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of the article was that the term "terrorism" is being used selectively against CERTAIN (usually radical leftist) groups. As in the example given of the anti-abortionists who blow up a clinic and aren't deemed terrorists.

Any left-wing activist should be concerned about this. Big Brother's watching Quakers, for goodness sake. Local police get grants from the Dept of Homeland Security to go undercover at anti-war rallies.

I live near Portland, OR where much of the ALF and ELF brouhaha is happening. For the non-mass media spun details see
Portland Indy Media

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

take back the frame!
Posted by: antiapathy on Feb 8, 2006 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am of two minds regarding the malapropriation of the term terrorist in regards to any group who is against the mainstream corporate hegemony (be it environmentalists or teachers unions).

On the one hand, it is completely ridiculous to label groups who are not using or threatening violence against innocent civilians as terrorists. Terrorists kill people. Innocent people. The hope to coerce governments by generating a state of fear among their constituents. Freeing horses about to be slaughtered or blocking the road to a forest fails to meet any of those critera. The label is completely ridiculous, and my reaction is to ignore anyone who stoops to that kind of rhetoric.

On the other hand, our society thinks of things in a highly polarized mindset. There is only good and evil, us and them, patriots and terrorists. If they are going to use signifiers like "terrorist" for people who are clearly not terrorists, then let's take the power back. We need to re-define eco-terrorism. There are two components to terrorism: violence and ideology. Therefore, an eco-terrorist is someone who "commits violence" against the environment in order to promote an ideology, such as crony capitalism. Guess who eco-terrorist number one is?

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

The Real Eco-Terrorist
Posted by: jgleason1 on Feb 8, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Real Eco-Terrorist are the corporations that are destroying our enviornment!

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

This, the Illegal Domestic NSA Wiretapping, FBI "Monitoring" = Approaching Police State
Posted by: decembrist on Feb 8, 2006 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The FBI didn't stop at saying environmental sabotage was "one of the bureau's highest domestic terrorism priorities." John Lewis, the FBI's assistant director for counter-terrorism, "told a senate committee in Washington that the militant groups were "way out in front" in economic damage. He also suggested it would not be long before loss of human life was added to their tally of crimes."

link to article here

It is, of course, plainly political to suggest to a senate committee that groups that have firmly stated they take every precaution not to harm people will do so in the future. If these groups ever do conspire to harm someone, it will probably be due to the incitement of a paid FBI asset with the sole purpose of getting longer sentences. In fact, while enviro or animal rights extremist groups have never intentionally harmed any person (the only accident I know of was a tree-spiking injury that was not intentional), environmental activists have been killed and injured by those they are protesting against, including Judi Bari, who was car- bombed after receiving death threats for months, and David Chain, who was crushed by a falling tree a logger intentionally cut in his direction.

This is an issue that all activists should be concerned and aware of. We don't know yet, but this could be part of a larger "war" against all environmental groups -the thousands of pages the FBI has produced while "monitoring" legitmate, completely legal and mainstream groups like GreenPeace, not to mention the illegal, domestic NSA wiretapping ordered by President Bush. If the domestic NSA wiretapping program is so legit, why won't Bush give out ANY info. on it? If you believe the administration's answer, given by Attorney General "Mango" Gonzales, it's because the more we talk about the program, the more Al-Qaeda will know that we're trying to listen in on them. As if they didn't know already. The real answer is probably because Bush has been wiretapping and illegally eavesdropping on his domestic, political opponents.

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

» More Links To Articles Mentioned Posted by: decembrist
When you go to war, don't invite me in.
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 8, 2006 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the crimes committed in the name of protecting the environment involve limited violence. But limited war is still war.

Civil disobedience sets no convenient limit on what is permitted, but nowhere does it contradict the old adage, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

I also recall that the civil rights struggle led by Martin Luther King was not taken seriously until the Black Panthers emerged. Eventually, the violence of the latter became confused with the peacefulness of the former, and the movement lurched to a halt.

If you play with fire, expect to get burned.

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

They still should go to jail
Posted by: zmesberg on Feb 8, 2006 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy for those who get into legal trouble because they use arson as a form of protest. I support any kind of non-violent and non-destructive protest and to lump people who participate in that kind of activity in with those who use destruction to further their cause is unacceptable. However, it's only a matter of time before someone gets killed in one of these fires and the law should do everything in it's power to stop the people who use this as a form of protest. Even though I sympathize with their cause their methods are short sighted and dangerous. As far as i'm concerned nobody has the right to endanger the lives of others for any cause and whether they want to admit it or not, these people are endangering the lives of others. I say bring the hammer down on these fools.

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

» ^ Posted by: decembrist
» RE: They still should go to jail Posted by: Reload_237
» RE: They still should go to jail Posted by: Reload_237
If they might get what they want...
Posted by: adp3d on Feb 8, 2006 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...people and groups who do violence against abortion clinics are also "terrorists"

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

Casca
Posted by: Casca on Feb 11, 2006 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Non-violent? No threat of violence? I wonder why ELF made a statement "Where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice?" Also, I guess fires and incendiary devices don't endanger people and wildlife.

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

» RE: Casca Posted by: beltower