They're coming to take us away, ha ha

‘Eco-terrorism’ is the feds’ new all-purpose excuse to increase domestic surveillance. 5

Now, I don't really have a conspiratorial temperament. I tend to think that stupidity is responsible for far more of what ails the world than evil -- which is why I'm more optimistic than many of my eco-brethren.

However, this seems worth worrying about. After all, as the old saying goes, it's not paranoia if they're really watching you.

Trying to drum up this sort of frenzy serves dual, overlapping purposes. One, it reignites some of the flagging terrorist hysteria that does so much to prop up the right wing, greasing the skids for a further expansion of domestic police powers. Two, it works to discredit the green movement as a whole, greasing the skids for further deregulation of corporate power.

At the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show trial yesterday, they trotted an FBI flunky in to proclaim earnestly that the ELF and the ALF constitute the single greatest domestic terrorist threat the nation faces today. (* See correction below)

The first thing to note, of course, is that both these organizations explicitly renounce violence against people and have been responsible for not a single death. Not one.

The second thing to note is that they are not "organizations" as such. They have no leaders, no central coordinating councils or locations. They are loosely affiliated cells, united by a cause. The feds might be able to bust this or that cell, but there's no sense in which they could "defeat" these organizations.

This gives the feds license for an unending, ever-escalating war -- and really, what do the feds love more? They get greater surveillance latitude and any number of extra-judicial powers. After all, it's terrorism!

But of course, it's not really those organizations Inhofe is after anyway, is it?

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the panel's chairman, said he hoped to examine more closely how the groups might be getting assistance in fund raising and communications from tax-exempt organizations' "mainstream activists" not directly blamed for the violence.

"Just like al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the media," Inhofe said.

Yes, let's "examine more closely" the mainstream activists that give us such trouble. I can practically hear the Dr. Evil laugh here.

Make no mistake, this is what they want:

On the same day that the FBI warned a Congressional committee about the danger of "domestic terrorism," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Wednesday accused the FBI of using terrorism as a pretext to spy on activists who "oppose the war in Iraq, the USA Patriot Act, and other government policies."

... the ACLU issued a statement that said "the FBI and local police are engaging in intimidation based on political association and are improperly investigating law-abiding human rights and advocacy groups." The statement was based on information gathered from numerous Freedom of Information Act requests. The ACLU said it was filing a lawsuit in federal court to force the FBI to turn over "thousands of pages" of extra information that had been withheld. 

As a voice of sanity amidst all this madness, don't miss ranking committee member Sen. James Jeffords' (I-Vt.) statement on eco-terrorism:

I am puzzled why the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is examining the issue of animal rights and eco-terrorism since the Committee lacks jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement issues. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committees. Nevertheless, I look forward to learning what the Environment Committee can do to address the problems posed by domestic terrorism.

For that reason, I am extremely disappointed that Congressman Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, has not been allowed to testify today. This violates basic congressional courtesy and Senate tradition. Moreover, based on his position as ranking on the Homeland Security Committee, his testimony would certainly have been relevant to this hearing on terrorism.

I'd like to submit for the record a report Congressman Thompson prepared, entitled - quote - "Ten Years After the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Department of Homeland Security Must Do More to Fight Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists." The report highlights the apparent failure of DHS to assess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorist groups in the Department's five-year budget planning document. I share his concern that the Department of Homeland Security needs to protect us from all terrorist threats and should not focus on eco-terrorism at the expense of other domestic terrorist groups, such as the KKK, right wing militias, abortion bombers and skin heads.

...

In sum, Congress can't do much about individual extremists committing crimes in the name of ELF or ALF, but we can act to significantly enhance the safety of communities across the nation. ELF and ALF may threaten dozens of people each year, but an incident at a chemical, nuclear or wastewater facility would threaten tens of thousands.

I expect we'll be hearing much more about the dire threat posed by domestic terrorists in months and years to come, and I expect "eco-terrorists" will be the hook they'll hang it on.

(It happens that I wrote a column about these matters.)

[CORRECTION]: As pointed out by dirtygreek in comments, this is not accurate. Though reported misleadingly in several accounts, the FBI agent -- John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division -- actually called eco-terrorism "one of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats," not the most.

My larger point stands, I think, but consider my ass suitably fact-checked and chastened.)

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/david_h_roberts.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. dirtygreek Posted 10:35 pm
    19 May 2005

    Actually, these news stories seem to be mistaken

    Well, now, let's be reasonable here.  Depending on what publication you get this story from, the information is different.  

    The Independent says "The FBI has sounded a new and surprising alarm, suggesting environmental and animal-welfare militants are now the biggest terrorist threat in the US, increasingly using incendiary devices on targets ranging from housing developments and research laboratories to car dealerships."

    MSNBC says "Environmental and animal rights extremists who have turned to arson and explosives are the nation's top domestic terrorism threat, the FBI has told lawmakers."

    However, CNN says "Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday."

    That "one of the most serious" qualifier makes a huge difference in whether this is silly dribble or slanderous, lie-filled drivel.  If they say that so-called "eco-terrorists," which the cnn article mentions have never killed anyone, are the nation's "top threat," then we have an obvious lie on our hands and another case of "LOOK OVER THERE!"

    However, if it says "one of the top," that may be an exaggeration, but it's not NEARLY as bad as saying "the top threat."

    I went directly to the transcript on the FBI website, and here's what John E. Lewis actually said: "One of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats come from special interest extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign."

    So, though this is a silly notion, it's nowhere near as bad as saying that ALF and ELF are worse threats than Al Queda. Also, it's a frightening notion, as mentioned in the commentary, that vandalism and "office takeovers" have been classified as "terrorism," in the same category as mass murder and flying planes into skyscrapers.

  2. dirtygreek Posted 10:37 pm
    19 May 2005

    more

    More on this at www.dirtygreek.org

    Thanks!
    George

  3. Thomas Palm Posted 11:58 pm
    19 May 2005

    Insulting

    It is especially insulting to use this false quote together with a link to the real statement. It shows that Roberts did have access to the original and that he though no one would bother to look it up.

    This is the kind of sloppy reporting that can be used to downplay the entire story of FBI monitoring environmental groups. The right loves to find some detail that is wrong in a story, attack it and make the rest of the story be forgotten.

  4. amazingdrx Posted 10:53 pm
    22 May 2005

    Nonsense. Tom.

    As I have pointed out before, Rovian tactics Tom.  If that is your real name?  Hehey.

    We have all seen it before, the government inserts agents into non-violent protest movements.  The agent throws a rock, then the police state has an excuse to respond.

    It's a mini rathergate, newsweek attack on media..in micro media, blog style.

    Talking points and tactics.

    Don't fall for it.  Keep on the non-violent course, resistance is more effective at social change than violence.  Eject these tendencies from your group, macro and micro.  They are a sign that the source of those tactics may not be what they claim to be.

  5. herb Posted 9:33 am
    23 May 2005

    The problem is real...

    No point in evading the fact that the corporate economy will tolerate no serious threats to their business activities.  Posturing by petty politicians aside, can any one spell assinnation.  As ass in nation.  The environmental movement has been manicured and domesticated.  Troublesome individuals have been dealt with summarily when it suits the interests of wealth.  

    People tend to think that violent attacks are rare and only arise in extreme situations with very prominent people.  It is illogical to assume that this is true.  This exploitive system is highly efficient at warding off or neutralizing threats.  The most effective approach to managing a herd is to cull troublesome critters early before they achieve full growth.  Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why the leadership of the environmental movement is so pale and lackluster, why no charismatic leaders have surfaced since Judy Bary, why so much effort is expended with so few results and a net loss on every issue of concern, why the movement consumes more and more resources with fewer and fewer results?  This is not by accident nor is it any different than the experience of any other movement in recorded history that challenged the interests of concentrated wealth.  Witness the sad, pathetic condition of "organized" labor, for instance.  

    Daniel Quinn addresses these problems in his book Beyond Civilization.  I know of no other thoughtful discussion of the central problem of adopting a reformist approach.  When people so consistently loose perhaps they are fighting the wrong battle.  Failure is not a moral issue, just a hint that the thinking may be flawed.

    herb

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement