This Alternet piece on the new "eco-terrorism" hype covers ground mostly familiar to Grist readers. But it's got some important details.
The piece identifies two specific groups behind the recent hype: the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative lawmakers, and -- behind them -- the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group that shills for the alcohol, tobacco, and restaurant industries. CCF is one of many front groups for Berman & Co., a lobbying firm owned by Rick Berman, a former restaurant industry executive. Berman is legendary as a ruthless fighter against any regulation or taxes that might hamper his industry friends. He's also known for close ties to Republican lawmakers.
He once told Chain Leader Magazine, a restaurant trade publication, "Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger. We've got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons."
The strategy isn't difficult to discern: Hype the threat from "eco-terrorists," lobby friendly lawmakers to pass draconian laws, and then work hard to tie these "terrorists" to activist groups that hinder your clients' interests. From the Alternet piece:
David Martosko, a CCF official, told the House Ways and Means Committee in March that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the United States Humane Society (USHS), and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) have, to varying degrees, supported known eco-terrorists.
"I urge this committee to fully investigate the connections between individuals who commit crimes in the name of the ALF [Animal Liberation Front], ELF [Earth Liberation Front], or similar phantom groups, and the above-ground individuals and organizations that give them aid and comfort," Martosko testified. "I would also urge members of this Committee to prevail upon their colleagues to re-examine the tax-exempt status of groups that have helped to fund, directly or indirectly, these domestic terrorists."
There's the nut: "re-examine the tax-exempt status." It's an overt attempt to shut down particular activist groups.
For industry, it's a way of destroying threats to their financial interests. For Republicans, it's a way to damage political enemies. For the mouth-breathing, talk-radio-listening Republican base, it's another focus for their spittle-flecked hatred. Everybody wins.
Don't get distracted. This whole kerfuffle about eco-terrorism isn't about objectively weighing threats to our country. Don't start arguing about what really is or really isn't terrorism. Don't feel pressured to incant the line, "Of course I disavow the tactics of those groups, but ..." The merits of the case against "eco-terrorism" are a total distraction. The people waging this war could give a rat's ass about the merits.
Call it what it is.
Comments
View as Flat
Japhet Posted 1:16 pm
30 Sep 2005
I will say that "terrorism" by definition must have a human compononet and once again, similar to the Red scare under McCarthy, the terminology is being batted around, molded and adjusted to fix various boxes, or situations, that the accuser would like to fill or address. Terrorism does not include destruction of property. If it did, then this country was founded by terrorists. Afterall, what was the Boston Tea Party but a bunch of "revolutionairies" masquarading as native americans, destroying the property of the East India Tea Company, a rather important company to the British Crown. During all of these "eco-terrorist" events, protests or actions, the primary determining factor is safety and avoiding injuring other human beings. Its why those tractors were set fire in the middle of the night after all workers had been cleared from the area. It's why our SUV pal didn't blow up the SUV's during lunch hour. To label these people the same as we would Osama Bin Laden, at least to me, is a bit of...well a stretch.
A good friend of mine, who ironically works at the FBI as a lowly tech, explained to me sometime after 9-11 that it seemed anythign labeled "terrorism" in the the planning office received immediate funds to deal with the issue. It got bad enough that agents began labeling anything that might not normally receieve funding as a "terrorism" claim to ensure financial security.
So are these types of actions non-violent? Yes. Care and safety of all around is always the first priority. If we were terrorists, we wouldn't care about that.
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:40 pm
30 Sep 2005
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
BlackBear Standing Posted 2:39 pm
02 Oct 2005
Dave is right, let's waste little time defining terrorism. A proper act of monkey-wrenching would not terrorize, because the object of the action is inanimate and unable to know fear. Maybe you think this is a silly point, but it is intrinsic in framing the argument in the media.
The goal is to inflict financial damage and defer habitat destruction by destroying equipment. If it becomes too costly to build, then a developer won't build it. If a developer knows from experience that his actions will bring financial harm to his company, he won't pursue those actions.
Throw a wrench in the works.
Jerome Alicki
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Ed Abbey
Permalink
jmcstras Posted 4:47 am
03 Oct 2005
In all seriousness, you make great points, and it is easy to get distracted. One other thing this accomplishes for the Republican politicians involved: makes it look like (to those who buy such arguments) that they're actually doing something against "national security threats."
Sustainablog: http://sustainablog.blogspot.com
Permalink
edarnold41 Posted 1:07 am
04 Oct 2005
Trying to justify the terrorist actions of groups like ELF and ALF by comparing them to the patriots of the American Revolution totally misses the point. Yes, of course the Boston Tea Party and other actions by the Sons of Liberty, including burning the homes of Loyalists, were terrorist activities in the eyes of the established government. The resolution of these actions, and the revolution that ensued, was the establishment of a truly new form of representative government. How can you see a resolution to the activities of groups like ALF or ELF, or for that matter Al Quaeda? The only thing that will satisfy them is for the rest of us to get off their planet. Nothing will ever satisfy people who are into destruction for it's own sake, which is the motivation for most terrorists today, despite all the rationalizing attempts to justify their anarchism.
As long as the environmental movement tolerates, or even attempts to justify, terrorist activities, no matter what their stated motivation, they will be viewed by mainstream America not just as funny tree-huggers, but as dangerous accomplices to violence against society. It's not the evil right-wing cabal's 'hype' that you need be afraid of, but societies rejection of your wrong-headed self-righteousness.
Permalink
Japhet Posted 11:08 am
05 Oct 2005
The question is whether it is at all possible to arrive at an exhaustive and objective definition of terrorism and how it ties to the claim of the existence of "eco-terrorism."
For this argument I'll defer to Boaz Ganor who is the Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.
"The definition proposed in international courts of law states that terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. This definition is based on three important elements:
The essence of the activity--the use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent protest--strikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.).
The aim of the activity is always political--namely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in questwill not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible. The concept of "political aim" is sufficiently broad to include these goals as well. The motivation--whether ideological, religious, or something else--behind the political objective is irrelevant for the purpose of defining terrorism. In this context, the following statement by Duvall and Stohl deserves mention:
'Motives are entirely irrelevant to the concept of political terrorism. Most analysts fail to recognize this and, hence, tend to discuss certain motives as logical or necessary aspects of terrorism. But they are not. At best, they are empirical regularities associated with terrorism. More often they simply confuse analysis.'
3. The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian "underbelly"--the tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term "terrorism" should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields."
So as you can see destruction of property does not fall into the definition of terrorism. It has to be violence directed, indefinitely, at a civilian or towards a person specifically, inflicting harm with political motives. ELF and ALF, though extreme in thier tactics, are not "terrorists" by international standards. However, they have become unfortunate scapegoats for a society hungary to point fingers and slap cuffs on the closest version to it.
If we are ready to claim the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist event, done by terrorists, then so be it. But once again, I do believe it is based on perspective: afterall, your terrorists are our freedom fighters, and vice versa. I will continue to believe that the implications of progress in society will always be revolutionary.
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 4:40 am
06 Oct 2005
In our outreach to other green groups in the Gulf States we're finding organizations that are unwilling to send a letter to Shell asking them to reconsider, as IT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THEIR TAX STATUS.
The strongarm tactics of these 'think tanks' (coupled with the barest understanding of c(3)/c(4) tax law) are working and chilling some enviros appetite for minimally confrontational campaigns and efforts.
Permalink
Japhet Posted 4:49 am
06 Oct 2005
Are these green groups saying they are being targeted by the federal government? Or are they just worried they may get thrown into the same terrorism bucket as organizations like ELF and ALF? This is a pretty big deal because suddenly the federal government is directly affecting the way in which 501c(3) and c(4) organizations operate.
What ever happened to the Republican ideal of small government so the common man could regulate him/herself? I guess it disappeared with the fear of terrorism...
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 6:08 am
06 Oct 2005
Check this outrageous assault on NEPA and responsible environmentalism:
CEI blames Sierra Club for Katrina
And of course check out the club's GAO-backed
response
Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf
Permalink
sukumar Posted 11:17 am
15 Nov 2005
The aim of the activity is always political--namely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc.
The targets of terrorism are civilians.
You mean regime change -- and the threat thereof -- was a terrorist activity? Uh-oh!
Permalink