I went through a brief period of being obsessed with the Bush administration's transparent attempt to elevate so-called "eco-terrorism" to the status of Biggest, Baddest Domestic Bogey Man. (Honestly, what threat will these supposed tough guys not piss their pants about?)
But the Bushies are caught up in other struggles now, and the propaganda push seems to have receded into the background.
Still, it's there.
Bush's America: Who Needs It bill is thundering toward passage. It gives him the right to determine, solely at his own discretion, who is and is not an "enemy combatant" -- and that includes for U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. It gives him the right to hold enemy combatants indefinitely, potentially for life, with no chance to hear or challenge the charges against them and no right to trial. Oh, and it gives him the right to torture them. (Yes, the federal government is taking a dump on centuries-old traditions that made this country great, and apparently that's just fine with the American people.)
Now, on the subject of who is and isn't an "enemy combatant," check out this Glenn Greenwald post about the recently released NIE on "Trends in Global Terrorism" (PDF):
[From the NIE:] "Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint." ...
...
There have been scattered reports over the last several years that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs have targeted domestic political groups solely because such groups espouse views contrary to the administration's. That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."
Consider, if you will:
- Bush gets to decide who the bad guys are.
- Bush gets to detain the bad guys indefinitely, without lawyers, trials, or public accusations.
- Bush has said repeatedly that people who "support" the bad guys are also bad guys.
Then further consider:
- Bush administration officials and their cronies in the media have repeatedly tried to tie animal-rights extremists to those who support direct action on the environment and lump the whole melange under the rubric "eco-terrorism."
- The FBI says that "eco-terrorism" is "one of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats."
- Sen. James Inhofe is one of many Bush cronies to explicitly say that "mainstream activists" give aid and support to "eco-terrorists."
So ... is it possible that one day in the not-so-distant future, federal agents will start snatching up environmental activists (who allegedly are or support terrorists) and locking them away indefinitely without trial?
Perhaps I'm being cynical, or paranoid. But let me ask you: is there enough paranoia and cynicism in even the blackest human heart with which to properly assess America's current ruling party?
Terrorism laws are wrongly being used to round up eco-activists, says author Dean Kuipers
Police spy on climate activist while global warming goes unarrested
Comments
View as Threaded
claxton6 Posted 8:49 am
28 Sep 2006
If anyone follows the link, I do ask that you not comment. There's a very strong insider-outsider element to the discussion, and coming in calling Springfielders backwards won't help us. Thanks.
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/96910.asp
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:26 am
28 Sep 2006
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
bookerly Posted 11:33 am
28 Sep 2006
Sung to the tune of the Michael Jackson song "I'm bad, I'm bad"..... oh wait, I was thinking of the weird Al parody "I'm fat, I'm fat"...
Alas, the second is more accurate!
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:29 pm
28 Sep 2006
I think it is fair to say that most of us who support animal rights do not condone destructive activities, and even more strongly do not condone violent activities. Disruptive activities, OK. Well, it depends. But certainly nothing more than that.
But what in the world has the FBI found, to suggest that mainstream environmentalist organizations are putting money in the hands of animal-rights extremists?
Is it a weakness of our justice system, that we cannot look into a file that the FBI is preparing, potentially to use in prosecuting us? Can we do nothing better than, say, contact a lawyer with the ACLU, and ask that a defense be got ready, against an assumed charge?
Dear Slender Patrick,
[POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!]
[I SHALL TRY TO BE SUBTLE!!!!!]
it takes a long long time in this household to find an occasion to see a long, serious movie, but eventually, recently, I got to see a movie that you recommended, "Syriana." I bring it up now, because one of its several stories ends with a suicide bombing that might be considered an act of eco-terrorism. Not that I think that is the best way to characterize that destructive event.
Funny, how the movie takes all of the recent history of American involvement in the Middle East, minus the invasion of Iraq, and minus Israel, and breaks it up into small pieces, and rearranges them into a mosaic, illustrating a totally alternative-history narrative, which is more or less credible. I hope to God that the way the cruise missile is used in the movie remains for a long time quite incredible.
The story line about the jihadist suicide-bombers was magnificently written, and as tragic as anything else in that movie. But it is interesting that that combination of very real elements has never actually happened: the disaffected and impoverished Pakistanis working in the Persian Gulf, plus the attractive jihadist madrasa, plus the vulnerability of petroleum installations.
No doubt, the CIA has prepared for that scenario. Did the CIA give the scenario to the movie writer? Or vice versa, was the movie writer first to suggest this? (No, I go for the first option. And hence we conclude -- what?; a strategic leak?) Could they have arrived at the same scenario independently? (Well, not impossibly; but then, the CIA were semi-leaking to allow the production of the movie to proceed, and to allow those involved with developing the story to remain alive.)
God knows, the CIA is everywhere in the Persian Gulf. Whatever moves anywhere in the Persian Gulf, God knows, the CIA knows more about it than God does.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JanetT Posted 11:33 am
29 Sep 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:49 am
29 Sep 2006
One of the dangers of environmentalists wearing blinders is we may miss the broader aspects of what is happening around us.
(Anti-terror legislation, nothing to do with me, what do you mean I'm under arrest for protesting against development?)
We should firmly reject the use of the term eco-terrorism. There is not such thing. There may be some minor acts of vandalism committed, but vandalism is committed all the time for different reasons. There is no eco-terrorism.
If there is, then there is corporate-terrorism, and Christian-terrorism, and so on.... (we might even argue that certain development projects are themselves "terrorism").
It is dangerous if we cede control and change of language to our enemies. Just don't do it!
CanisCandida, I am glad you liked the film. It is really an amazing film, and worth seeing. Did you see "A Time for Drunken Horses"? A different kind of middle-eastern film ...
patrick
Permalink
wordwright Posted 12:35 pm
29 Sep 2006
Permalink