is eco-terrorism really terrorism?

Great Debates
1

Congress has recently been cracking down on “eco-terrorism,” which basically refers to two groups- the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF (Earth Liberation Front). What they do is start controlled burns in buildings that they believe are contributing to the destruction of our environment (and in much of ALF’s case, contributing to the suffering of animals).

These groups are against the loss of life- human or non-human, which means that they must take every precaution necessary to not harm or kill any being. So far, nobody has been killed because of an ALF or ELF action.

But… the government considers the ELF to be the largest home-borne terrorist organization. ELF considers the term “eco terrorism” to be an emotive term used by the government to garner public support against them.

Who is right? (about the use of the term ‘terrorism’ in this sense).

colin

2

You mean like spiking trees so that loggers who try to cut them down get severely injured or killed? Like pipe-bombing a predator-control office in Portland, a meat-and-feed business in Utah, or a number of logging trucks and offices?

How about Arson? Like the Forest Service office in Oak Ridge, or two wildlife offices in Washington?

The FBI currently has over 100 open cases for acts of ‘major domestic terrorism’ related to radical environmentalists.

From this cite: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

And here’s their definition:

Sounds about right. With all the arsons going on, it’s only a matter of time before they kill someone, and maybe a lot of people.

3

Thugs, pure and simple.

They resort to violence in order to destroy another person’s property when they disagree with the way the other person is living their life. Even when the other person is following the law.

These people are self-righteous thugs that seek to enact change through intimidation.

It sure sounds to me that they are either terrorists or mafia.

4

Yes it is terrorism.
Just because they did not kill anything (except the cockroaches) in their controled burns and other acts, does not make it ok.

Sams post shows 43 million dollars in damage.

Illegal destruction of property (or loss of life) to make a political statement is terrorism.

5

Q: Are they destroying property that does not belong to them?
A: Yes

Q: Are these people trained demolishion experts or firemen? Should I feel confident in their ability to set a controlled fire in the bulding next door to mine?
A: Probably not

Q: Are they trying to influence politics through violence and fear?
A: Yes

Q: Why don’t you consider them “terrorists”?
A: Because you think they are protecting all the cute and fuzzy animals from the mean cancer research scientists.

6

Every terrorist group considers their goals to be so worthy and their opponents so powerful that they are forced to resort to terrorist actions. That hardly precludes their actions from being terrorist. I don’t recall whether or not Edward Abbey used the term in his The Monkey Wrench gang. According to this article from The Oregonian, activist Rodney Coronado claims that the trerm was coined by the targets, not the perpetrators. Somehow, the source of the name does not seem to be particularly relevant to me.

Given the widespread harm that has been inflicted (with several near-death events, despite the claims that the ELF and ALF don’t intend to hurt anyone), the word terrorist is very appropriate for these these people.

7

Bush accepts global warming exists and his policies will only speed the process so, I guess, we could also ask whether the wanton destruction of the environment for future generations is also ‘eco-terrorism’ ?

Certainly got that political component of the definition…violence? does ‘destruction’ count ? I guess it does if you’re so minded, or it doesn’t if you’re not.

8

What a specious argument that is. To equate destruction with terrorism is to make the term meaningless. Terrorism is specifically defined as the use of violence and fear to affect political change. Even if Bush were personally releasing tonnes of CO2 into the air, it’s not terrorism unless Bush says, “And if you don’t elect me next time, I’ll release ten times as much”.

It’s this kind of fuzzy thinking that leads people to ask questions like the OP in the first place.

9

What a specious argument that is. To equate destruction with terrorism is to make the term meaningless. Terrorism is specifically defined as the use of violence and fear to affect political change. Even if Bush were personally releasing tonnes of CO2 into the air, it’s not terrorism unless Bush says, “And if you don’t elect me next time, I’ll release ten times as much”.

It’s this kind of fuzzy thinking that leads people to ask questions like the OP in the first place.

10

Well, I do think it is fair to acknowledge that fear can result from the tactics that the ELF has used. I would like to point out that they have not to my knowlege taken any responsibility for pipe bombs or tree spikings. My belief is that there is a loosely knit collection of people that make up the ELF and then there are plenty of wackos out there who have no morals or even a clear ecological stance. The FBI may find it convenient to lump them all together, but I don’t think they really have the evidence for it.

My problem is that the term can and will be applied sloppily to anybody engaged in direct action like tree-sitting. Thus “suspicion” of eco-terrorism can be used as way to violate the rights of those not involved.

One thing to keep in mind also is that oftentimes I’ve known timber companies to make illegal cuts. The local authorities however, err on the side of industry. They are breaking the law too. In the case of old growth forest, what is lost will never be replaced. They are destroying everyone’s property and profiting from it too.

But let’s think a moment about the term. Would, for instance, the unabomber be an eco-terrorist, or simply a lone nut? Clearly he intended to kill, maim and cause fear but his rationale wasn’t entirely clear. There’s all kinds of nuts in this country, some of them bomb abortion clinics. Do we need the term “abortion terrorists”? I think it’s clearly an attempt to capitalize on September 11 to grant the government excessive powers.

11

This made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Controlled burns in buildings? Somebody just watched backdraft didn’t they? Are the people in question hanging around with charged hoses at the ready just in case the fire gets out of hand? Maybe they applied for a burn permit? How did they determine the building was empty of all living things? No cars out front, oops the night maintenance guy got dropped off today while his cars in the shop. This is flat out, no excuses or petty rationalizations arson and destruction of private property. If someone was killed in the process IIRC from my fire investigation class it becomes murder 1.

Then don’t light buildings on fire! Fire when used this way is a devastating weapon, and a very lethal one. The people best able to control and or operate in a fire based environment are not the people doing this (or did someone let John Orr out of prison)

Thank, God, Godess, Budda, Satan, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Phil, Luck, The Force or whatever you believe in.

12

George W Bush is not deliberately targeting the environment for destruction. The destruction of the environment is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that we need lumber, fossil fuels, metals, animals and so on for civilization to run.

13

And besides which, the environment belongs to the people that are currently alive, not those that will come later. Destroying something that you own is not terrorism.

14

And besides which, America’s environment is improving. The forested land area is growing. Air pollution and water pollution are reducing.

15

First off, I do not want to put myself in the position of being the apologist for the ELF. While I admire the courage and ideals of these cells, and also admire the fact that these cells must take every precaution necessary to prevent the loss of life, I consider myself a true pacifist. Thus, I do not agree with the tactics of the ELF. I could never live with myself if I had something to do with the death of another person, which, as someone pointed out, is liable to happen eventually. (Although I would like to get a cite from tomndebb on the several near deaths he mentioned).

But…I think there are some misconceptions running abound on what the ELF’s motives are. The reason I started this threat is because the ELF aims to take the profit incentive out of the damage to the environment (which, as msmith said, is an unfortunate by-product of the needs of the current world capitalist system).

But, since the ELF aims to take the profit motive out of killing the environment, and does not aim to arouse fear and terror in people, is this still considered terrorism? Basically (and I got this from reading the FAQ from the NAELFPO), they believe that by destroying property that is destroying the environment, companies may begin to lose profits. In case these companies are insured, the ELF hopes that continued damage to specific companies will cause insurance companies to drop their clients because of a loss of monetary incentive. Monetary incentive, not terror.

In one particular example, the ELF destroyed the office of Catherine Ives, a researcher for Monsanto. The ELF states that they destroyed years of her work, as well as 400,00-900,000 dollars in damage. What they did was not arise fear in people’s hearts, but rather made physical, substantial damage to an industry that is harming the environment.

I guess I could see how that could be considered terrorist by some. I guess I woud like to have a standard definition of terrorism to work with. Webster gives me “the use of terror or intimidation to achieve one’s political objectives” and says terror is “intense fear, fright, or dread.” Since the ELF’s objectives are monetary damage and not intense fear, can the ELF still be considered a terrorist organization? Can the term “freedom fighters” apply?

Irregardless, these actions are not akin to those of 9/11. I think everyone can agree that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were despicable. Is the US using the word ‘terrorist’ to demonize the ELF, and compare them to the Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the ELF would never tolerate the loss of human life that was the crux of the Al Qaeda acts?

Also, I’d like to publicly state that the use of patronizing, condescending language by drachillix and msmith is personally insulting to me. Throwing in “cute fuzzy animals” or “pink unicorns” or whatever similar terms is not only glossing over the gigantic environmental problems that we face, but is also generalizing all those who care about the environment and labeling them all as new age, naive, idealistic hippies with posters of unicorns on their walls and crystals tied around their necks. That is bullshit. There are plenty of logical, intelligent, informed, and well-intentioned people in the environmental movement.

And december, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on your claims that the environment is improving. Yes, in the last decade some important legislation has been passed. That fact has by no means improved the environment.

I think we have about 1% of old growth forests left in America, all of them found in the pacific northwest, where the highest percentage of logging still continues. Hog farms, because of lack of legislation, are releasing tons of waste into our rivers. Dairy and cattle farms, because of the methane gas released by the high concentration of cows, is causing a considerably negative effect on our air quality. Very wasteful and high polluting companies are still ‘grandfathered’ in many cases to the legislation of the last decade.

If you genuinely believe that we are not faced with immense and urgent problems of water quantity/quality and air quality, then I will continue. But all of this is an aside to the OP, so I do not want to drag it on.

colin

16

First off, I do not want to put myself in the position of being the apologist for the ELF. While I admire the courage and ideals of these cells, and also admire the fact that these cells must take every precaution necessary to prevent the loss of life, I consider myself a true pacifist. Thus, I do not agree with the tactics of the ELF. I could never live with myself if I had something to do with the death of another person, which, as someone pointed out, is liable to happen eventually. (Although I would like to get a cite from tomndebb on the several near deaths he mentioned).

But…I think there are some misconceptions running abound on what the ELF’s motives are. The reason I started this threat is because the ELF aims to take the profit incentive out of the damage to the environment (which, as msmith said, is an unfortunate by-product of the needs of the current world capitalist system).

But, since the ELF aims to take the profit motive out of killing the environment, and does not aim to arouse fear and terror in people, is this still considered terrorism? Basically (and I got this from reading the FAQ from the NAELFPO), they believe that by destroying property that is destroying the environment, companies may begin to lose profits. In case these companies are insured, the ELF hopes that continued damage to specific companies will cause insurance companies to drop their clients because of a loss of monetary incentive. Monetary incentive, not terror.

In one particular example, the ELF destroyed the office of Catherine Ives, a researcher for Monsanto. The ELF states that they destroyed years of her work, as well as 400,00-900,000 dollars in damage. What they did was not arise fear in people’s hearts, but rather made physical, substantial damage to an industry that is harming the environment.

I guess I could see how that could be considered terrorist by some. I guess I woud like to have a standard definition of terrorism to work with. Webster gives me “the use of terror or intimidation to achieve one’s political objectives” and says terror is “intense fear, fright, or dread.” Since the ELF’s objectives are monetary damage and not intense fear, can the ELF still be considered a terrorist organization? Can the term “freedom fighters” apply?

Irregardless, these actions are not akin to those of 9/11. I think everyone can agree that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were despicable. Is the US using the word ‘terrorist’ to demonize the ELF, and compare them to the Al Qaeda, despite the fact that the ELF would never tolerate the loss of human life that was the crux of the Al Qaeda acts?

Also, I’d like to publicly state that the use of patronizing, condescending language by drachillix and msmith is personally insulting to me. Throwing in “cute fuzzy animals” or “pink unicorns” or whatever similar terms is not only glossing over the gigantic environmental problems that we face, but is also generalizing all those who care about the environment and labeling them all as new age, naive, idealistic hippies with posters of unicorns on their walls and crystals tied around their necks. That is bullshit. There are plenty of logical, intelligent, informed, and well-intentioned people in the environmental movement.

And december, I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on your claims that the environment is improving. Yes, in the last decade some important legislation has been passed. That fact has by no means improved the environment.

I think we have about 1% of old growth forests left in America, all of them found in the pacific northwest, where the highest percentage of logging still continues. Hog farms, because of lack of legislation, are releasing tons of waste into our rivers. Dairy and cattle farms, because of the methane gas released by the high concentration of cows, is causing a considerably negative effect on our air quality. Very wasteful and high polluting companies are still ‘grandfathered’ in many cases to the legislation of the last decade.

If you genuinely believe that we are not faced with immense and urgent problems of water quantity/quality and air quality, then I will continue. But all of this is an aside to the OP, so I do not want to drag it on.

colin

17

sorry about the double post. I hope a moderator will clean that up. On to this quote:

I think the ELF would wholeheartedly agree with you that the environment belongs to the people- that is why they feel the need to act.

Certain companies/trades are causing extensive damage to the environment for their own profit. Not the profit for all of us- for them. Since the environment is precious and necessary for all life, and since it belongs to all of us, the ELF (and I and several other environmental organizations) are disgusted that the environment is being damaged for the profit of the few and at the expense of the many.

Destroying something that you own is not terrorism. Agreed. But, as someone said earlier, if destroying something you don’t own is terrorism, then I would hold the companies that are ruining the environment responsible for the terrorism of our environment. It doesn’t belong to them. It belongs to us.

The rivers being polluted by tons of hog shit are our rivers. The millions of acres of federal land that are being destroyed by extensive grazing for cattle are our acres. The air that is polluted with harmful chemicals is our air. It is not for one corporation’s profit that we have these natural resources. It is for all of us. And we need it to live.

colin

18

Old growth forests really should be cut down. Because they are much easier to catch on fire than new growth forests and when you don’t let small fires burn up in them you either have to cut them down or eventually get a fire that burns out of control.

19

Even if you say their intention is property damage (which, of course, is quite illegal), these eco-terrorists are still instilling fear in workers, investors, and insurers for the companies they target:

“The warehouse got burned down last night, what if I had been in there? What if I need to come in after hours sometime, how can I be sure they won’t pick that night to strike again?”

“I’ve been working on this research every day for the past ten years. What if someone breaks in this weekend and ruins it?”

“Company X wants me to insure their new million-dollar logging facility, but what if those wackos destroy the machinery next month and I have to cover the damages?”

Just because they’re only trying to terrorize people associated with a certain industry doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism.

20

The Communist coutries of Europe did incredible damage to their environment. Their pollution was atrocious. This actual experience shows that eliminating the profit motive would be bad for the environment.

http://mondediplo.com/2000/07/19envidisaster

ELF has misguided goals as well as misguided tactics.