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

It would be crazy and unjust if the actions of animal-rights extremists should make all environmentalist activists suspect of actual or potential crimes, and possibly make them liable to surveillance, and even detention.

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!

Shockingly, our very own California Senator Feinstein has co-sponsored S 3880, with Inhofe of all people, which would criminalize much protest against animal businesses.  Read the bill, and speak up.  This is one frightening piece of legislation.

    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

Clarification:  The bill David refers to in his original post is S 3930.  S 3880, mentioned by JanetT, is a separate bill.  Senator Feinstein voted against S 3930.