Be the Spark!

contribute now

SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

Suggest a Topic

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

  • A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.

TAGS:

Burning Questions

AIR DATE: Tuesday, March 4th 2008
POSTED BY: JULIE SABATIER
Download the mp3 for this show.
Photo credit: cobalt123 / Flickr / Creative Commons

The Earth Liberation Front is back in the news this week. This morning, in a Seattle suburb, a fire burned three multi-million dollar show homes. As with past incidents, no one was hurt, but graffiti at the scene and explosive devices found among the charred remains suggest this may be the latest arson linked to the ELF. And after four years in a Canadian prison, Tre Arrow (aka Michael Scarpitti) was extradited to Oregon to stand trial for the 2001 arsons at Ross Island Sand and Gravel Company and Schoppert Logging Company in Eagle Creek. Meanwhile, in Tacoma today, a jury is deliberating the case of Briana Waters for her alleged role in a separate 2001 arson at the Center for Urban Horticulture in Seattle. If she loses her case, Waters will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 35 years in prison.

Do the ELF and the equally shadowy Animal Liberation Front (ALF) represent a significant domestic threat? What does it mean that the government has labeled this terrorism? Has the crackdown against alleged arsonists been an effective deterrent?

Photo credit: cobalt123 / Flickr / Creative Commons.

GUESTS:

  • Beth Anne Steele: Spokesperson for the FBI
  • Bryan Denson: Investigative reporter for The Oregonian
  • Stu Sugarman: Lawyer to activists including Tre Arrow

Tagged as: arson · logging · terrorism

Photo credit: cobalt123 / Flickr / Creative Commons

As a law-abiding individual, I can't say I can relate to members of ELF, though I certainly sympathize with them. For far too long, our natural environment has been raped and destroyed, all for the sake of convenience, and "progress". I have a deep passion for the natural world, and at times my anger at the bull-headedness and ignorance of our citizens boils over. I feel no remorse when I give Hummer drivers the finger. I am embarrassed greatly by the current state-of-affairs in our government. I long to live in a country like Sweden, that embraces positive change, and strict environmental standards. And no, I don't believe for a minute that ELF represents a significant domestic threat. The real crime is for oil companies to be making record profits at the expense of our air quality. While I would never join the ELF or their causes, I certainly can understand where they are coming from, and wish their anger and destruction translated into more fundamental change in this country.
benjaminv —
I wrote my Master?s thesis on hard-core environmental activists including Tre Arrow, so I can speak with some authority on the matter. Idealists like Mr. Arrow are a nuisance at best and pose no real threat whatsoever.
People looking for domestic terrorists would be better off turning to the likes of Tim McVeigh who killed 168 people and injured of 800 almost 12 years ago.
It is a frightening sign of the times that a barefoot hippie like Arrow who can?t bear to harm an insect or throw away empty food containers was one the FBI?s ten most wanted and is now labeled a terrorist along with other warm-hearted people like Briana Waters.
The terrorist rhetoric is the product of a right-wing government (that quite effectively terrorizes entire populations like Iraq?s) aligned with mega corporations, many of which profit from extractive and polluting industries (some of which underwrite OPB).
Arrow, who has only been alleged to have burned a logging truck (fly over Mt. Hood National Forest to see the damage wrought to our woods under the guise of forest health) and a sand and gravel mixer (canoe over Ross Island?s lagoon to see what happens when the heart is ripped out of a landscape), is many things: a petty thief, maybe an ARSONIST, and a militant vegan, but not a terrorist.
jowozero —
What bothers me is that the media have mixed three stories - or more - into one and that really is not fair. Not taking anyones side, how can "Julie Sabatier" hope to mesh "Tre Arrow" with the arson in Woodinville, WA along with "Briana Waters" and "ELF" and "ALF" just becuase he is in custody??? Please tell me how a guy that has been in custody up in Canada for the past four years has anything to do with your opining? Bunk... He might be guilty of one crime and deserves to be convicted, but how can you justify your less than professional opine???
farmerziffel —
Farmerziffel,

We're "mixing" three stories because we're spending an hour talking about eco-sabotage and environmentally motivated alleged arson. Obviously, a man in custody in Canada for the last four years wasn't responsible for the recent fire in Woodinville... but Julie didn't imply that (or, to my ear, "opine" on anything). We're simply using the spate of recent, related news items to talk about the larger story.
David Miller —
I don't know what the definition of terrorism is, but this can't be it. This is property crime, not mass murder.

At best, I think these prosecutions result from some overactive imaginations at the justice department. At worst, it's a deeper example of the politicization of that office, with individuals targeted for prosecution based on their ideology instead of their crimes. It's hard to imagine an extreme anti-abortionist who burns down a clinic (or stalks and murders the doctor) getting the same treatment under this administration.

Just to keep it in perspective, at least Briana Waters and Tre Arrow get trials, and at least they won't be sent to Guantanamo for torture and indefinite imprisonment. At least they've been charged with something! These "environmental terrorism" cases aren't handled like the Islamic extremist version. I wonder how seriously the justice department takes its own charges, here. If it doesn't consider these arsons "serious" terrorism, but rather applies the term for political reasons, I think this is unacceptable -- especially considering the voice that polluting industries have in the white house, and maybe even the justice department itself.
kyle81 —
[i]I don't know what the definition of terrorism is, but this can't be it. This is property crime, not mass murder.[/i]

No? How about someone who went around burning down abortion clinics? Would [i]that[/i] be terrorism? Or neo-Nazis burning down synagogues? Racists burning down black churches?

Still think it's "just a property crime?"
kraznayazvezda —
Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon of blaming ecoterrorists for these fires in Seattle, we should all consider that four out of five of these houses sat unsold for more than a year before they burned. The debt service on a two million dollar asset is around twenty thousand dollars a month. And most arson fires are caused by friction-generated heat; the friction of a large mortgage rubbing up against a larger insurance policy. I'd be willing to bet that the developer added a terrorism rider to their insurance policy.
shippingbox —
Very interesting theory.
kyle81 —
I seriously doubt the FBI is willing or even capable of investigating if this could be owner induced. Much easier to blame the ELF and throw resouces at that, as it fits with the "profile" of the FBI and their prefered targets.
echolynch —
I am completely unsympathetic to eco-terrorism (see other comments), and I hate conspiracy theories; nevertheless, this was exactly my reaction when I first heard about these fires.
ianmcd —
well, with $8m on the line, you can bet the Insurance Company will look into it, and do a thorough job. A lot more people get killed by insurance arsons than ever got hurt by the ELF, or the Weathermen, for that matter.
shippingbox —
To all those who are thinking the way these foremost postings read: THANK YOU. The researched, educated, free-thinking readers here have made countless valid points.
To OPB and Christian: PLEASE STOP TRYING TO LINK MY BROTHER TO ANYTHING RELATED TO THE FIRES IN SEATTLE.

Readers/listeners are absolutely onto something deliberate on the part of the "news" here and throughout much coverage all over this town...the unfortunate fires in Seattle could not be more IRRELEVANT to my brother's situation.
Shawna Scarpitti
shawna scarpitti —
Shawna,
You're welcome. I spent a lot of time with Tre around the whole Eagle Creek campaign. He was one of the amazing young people I met their while researching my grad thesis. They are environmentalists who walked their talk--while I (I admit) and other more mainstream enviros drove our SUV's to protests. (I since sold it) It was a pleasure to meet him and be assured, I will dispell myths whenever I can.
jowozero —
Funny how the F.B.I. and the ATF looked the other way in the Greensboro Massacre where Klansmen killed in broad daylight FIVE anti-Klan demonstrators, two of whom were doctors. Look on You Tube to see the murders shown in cold blood. Type in "Greensboro Massacre" in the search engine. You will see with your own eyes what this country is all about. Google "Greensboro Massacre" and read about the Greensboro Justice Fund who finally won a civil suit and conviction against some of the people involved---something our government (i.e. F.B.I.) refused to do. Read about the collusion of the ATF and the Neo-Nazis. None of the Klansmen served a day in jail. Oh well, they were just doing their patriotic duty and killing "commies."

Funny how the F.B.I. suppressed evidence of TWO other Klansmen in the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of four little black girls. Only until Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley (in 1977) demanded the files could convictions finally be brought against the two other Klansmen, who the F.B.I. had allowed to walk free for over 15 years. The F.B.I. had taped confessions of the Klansmen admitting their role in the bombing.

Funny how Lynn Whatley, attorney for the accused Atlanta murderer, Wayne Williams is still after nearly THIRTY years trying to get a new trial based on the fact that the F.B.I. suppressed evidence of Klan involvement in the killings of over thirty black children from the years of 1979 - 1981.

Yes, there is a double standard within the culture of the F.B.I. If you are a white male and join a Christian, patriotic organization and fight for AMERICA then you are safe. You can even be a child killer and walk.

It does not matter that I am bringing up crimes committed nearly 30 years ago. There is an innocent black man in prison (Wayne Williams) who was sent to prison by a prosecutor who was forced into prosecuting him by the federal government. This is a well documented fact. Former DeKalb Chief Louis Graham re-opened the child killings cases in 2005 because he believe Wayne Williams was innocent.

Tre Arrow is a gentle, loving and kind man. He would not hurt a fly. I knew him briefly in 1999 when he was hanging out on the Federal building and he once stopped by my home during his Congressional Campaign. What struck me was a man who walked barefoot, who drank organic foods, who believed so fiercely in the right of all living things to live that he would scale a building and remain there for 11 days.

Tre Arrow is innocent and has been set-up. The other co-defendents who are now turncoats are all free. They saved their own backs at the expense of a wonderful beautiful human being.

Justice for All -- Not Just Y'all!! I BELIEVE IN YOU TRE!!
nancyd —
Thank you for using the term "eco-sabotage." I think this is a much better term than the one employed by the federal government, because "terrorism" targets PEOPLE while "sabotage" targets property.
Jesse42 —
[i]... "eco-sabotage." I think this is a much better term than the one employed by the federal government, because "terrorism" targets PEOPLE while "sabotage" targets property.[/i]

How about someone who went around burning down abortion clinics? Would that be terrorism? Or neo-Nazis burning down synagogues? Racists burning down black churches? They all "target people, not property."

Are they all not terrorists?

kraznayazvezda —
No one has ever been injured or killed because ELF types are very careful not to burn anything inhabited or with a guard on site. This caution is because these groups do what they do because of a strong belief in the sanctity of life--ALL life, not just human life (that's why they're concerned about our land base and ecosystems). For this reason "terrorism" is the ultimate kind of Newspeak for this kind of crime. Despite the dictionary and FBI definition, you can't have terror without loss of life and limb.
jowozero —
That's not quite correct. Terrorism is generally defined as a political action that threatens harm to achieve some particular objective. It does not have to involve loss of life, fear is what is most damaging. I do agree, though, that the action of burning a couple of houses really can't be viewed as terrorism, because it's not likely to impact a large number of people and change their behavior through fear of consequences.
Brenton —
Whatever you think of the ELF and its tactics, the more troubling issue is the Bush Justice Department's priorities, not to mention their own definition of terrorism. So-called "eco-terrorists" whose only crimes are property damage, are targeted as top-priority by federal law enforcement, while violent armed domestic groups such as the Alabama Free Militia and other right-wing racist groups are ignored.
Informational link: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/04/alabama_militia_raided_for_stockpiling_weapons
newshound —
There is a clear difference around the issue of intent. Yes arson could result in a loss of life, but the important distinction is there is no intent for that to occur. Your current guest, Beth, should be smart enough to know that.
scottmil —
The FBI is a right-wing organization so prosecute leftist groups with a lot more fervor and "terrorist enhancements" than militia groups or anti-abortion groups. They did this in the 60's and 70's. They did this to Earth First!s Judy Barry whose pelvis was shattered by a car bomb. Instead of investigating the bomber, the FBI blamed the bomb on Barrry. Look up Judy Barry or COINTELPRO for more info.
jowozero —
Correction for Jowozero: the name is spelled "Judi Bari." http://www.judibari.org
newshound —
I think it is extremely ironic how Beth responded to the suggestion that bombings or threats against abortion clinics are exempt from acts of "terrorism". A further definition of terrorism includes: "...only those acts which are intended to create fear..." and so on.

I have great concern for the environment, the humane treatment of animals and the health of a global community.

What about the corporations, already exempt from laws that individuals have to abide by? Government is set up to protect those corporations first and above all.... for profit... and at no cost...even if it means taking human lives or animal lives.

While I don't believe in, or support destruction to public or private property, I do believe in evolution. And part of evolution is change. After all, it was us as Americans that considered women and people of color to be second class citizens just less than one hundred years ago.

What about corporate criminals who destroy American's lives by sabotage ( stealing their retirements or investments by misleading, lying or covering up their scandals)?

Terrorism appears to be an opinion here... and a strong one.

I call our war in Iraq (and perhaps soon to be, in Iran) as occupation and therefore, terrorism.
evolutionist —
Having been part of the discussion at The Oregonian, I agree with Bryan Denson and his comments on the use of "terrorism" and "sabotage." Journalistic phrasing legitimately can differ from that of the FBI. Since Sept. 11 the word "terrorism" has taken on a meaning that, in journalistic uses, makes it a poor choice for actions aimed at non-human targets.

I do believe that the closer an action comes to people as intended targets, the more likely the word "terrorism" can be used. Burning up logging equipment is sabotage aimed at a system -- criminal, absolutely, but aimed more at a process and values. Targeting the home of someone who owns those trucks and endangering or emotionally attacking the people who live there becomes a form of terrorism.

Dan Hortsch,
former public editor (ombudsman ), The Oregonian, retired
Dan Hortsch —
According to the applicable U.S. law, "terrorism" involves criminal violence or acts that are dangerous to human life with the intent:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

The issue is not whether people are intended as targets given that the acts in question are criminally violent on their face. The issue worthy of question is whether the acts are intended to turn the government or an entire population of citizens against existing laws and policies or their enforcement. There does not seem to be evidence for such intent. In fact, one would be hard pressed to cogently state the specific laws or policies that the vandals or arsonists were intent on challenging, let alone which population or government bodies they sought to coerce to bring about such change. Thus, the charge of terrorism seems specious.
NorskyBoy —
Would you then exempt from "terrorism" acts like:

[list]pro-lifers burning down abortion clinics[/list]
[list]klansmen burning down black churches[/list]
[list]neo-nazis burning down synagogues[/list]


If not, why not?
kraznayazvezda —
As others have indicated here, it is one thing to commit a crime of sabotage and property destruction. It is another thing to incite "terror" and to threaten human life. Any study of terrorism worldwide reveals that terrorism is a far different thing than, however wrong it may be, property destruction for a cause.

The federal government has utlized the terrorism term as a case of simple political convenience in the past few years.
TravisT —
If the definition of terrorism is action taken by a group to coerce a people or governnment into changing policy, then it seems there are many other groups that could be catagorized as domestic terrorists. I think the fact that our current government is focusing so much time, attention and money on "environmental" terrorists is just a reflection of the values of the government. Apparently it's important to protect large businesses who polute, and to make a statement to those who think otherwise. I'm not supporting the methods used by the ELF, I just think our government's actions are indicative of the values it holds.
charis —
One should ask which laws the vandals set out to change or turn whole populations against, as the legal definition of terrorism requires. I don't think that was their purpose. Rather, it seems they set out to destroy specific housing developments, SUV sales, etc., as a means of stopping individual acts of environmental destruction through individual acts of destruction of the machinery of environmental degradation. That doesn't make their actions right or lawful, but it doesn't make them terrorist actions either. The terrorism charge is just a politically motivated bit of practical terrorism (in the common, not legal, sense of the word) on the part of a corrupt Justice Department with an anti-environmental agenda shared throughout the Bush administration.
NorskyBoy —

The FBI representative and others characterize this issue as operating "within the law" or going "outside the law." The FBI guest said she couldn't understand those that were not satisfied with the legal means to redress grievances. This is extremely naive.

One of the reasons people feel driven to work outside the law is the rampant and flagrant disregard for the law shown by their opponents. Contracts for logging in National Forests often include many specifications and limitations, for example geographic boundaries and sizes of trees that may be cut. A "salvage" operation for burns or insect infestation may limit the cut to certain sizes or to "dead or dying." However these restrictions are often purposely disregarded by those holding the contract. This is the first step "outside the law." Does the government chase them down and hold them accountable? No. In fact for nearly a decade it was commonplace for the Forest Service to routinely place "Closure Orders" around such an operation so that no one could get within sight to witness or document the illegal logging. Many people would sneak in, often with cameras to try to document. Of course, if they were caught, they would be arrested.

A close friend of mine was arrested for entering a "closure" area with cameras. What he found was a logging operation that was bypassing all the small trees and logging the old growth as fast as possible, although the contract specified that only young trees (up to a specified diameter) were to be cut. Of course the logging company wants the more profitable larger trees, and they know that even if they get caught, once they've cut down the tree, the whole point is moot.

Funny thing ... when my friends were caught, they were put in handcuffs, held for a while, then released right there ... but the Forest Service personnel kept the film that they had removed from the cameras.

If our legal system was actually a "justice system," rather than a means to justify and enforce the will of the powerful, then more people would put their energy into working through that system. As it is, the current Administration has been working as hard and fast as possible to diminish the voice of the "citizen" across the range of environmental legislation.

If you are going to have guests refer to the "legal processes," you should have an environmental lawyer explain how those processes work ... or don't work ... and the drastic ways they've been curtailed over the last decade.

The more you close the citizenry out of the legal process, they more they will resort to other means ... always.
griffbear —
Sorry I spelt her name wrong, it's Judi Barri. In May 2004, the FBI joined the City of Oakland in paying Earth First! activists Darryl Cherney and the late Judi Bari through her estate a combined $4 million for violations of their first and fourth amendment rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. After this kind of evidence of wrongdoing against environmentalists, why would we believe anything they say about the rule of law?
jowozero —
The FBI spokesperson seems to have a very narrow view of the system. The incumbency rate for congress people is well into the 90 percentile, additionally with the two party system - there is simply not that much difference between the environmental policies of either party. For example, no one is really considering stopping old-growth logging. When alternative ideas cannot enter the mainstream there is a long history of civil disobedience - starting with the boston tea party and continuing with the struggles for civil rights with MLK and a more radical Malcolm X. Finally, it is okay to accept punishment - but the sentence in Tacoma will be 35 years (for allegedly being a lookout)! This is more than if you murder someone in Oregon - these sentences seem to carry out a political motive - protecting corporations and powerful interests. - Which is the point of the direct actions in the first place
blubird —
How much damage did the ELF do to the environment by burning these houses? The plastics and material that burned in those fires is extremely toxic and very harmful to the environment. These people have no regard for the environment. They only want to see themselves on the news. Tre Arrow got his wish. Let's keep him out of society for as long as we possibly can.
pianoman9701 —
After thinking about this more: It is terrorism, albeit not very successful terrorism; because not too many people were terrorized and little action has occurred to spark any change. The intent however does seem to be terrorism. So maybe it is pointless to discuss the semantics of this anymore.

However there are clearly varying degrees of terrorism and the law or justice system clearly needs to be changed to reflect that.
scottmil —
In the 1990's in Greenpeace and then in Earth First! At the time both organizations were grounded in non-violent civil disobedience movements like the Civil Rights movements. Greenpeace had collapsed in the late 90s. We were generally under the impression that we were LOOSING the evnviornmental movement.

Earth First! had a major hub in Euguene when I lived there. We had a cable access show. When the ELF revealed themselves with their first attack on a ranger station we denounced it on our show that evening.

But this tore the community apart. Because some people in Euguene had given up on non-violence and no one knew who was in ELF. I eventually left.

In my experience, ELF was like the Weather Underground. It was a radical movement that was born out of frustration during the final days of a political movement that had been very popular and then, sort of lost its energy and focus.

Today global warming and 911 have put and end to ELF type of operations and the need for them.
cornelius —
The FBI spokes woman keeps returning to the rule of law, but it seems that the real question is whether the rule of law or the natural world is supreme. And perhaps if we wait until the laws change, it will be too late.
Jay Gatsby —
Good point.

Traditionally the wealthy and powerful have used up and destroyed their local environment and just moved on to somewhere else, but now that the fossil fuel industries and other extractive industries are threatening the death of all life on this little blue planet some different way needs to happen, because there is currently no other planet to go to.
Tom D Ford —
This by no means is a condonement of environmental acts of vandalism, but we haven't discussed the acts of vandalism by the extremists on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm talking about the conservative part of the population who endorse off-road vehicle usage on any public lands, and even public lands that prohibit ORVs. For example, in the Badlands of Eastern Oregon just east of Bend. In this vast area ORVs users ride in the back country and vandalize ancient Indian petroglyphs purposely to send a message to the BLM that they better not try to make this area a "wilderness" which would keep them out by law. They dump trash and chemicals in these remote areas belonging to the public, not only because it's convenient, but to say "**ck you Uncle Sam and environmentalist, how do you like your prestine area now?" I know this because I know people who've said this in front of me. Thye are the same people who say they "don't cry when they hear about cyclists who are struck by vehicles on the road, because they represent environmentally conscious people. There are organizations who promote anti-environmental actions like the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the Western Fuels Assoc. to name two. The Blue Ribbon Coalition was so blatantly anti-environment they bordered on terrorists. Lately they've toned the rhetoric down, but behind closed doors they are the same as before. My point is if we are going to discuss ELF or any other radical organization to protect the environment, we must also mention the radicals on the other side who are commiting equal damage in their actions. The only difference is you can never replace the damage these right-wing groups are doing like the petroglyphs, but you can always rebuild homes.
Jim
thinking loudly —
The FBI spokesperson gave the agency's definition of terrorism; it would have been useful if you'd asked her for its definition of sabotage.
jamesmcq —
Although the discussion has been based around the eco arsonists, there should be time given to the ALF. Their response is to something much more direct and easily understood. There are hundreds of animals, including beagles and monkeys, killed everyday for unecessary reasons. Why are those deaths acceptable, while the nonfatal retaliations of the ALF is seen as the highest threat of terrorism? There is a great imbalance between how the scientists at OHSU are being treated, and how the ALF members have been treated. Who gets to decide that the lives of those animals are meaningless, while the hummer that the scientist drives is worth 20 years in jail?
angelaprev —
The need to get your point across in the best way a person can think of, is not a disorder. Most of us know that you can't just go out and make a change "legally". The ability to get the congress person of your choice in office is close to nil. Those I would vote for have little to no chance of getting into office. They are looked at as having liberal views or they don't have the resources to run to begin with. I am so tired of hearing that rhetoric. It's not realistic. I would REALLY like to hear these questions posed to the governments that use force to get THEIR point across. Why is it that they can get away with it and citizens are not? If we were to look deeper than the superficial aspects of these organizations, you would find unfathomable compassion, intelligence and love. No one has ever been injured in the protests. Governments injure hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Using vocabulary like "eco-terrorists" only exacerbates the fear and dislike for those who decide to matters into their own hands.
real-tomato —
Have we yet named that the attention given to ELF and general scapegoating of environmental activism is a reflection of the current cultural leadership paradigm - conservative and corporate based. Individuals who have a vested interest in shifting this cultural paradigm will and are branded and punished. I do not envy the role of your FBI representative but she could offer a more intellegent and reality based perspective of this kind of government initiated propoganda. Anyone with any sensitivity can see the difference between an organization whose purpose is based on the hatred of another group (KKK, radical fundamentalists - yes abortion clinic bombers) and those who are fully invested in making cultural changes that will heal and help not just our communities but our whole planet. Environmetnal degradation is a much more serious issue than what is legal and what is not. If our children have to fight for clean air and water because unconsious individuals with money or political power in our generation continue to pollute the earth how do you justify inaction? ELF is trying to shift the dangerous cultural paradigm one could easily argue is much more devistating to humans and the environment than any single act of arson. Have we completely forgotten the civil rights movement - "by any means necessary". Legal or not the ELF is doing the work we all have to do in some way sooner or later. Perhaps we should be grateful. To define activism as terrorism is a very nasty lie.
shannon hallberg —
Miss FBI who recently spoke is naive, it would be cute except it makes me sick. It should be common knowledge that getting laws changed in this country happens by law makers, people with privilege.

WHAT IS WRONG with all these people talking about it's wrong to work outside the law. How did we separate from the British? How did formal segregation of race end? Do you think the government would've cared about Martin Luther King Jr. if the Black Panthers weren't a threat to the status quo the government and people in power so desperately wanted to hold onto?

MsDenight —
It?s the old Golden Rule isn?t it? The man with the gold makes the rules. Some wild-eyed idealist trying to save the world gets labeled a terrorist and goes to jail at the same time that Bush/Cheney and their Global Oil Corporations are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq to continue their Global Warming which threatens to kill all life on the planet.

It really is an upside down ?Alice Through the Looking Glass World?.

And considering the current home loan crisis I would suspect builders self arson on those homes in Seattle to cut his losses, after all that is traditional in these kinds of times. Time will tell.
Tom D Ford —
I am sorry that no one talked about the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act or the The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. While I do not condone violence of any kind, what I am opposed to is the government interfering on behalf of industry to prevent information from getting to the public or prohibiting the public from speaking out. AETA was pushed by biomedical and pharma and is overly broad - dangerously overly broad - to include ANYONE who speaks out against or in ANY WAY interferes with an owner's ability to profit. This would include undercover investigations, whistle blowers, peaceful vigils - not just the violent acts. Our country needs to be aware of how quickly we are signing over our rights. There are activist out there who don't identify with ELF or ALF - people who are seeking truth and transparency.
bmacveg —
FBI spokesperson Steele characterizes her agency's approach to these cases as fair and impartial. I am finding that hard to swallow. Let us not forget that the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a key part, has been recognized as being corrupted from top to bottom by overt politicization at the hands of Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Meiers, and perhaps Karl Rove and George Bush himself. The choices of whom to hire, especially in prosecutorial positions, have been deliberately crafted to uphold the interests of a very right wing administration that has been openly hostile to the environment while promoting destructive business and lifestyle practices that are poisoning our air and water while threatening to dangerously destabilize worldwide climate systems. Ms. Steele is in the employ of an administration that has made the absurd claim that "eco-terrorism" is the greatest threat to domestic security--even though there were no acts of "eco-terrorism" being committed at the time. This is a politically motivated witch hunt, not unlike the politically motivated witch hunt for nonexistant WMD used to justify an illegal war and occupation in Iraq.

In particular, the charge of terrorism seems to be trumped up. The main issue is not whether or not one could imagine how someone might be hurt by acts of sabotage against machinery that harms the environment as a matter of course, as the broadcast commentators suggested. The main problem with the terrorism charge is that no one has been able to explain which, if any laws the acts of sabotage were meant to turn the government or the public at large against. Not once did any commentator offer any evidence that the acts of sabotage were meant to lead to changes in the enforcement or definition of any law.

It seems much more likely that the real and obvious purpose of these acts of sabotage was to directly stop acts of environmental destruction by destroying the machinery of destruction. That is still a crime, and not to be condoned, but it should not be construed as terrorism. Doing so not only leads to a miscarriage of justice for the environmentally motivated saboteurs but also warps our concept of what terrorism is and how to prevent it.
NorskyBoy —
When the spokesperson (Ms. Steele?) described the method (not criteria) that these these acts of property destruction in the name of the environment are classified as terrorism, I have to ask:
(1) would we be willing to invade Canada with our military might to kill and/or apprehend eco terrorists? The government has set a precident for it.
(2) Part of the method used to determine the severity of the act is frequency. If you read the news, Hate crimes have increased in this nation. Therefore, shouldn't hate crimes be moved to the "terrorist" status?
(3) If the FBI is to protect our free speech rights, where are they when our First Amendment Rights are being violated when people get arrested for free speech at RNC conventions, George W. Bush public events, NSA illegal wiretaping, etc.

All of this is public knowledge if you listen to the news. On the surface, I see consistencies in the enforcement of the law, and the law is not enforced impartially. This frustration is probably what drives people to these acts of crime when the legal system fails them and doesn't act impartially and justice isn't served. That is something that needs to be addressed.
Rogue420C —
I was very disappointed that the show did not include information on the SHAC7 http://www.shac7.com/ convictions and appeals in progress. This is how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been used against activists who have done NO HARM TO PEOPLE OR PROPERTY but have interfered with PROFITS of those who experiment on animals. I challenge the host of the show to get more informed on these issues and have a part II where we discuss how these laws and definitions have been used to silent dissent among people using direct action.
karenpdx —
As a former criminal prosecutor, I have been greatly alarmed by the blatant over-reaching of recent statutory enactments such as The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The government rarely passes criminal laws that restrict its power to prosecute. Everything the government has chosen to classify as "terrorism" has always been a crime - arson is arson, murder is murder, assault is assault, a crime motivated by racial hatred is a hate crime. The government has always had sufficient tools to protect community safety from crimes such as these. There has been very little discussion or justification as to why existing laws are inadequate to punish these sorts of crimes.
The new domestic terrorism laws now give the government an avenue to seriously punish ideology and political dissent. Prosecuting arson as terrorism is just one more method to stifle any challenge to the dominant political paradigm.
These new domestic terrorism laws are similar to the laws targeting the labor movement and striking workers who challenged the business-dominated status quo in the 1920's and 1930's.
Anybody who is not terrified by the vagueness of the definintions of what constitutes "terrorism" in these new laws, particulary the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, is not paying attention. If we continue in this vein, how long until a critical email such as this is a crime?
FormerDA —
ELF participation or not, the recent "eco-sabotage" is no doubt terrorism. The claim by a radio show participant today (Mr. Sugarman, I think, but can't confirm as my reception was off at that moment) that OHSU's animal experiments fall under terrorism is, however, nonsense.
As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, "Terrorism": The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for idealogical or political reasons".
In review: "Unlawful". "Use of force or violence". "By a person or organized group". "Intention of intimidating". "Against people or property". "For idealogical or political purposes".
These terms are clear, and must be accepted by any reasonable person. Those who choose to cloak their criminality under the guise of a "higher purpose" are fooling nobody. We have systems in place to address social problems. Work within these, or go live away from the society you despise.
petenorton1 —
In order to be an act of terrorism under U.S. law, there must be intent to:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

The commentators implied that there may have been some intent to change government policies or laws, but no laws or policies of interest were identified, nor is there any plausible connection between burning some SUVs or homes without any political commentary and the conclusion that these acts are intended to change laws or policies absent some expression of such a purpose.

Clearly kidnapping and assassination was not involved.

That leaves us with trying to influence an entire population of civilians. But without some sort of communication aimed at an entire population to tell them what is demanded of them, that definition is also unsatisfied.

The more likely purpose of the acts of vandalism in question was simply to destroy specific instruments of environmental destruction that the perpetrators found to be wrong and offensive in their view. That is a violent crime, but it is not terrorism.
NorskyBoy —
There was #1 " intent to intimidate or coerce "

That is terrorism!!!!!!
woody73 —
Once again,

Terrorism is: the systematic use of violence or the threat of violence against people by a non-state actor for the purpose of overthrowing a government or to cause significant change to the government, undermining the democratic rule of law.
ericj9 —
Your are confusing "international terrorism" with domestic "terrorism." International terrorism is defined under U.S. law as involving actions that:

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended?
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The cases under discussion involve domestic terrorism, which is defined as follows (taking the time to actually look up the particulars, now):

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended?
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

There was no government policy being targeted that I can see. The only people affected were individual property owners, not entire civilian populations. And not mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping was involved. Thus, the key element of terrorism, the intent to create change in the government or in society at large, is not met. The acts in question are not terrorism and neither society nor justice are served by trying to stretch the definition of terrorism to encompass the crimes in question.
NorskyBoy —
So you say that it's not terrorism when it is directed towards a small group or individual?
What would you suppose that the intent of the vandelism and property damage would be?
Would it be done to deter those people in the future from the practices?
Your reasoning seem s to be skewd!!
woody73 —
Lstening today I was very disturbed by the egregious comments attacking the OHSU primate center. One caller described her outrage w/ no evidence- and the defense lawyer you had as a guest described the center as a place where real "terrorism" takes place.
NOT OKAY!!!
OHSU has been a target in the past and uncensored comments like these put REAL people, scientists and support staff at risk. not to mention very valuable research also put at risk.
Sincerely- nan adams
nan adams —
OK, Let's get the credential part out of the way: I used to be a counter-terrorism analyst for both the Army and the Air Force. I studied their organization models, beliefs, tactics, weapons...you name it. After 9-11, I worked for CONR (Continental NORAD Region, the tasked to shoot down commercial airliners in the very worst case scenario). My briefings were referenced by numerous govt. agencies. enough?

Terrorism is: the systematic use of violence or the threat of violence against people by a non-state actor for the purpose of overthrowing a government or to cause significant change to the government, undermining the democratic rule of law.

The "new and improved" federal government definition makes a joke out of what I used to do. Let's make it clear: if intimidation is the determining factor then that means Jersey Teamsters or even mean girls in junior high school are now terrorists because they use the internet to target, use propaganda against their victims, and sometimes lure their victims to be physically beaten. If I would/could be tasked to focus my efforts away from AQ to ELF, I don't know where I would have started. Case in point- Switch your Mid-East terrorism correspondents to the Earth-first beat and see well that works out.

ELF/ALF are clearly criminals, but worse than anything else they do is taint the image of people like me who care about the environment...just not enough to set it on fire. Many people who are on the fence of buying a Hummer or replacing their incandescent bulbs, rightly or wrongly see the "monkey wrencher" as their future if they start to go green. ELF/ALF's true damage is some arson damage it's the long-term tainting of the environmental movement and the slowing of green initiatives in this country. Nice going guys!

ericj9 —
It seems like there is so much ELF and others who share their views could do short of committing acts of violent property destruction. Violence, even when people are not harmed, undermines their message. To say they are justified by frustration is not persuasive when there is no publicity about the actions they have taken through legal and political channels to stop the practices they abhor. If they want to change the world they need to bring the public along with them, not turn the public off. Violence is only justified when it is the last resort, and from what I can see the ELF does not even attempt to make the case that it has exhaused legal and political avenues for change.
peepsl —
Jim Newman here from OHSU.

I agree that it is inappropriate and irresponsible for guests of the program to make claims about the OHSU primate center and essentially paint targets on our researchers.

The primate center is heavily regulated and has been the source of significant health advancements. For example, last year our stem cell breakthrough was identified along with human studies as the top science breakthrough of the year by TIME magazine.

It is also noteworthy that each time claims of mistreatment have been made, investigations have cleared the center.

Jim
Jim Newman —
As a retired Forest Service employee I want to make sure that Joseph's message was not lost in the anger that the apologist for the firebombing managed to generate. I met with people who used similar tactics (personal comments, misdirection and false statements) when we tried to get public involvement in land management decisions. As a magistrate in Bend once told me during a trail for a logger accused of threatening a federal officer;"Forest Service employees have to put up with some verbal abuse."
I knew people who worked at Oakridge when it was burned and I feared for their lives. I feared for my friends and the public when I found spikes in trees, signs posted in the forest threatening booby traps, and received threatening letters in the mail. I feared for myself and my family when people shook a fist in my face and told me they knew where I lived. If it looks and feels like terrorism, maybe it is terrorism.
jmyoung —
I certainly believe that legal/non-violent avenues are the best forms of expression, but I chaffed listening to Agent Fields lecture on the subject. Her comments, and really the focus of the admittedly brief portion of the show I heard, seemed to focus on citizen's actions. I believe our government and corporations have a responsibility to act legally and nonviolently as well. I believe they also have social responsibilities beyond that.
jweesner —
The tactics of groups like this are counter productive to people trying to bring about real change. They bring the wrong kind of attention to the what is going on and change the conversation from the issues to their pathetic cries for attention. Instead of reflecting the atrocities and wrongs going on in society with acts that are unethical, cause more pollution, create more problems, create more enemies, and scare people they should try to be the change they are talking about. I think a lot of people are drawn to these tactics because it makes them feel powerful and important. They need to be more creative in trying to convince the people who are making the real decisions in how we do things to change there opinions. We need to set an example of how to act in society, not hold a mirror up to the negative. Peace is the path and the destination to real change, or else you become what you are trying to change.
Todd Wilson —
This is a very disturbing method of acting out which resembles a childs tantrum when they don't get their way. First, I feel that their anger is being focused on the wrong people. The people that are responsible for allowing companies to log or genetically alter crops, test on animals etc. are our government officials. It seems that the people of the elf or other groups involved in this type of activity are uneducated or under educated about how business or government works. Now don't get me wrong, I am not for genetic alterations nor deforestation, nor needlessly abusing animals, but these types of criminal acts do not help the case. How do you expect anyone to respect you and your position when you are acting disrespectfully, cowardly, and childish towards your oposition.

I am truly disturbed by the "lawyer" that you had on your program today, who is clearly feeding into the problem of illegal activities. Terrorism does not always involve physical harm to people, but is also part of threats to the well being of a person. You burn their home to the ground, their business and their belongings causing hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of damage is indeed a terrorist act.Thus the saying if you aren't doing what I want you to do and how I want you to do it, than I'm gonna brake it burn it or take it away. More over, an incendiary device that fails to work is a danger to life and will remain to be a danger to human life until it is removed and dimantled. It is absurd to say that because the peoples intent wasn't to harm a human life thus removes any responsibility or liability. If your device takes a human life than you are indeed a murderer or attempted murderer your supposed intention does not exempt you from the outcome.

Let's say hypothetically if I were to burn your house because I don't agree with your views and your methods where does that put me? Are you inside? Will you try to run inside and save something and get hurt or trapped inside?

What is needed for these people, is for them to go to anger management. There is never an excuse for acting poorly and recklessly. Shame on you and all those that validate and support your ILLEGAL and ANTI-SOCIAL actions!

THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!
woody73 —
As others have written above, the end does justify the means where the U.S. Government is concerned. Instead of harping on an example like the war in Iraq, I will again point you to the case of Judi Bari. This peace-loving guitar playing woman tried to united timber workers and enviros and was car-bombed for it. The Oakland Police and FBI, instead of looking for a bomber, blamed her for the crime. Which would be laughable except her pelvis and tailbone were shattered. The bombing was the end of Judi's work with the logging community, they retracted in fear. Tell the FBI the end doesn't justify the means.
Stu Sugarman was the guest. He is an excellent lawyer and many of us and you too Woody, would be wise to emulate his calmness and intelligence.
jowozero —
So with whom is your battle and why would it be directed to individuals or small groups and not take up the fight with the elected officials.
Oh, That's right all this is just an excuse to act inappropriately under the guise that it is a political stance rather than the truth; instead of taking care of things in an appropriate manner , they wanna take things in their own hands and to hell with democracy!!!
We live in a society were majority rules and the better good of society in general, which does not please everyone all the time but seeks to serve that majority.
It would better suit all your efforts to attempt to persuade the majority to empathize with your view point. Practice your own sermons, it is more believable.
woody73 —
In response I would poin you to an earlier post re: the Golden Rule. Those with the gold make the rules. Yes, we can vote (though two parties have ALL the power, both of whom represent extractive polluting industies) and wow, they even let us write letters commenting on their schemes. Typically, I do beleive the pen is mightier than the sword, that's why I'm a writer. But at this point, no amount of writing, or voting is going to save our forests or salmon runs from human interference. The earth is heating up (whether or not you beleive it). We need to do somrthing more than watch Al Gore's big head on a powerpoint presentation. We need a lot more ELFs and soon.
jowozero —
A few general reactions:

* Arson is not just a property crime. People die in arsons, but for the dexterity and the tender mercy of the arsonist. Arson, by definition, conveys the willingness, if not the intent, to kill innocent people.

* The same goes for any of the crimes labeled (maybe imprecisely) as "eco-terrorism." I know nothing about the Tre Arrow case, but in principle, if innocent people are put at risk, the punishment should reflect that.

* The merits of the political desires of any perpetrator simply don't matter. At all. If lives are placed at risk, there is no ambiguity and there is no fine line. This isn't to say that the specifics of the situation don't matter; maybe some of these acts are just mischief and don't rise to any standard of "terrorism" (a useless word, the meaning of which isn't worth a lengthy argument). But the arsons in Woodinville are life-threatening crimes. Whoever is responsible needs to be held to that standard.

* As a practical matter: these kinds of acts completely subvert the causes they claim to support. Not just in a contingent and ambivalent way. Utterly and completely. Who do you suppose is moved to reconsider their thinking by these acts? No one. And I bet you all know this.






ianmcd —
It was very discouraging to hear the criminal defense attorney on the radio assert that the federal definition of terrorism is too broad and should not encompass threats or acts which target property destruction. Does this criminal defense attorney feel that the book should be thrown at those arsonists who intentionally torch a forest? I would like to ask this criminal defense attorney how many acres of forest would need to burn before intentionally setting a forest fire could and should be charged as terrorism under the federal statute? Even if an arsonist guesses right and nobody is in the building (or forest) when the fire is set, firemen called to put out the fire could be hurt or killed. Non-human animals could also be burned. Setting fires or vandalizing medical or research facilities or making veiled or other threats to harm scientists is not the right (or left way) to peacefully make change. I suspect that many of us in the Northwest believe that logging should be limited to private lands, that sacrificing animals for food is reasonable (despite any choice to personally be a vegetarian--biologically humans are omnivores), and that sacrificing animals for medical research is absolutely necessary and saves and betters human lives (humans are complex organisms and you can't test human medical treatments on simple bacteria---we can?t make humans into big guinea pigs to protect the cute little furry ones). Do any of the animal rights extremists let their house cats (an invasive species) roam free and prey on pretty native songbirds? Do they know that letting their house cats roam free heightens the risk that their cats and pregnant women will be infected with toxoplasmosis and that this causes human birth defects and mental retardation? Perhaps they should read about toxoplasmosis on the March of Dimes website and then they might consider a peaceful alternative to ecoterrorism, namely keeping their kitty inside for its health and for the sake of native songbirds and human mothers and children. In general it seems that science in America is under attack from the Right (e.g., the creationists who try to degrade scientific education, the Bush administration for its distortion of science in managing the forest and discharging its duty to protect the environment, the USDA which won't let slaughterhouses test each cow for mad cow disease) and from the Left (the animal rights extremists who threaten plant and animal research facilities and workers). Decisions should be based on best available science. Hug a scientist as well as a tree. Both wonderful and both deserve and need a hug. And keep kitty inside the house for mom?s and baby?s sake and to make Spring a little less silent.
Brian Leonard —
I will hug a scientist soon, my dad, a lifelong carbohydrate chemist, who, along with my mom gave me the knowledge and sensitivity to care about our ecosystems and be aghast at what I see around me now.
And thanks, I had been considering an indoor cat, for the bird reasons you mention, but did not know about the toxins part of it. Now I wll really go for the indoor cat. I appreciate sound, rational observations like yours even if they differ from mine.
jowozero —
Some of us are advocating for cat leash laws, so I ask that you consider a leash, which would let you take your cat outside safely. That would help prevent unplanned pregnancies as well as protecting native birdlife and those of us who garden would appreciate not grabbing cat poops while getting our hands in the dirt.
Tom D Ford —
I'd point out that under Oregon and Federal Law it is illegal to hunt non-game birds and illegal to hunt squirrels and other small game out of season and usually illegal to hunt within city limits and I would argue that since domestic cats are natural born predators, any cat owner who allows their cat outside without a leash is committing some or all of those crimes.

I wonder if one could catch such a cat, read the collar and then request that the appropriate police charge the cat owner with one or both of those crimes.
Tom D Ford —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics