Rod Coronado.“Rod Coronado is not a terrorist,” says Dean Kuipers, author of Operation Bite Back: Rod Coronado's War to Save American Wilderness and a longtime writer about the world of eco-activism.

Back in the 1980s and '90s, during Rodney Coronado's radical sabotage campaigns on behalf of animals and the environment, terrorism was generally considered to mean violence against people. Feeling strongly that the loss of any life was wrong and that casualties would harm the movement, Coronado took care to not hurt anyone as he liberated animals and burned down research facilities across the American West. Charged with arson in 1995, Coronado served four years in a medium-security prison and, in August of 2006, was sentenced to eight more months for dismantling a government-owned mountain lion trap.

But over the years, the official definition of terrorism expanded. Through the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act, the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, and the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the federal government proclaimed that the tactics the radical animal-rights crowd had been using for years were now a form of "terrorism" and could be prosecuted much more harshly.

In 2007, Coronado found himself standing before a judge once more--though not for property destruction, as his days of burning down buildings were long behind him, but for making a speech. While giving a lecture about his past radical actions, Coronado answered an audience question about how to build an incendiary device out of a plastic jug, and for that, Coronado was charged with a felony and ultimately sent to federal prison for a year and a day. Compared to other collared eco-activists who have been threatened with sentences of up to 20 years under the stricter federal laws, perhaps he got off easy.

Kuipers has been following Coronado's flame-broiled tale of radical action for 17 years and tells the whole story in Operation Bite Back. Kuipers makes it clear that he does not advocate arson or property destruction, but challenges us to consider whether it's reasonable to apply the label of terrorist to someone who releases animals from a lab.

------

Q. How has the shifting definition of "terrorism" changed the environmental movement since the 1980s?

A. I think a lot of the old-timers, the "rednecks for wilderness"--it's sort of where Earth First! began, and Sea Shepherd too in a way--might pin a little bit of that expansion of the term "terrorism" on the late '80s-'90s anarchists who came into the scene. Guys like Rod Coronado. They changed things a lot because the original eco-radical[s], like Greenpeace, were sort of mainstream conservation guys -- they called themselves conservationists. Mostly they were white men who had parties out in the woods and ate steaks and drank whiskey. They were kind of red-blooded Americans, like the heroes of The Monkey Wrench Gang.

And then this whole new contingent, right around 1990, started coming in that was much more about anarchism and identity politics. "What do I believe, and how does that separate me from the rest of the world?" People got into listing their issues. "I not only don't eat animals, but also I am transgendered and I have these piercings that are very important to me." Those kind of issues just drove the old-timers insane, because all of those things started being in the radical journals: "What are we going to do about the homophobia in our movement?" Those are all important discussions, but they didn't have anything to do with saving whales or species problems. That was very disconcerting to the old school of the movement. A lot of them kind of left the movement, because they didn't think that was as important as saving a chunk of wilderness or preserving a specific species.

The use of the word terrorism was always around, even in the '60s, early '70s -- but it was always rhetorical. I think it was Ron Arnold who actually coined the term in 1982: "eco-terrorist." But it was rhetorical at that time because eco-terrorism didn't exist. Unless you killed somebody, you weren't a terrorist. And they hadn't killed anybody, so there wasn't any eco-terrorism.

Changing [terrorism] laws [to encompass environmental activism] really came about because guys like Rod Coronado went further, started using arson. The threat of more violence was sort of there in that movement and I don't think that went over very well with a lot of the conservation movement, and they kind of split off in a lot of ways. So I think that the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front and people who modeled themselves after them have found themselves very isolated from the rest of the movement.

Q. Where do you see the eco-movement going from here?

A. I think that the mainstream approach is totally taking over right now, and they're being successful. Kind of all they had to do is wait out George Bush. I think they have a very sympathetic ear right now. All of the big groups -- NRDC, the Sierra Club -- are very effective right now. They have sympathetic ears in Congress; people like Henry Waxman [chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and cosponsor of the House climate bill] kind of took the key positions that they needed them to take. The deck is loaded now for a lot of stuff to happen.

However, I think that the radical parts of the movement arise because of threat. The global warming question will continue to get bigger, and species extinction and various types of animal abuse, for lack of a better word, are not going to get better. So I think that that kind of action will rise. I don't see that the terrorism laws have ever really stopped it because people -- young people in particular -- just assume they won't get caught. And they're right. They've hardly caught any of those people through the years, [even though there have] been over 1,200 actions and like a billion dollars worth of damage.

I think that the radicalism will rise if the mainstream movement fails to get anything done. I think that's why there's always a radical element to any movement. They're there to step it up and push everybody to a more aggressive position. If they pass some real bullshit legislation about global warming that's basically full of loopholes and everybody can drive a Hummer, the radicalism will step up.

Q. How do people respond when you talk about your work?

A. It depends on who it is. There's such a huge community of people who believe in more radical action -- called direct action -- in solving environmental and animal rights problems that there's a lot of sympathy. But there [are] a lot of people for whom Rodney Coronado is not radical at all and would like to see it go far beyond that.

But that's not the mainstream, and for the most part, mainstream America doesn't really want to get involved in this. They still eat meat and they don't really want to think about factory farms or where their mink coat comes from. Consciousness has definitely gone way, way up, but still it's a huge jump from being conscious about where your food comes from or where your coat comes from to being somebody who knows people who actually go out and do stuff about it, [whether] it's just legislation [or] actually trying to close a place down physically. That's kind of shocking.

I'm sure my family in Michigan would be a little bit appalled: "Another book from Dean that we can't read!"

Q. Have you faced conflicts within the mainstream media because there are stereotypes about environmental activists?

A. I haven't encountered that many serious challenges. You have to dial things back. You have to position them in such a way that the publication feels comfortable that you haven't just completely denied one half of the story from getting its say. Even when we know things are just absolutely for sure -- something like a cancer cluster of people from asbestos -- you've still got to call for a comment from the asbestos department where they say, "No, it's not us." But I do that, so there haven't been too many stories I've brought to people where they've just said, "No, that's too radical for us."

Even in my book, I don't write about Rod Coronado saying that arson is awesome. Arson is not awesome. Arson sucks. It's a thing that people should not do, but it's a tool that he used and I present it pretty matter of fact. I'm sure I will be accused of being an apologist for arson, but that's not my purpose. But if I did write a book about that, I don't think it would be as good, because suddenly there's no reason for any of the farmers to talk to me, the FBI, the police. All those guys have amazing and cool facts that I don't know, and I want all that stuff. As long as we do that, I think the story gets better and people are more open to reading it. I lose less of the audience. You can make more of a difference.

Q. What originally drew you to writing about eco-radicalism?

A. [The actions] happen in great locations. I grew up in the woods in Michigan with a big hunting and fishing family. I was living in New York City when I first started doing this stuff and really sweating it, and having a hard time getting myself out to the Catskills on the weekends to see some trees.

But there are whole protests that last for months happening in redwood groves in Northern California, and people trying to stop roads from being built into central Idaho, which is like God's Country. It's just amazing there -- huge contiguous pieces of roadless wilderness with wolves and moose. Those are the kind of places I like to be in. And on a boat with the Sea Shepherds out in the eastern tropical Pacific to Cocos Island or something -- it's fantastic. I'm not only working on a story, but I'm in the places I would like to see preserved.

Q. Does it water down our legitimate concerns about terrorism to have environmental and animal-rights activists looped into it?

A. Sure. I think it's an insult to the intelligence of the average American, that we can't tell the difference. But of course we can tell the difference! Osama bin Laden goes on the TV on one of his Al Jazeera tapes and says, "We will make the infidels pay," and that's about killing people. The Militant Vegan League -- which is something I'm just making up -- sends out their communiqué saying you have to stop hurting bunnies and you have to stop factory farming where you keep chickens in little cages. It's just a completely unrelated issue in every way -- strategically, philosophically, tactically, in every way. Terrorism is such a strong word that it just allows the same kind of law enforcement tactics to be used to suppress it.

Q. What is the No. 1 message you want to stick with people after reading your book?

A. What we were just talking about. I picked out a particular person--Rod Coronado--to help me tell the story because I want it to be obvious by the time you get to the end that Rod Coronado is not a terrorist. He's done lamentable things, he's burned things and attacked businesses and been very aggressive. But he's never attacked any people. He's an intelligent and respectful person who did things on principle and believed that he was executing the height of nonviolent direct action.

There's a difference between bursting into the Holocaust museum with a gun with the intention of "I'm going to kill a bunch of people to make a statement," and going into someplace late at night and burning their fence and making sure that no people are hurt because you want to make a statement.

We need to take some action to preserve the difference, for all kinds of reasons. So that people don't rot in jail who don't need to for long periods of time. So that we, as a country, are not spiritually affected by this -- I think that there's a price to pay when your country endorses things like torture, and calling people terrorists who are not terrorists plays into that. You're falsely accusing certain sectors of the public of doing something they're not doing.

I also think that it's not that good for us environmentally, that we shouldn't be able to demonize people who are trying to get a message across that many people would recognize as positive.

Catch Dean Kuipers on his book tour or follow him on his blog. You can also see him on BookTV Sunday, July 25.

Related Links:

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Here’s what we know so far

Cast your vote for the best climate journalism

I'm not sure what's more shocking: the news that the Maryland State Police wrongfully spied on me for months as a "suspected terrorist," or that, despite surveillance of me, officers apparently wouldn't recognize me if I walked into their police headquarters tomorrow.

I'm a former Peace Corps volunteer, an Eagle Scout, church member, youth baseball coach, and dedicated father. I also happen to be director of one of the largest environmental groups in Maryland, a nonprofit that promotes windmills and solar panels in the fight against global warming. So imagine my shock to get a police letter last month saying I was one of 53 Maryland activists on a terrorist watch list that has been discontinued because -- can you believe it? -- there's "no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime."

Matters turned especially Soviet-esque on Oct. 14 when I called the police requesting a full copy of my surveillance file. A spokeswoman told me I could visually inspect the file, but I couldn't make photocopies, I couldn't bring an attorney, and the police would be destroying the entire file after I read it.

And bring a valid photo ID, she said, to make sure you're who you say you are.

A what? Really? You spied on me, for God's sake.

The mess all began last summer when astonishing evidence surfaced revealing that the Maryland State Police -- under former Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich -- posed as activists and infiltrated an anti-death-penalty group, attending the organization's meetings and taking secret notes to send back to HQ. But what were they doing to me and my organization -- the Chesapeake Climate Action Network -- during this surveillance program in 2005 and 2006? Bugging our phones? Reading our emails? Monitoring me as I walked my kid to the bus stop?

I still don't know for sure. Yielding to public pressure, the police finally gave me a printed copy of my "file" on Oct. 29. It raised more questions than it answered. Seven of the 12 pages were withheld without full explanation. And of the pages I did receive, at least half the words were redacted -- blacked out with a marker.

There was a photo of me on the last page, lifted from my website. And on the first page, there were these words: "Crime: Terrorism, environmental extremists."

What terrorism would that be? My file -- what little of it I have -- makes reference to a morning speech given in Bethesda, Md., by then-governor Robert Ehrlich on Nov. 17, 2005. A small audience of invited guests and journalists attended inside a classroom at Walt Whitman High School. Ehrlich wasn't doing enough to fight global warming, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network believed, and several of my staff arrived to peacefully demonstrate and hold up signs that said things like, "It's Getting Hot in Here, Gov!" But troopers with the governor's "Executive Protection Division" believed this was extreme, according to my file. For example, CCAN staffers invited high school students to hold up protest signs during the governor's speech. Pretty extreme, huh?

There was no civil disobedience at this event. No one was arrested. No county, state, or federal laws were breached. The entire affair was utterly peaceful, above board, and appropriate. Political demonstrations exactly like this happen a thousand times a day in America. There were no media reports of anything unusual.

Yet Ehrlich's security team considered this "aggressive protesting." Afterward, the troopers contacted the Maryland State Police's Homeland Security and Investigation Bureau. The result was creation of intelligence files on me and three of my staff under the crime category of "terrorism, environmental extremists." The real motivation, however, appears to be political spying. We were opponents of the governor's policies. We were organized and vocal about it. We wound up on an intelligence list along with dozens of other innocent, nonviolent opponents of the governor's policies.

Ironically, I wasn't even present at the protest in question. I've never been to Walt Whitman High School. But a case file was launched on me nonetheless, on Nov. 28, 2005, with my name, photo, job title, "no SMTs" (scars, marks, or tattoos), and the declaration that no charges had been brought against me. Strangely, according to the police papers, there's no record of any intelligence-gathering related to me after the file was created, just a narrative describing my staff's protest at the Ehrlich speech.

Meanwhile, the state police say they've released everything to me that's relevant to me, but I don't believe them. Since July, the state police have made numerous public statements related to this spying controversy that have proved to be factually untrue. They initially said, for example, that the entire surveillance program was limited to anti-death-penalty activists. But we now know activists for peace, immigration, and the environment were spied on too. I believe more of the spying story is yet to come out, however. With the help of a heroic Maryland attorney, David Rocah of the American Civil Liberties Union, and an equally heroic Maryland state senator, Jamie Raskin of Takoma Park, I believe all the facts will soon surface and we'll see legislation in the state General Assembly in 2009 specifically banning police abuses like this.

The final tragedy here, of course, is how much this whole episode has been a distraction to the public. The real threat of terror to Maryland and the nation is the prospect of up to 23 feet of sea-level rise as the Greenland ice sheet continues to implode from rapid global warming. The violent activity behind this threat is our astonishing over-reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, to power our economy while suicidally saturating the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. For all our declarations of "never again," the ground-zero site of the World Trade Center will itself be literally under water from sea-level rise if we don't switch quickly to 100-mile-per-gallon cars and clean electricity from wind power.

But you can't have strong and lasting environmental protections without a strong democracy. Most of the transformative, positive change experienced in American history has happened only after significant citizen engagement at a noisy grassroots level. That's why, ultimately, the objective of almost all environmental groups -- from the more liberal Greenpeace to the more conservative Nature Conservancy -- is inspiring average citizens to care enough to take action, to make their desires known, to get involved in the system.

But who's going to get involved and get noisy -- in Maryland or elsewhere -- if citizens fear that the police are secretly attending the same rallies and meetings, secretly watching and taking notes and keeping lists? Thank God that outraged Marylanders from Ocean City to Cumberland continue to demand full disclosure and reform in the face of this tawdry police spying affair.

The national economy is tanking, we're bogged down in two wars, and the accelerating impacts of global warming could soon get so severe that Pentagon planners already anticipate security challenges worldwide from the inevitable social unrest spawned by biblical droughts, floods, wildfires, and the rest. History shows that it is precisely during times of war and want that governments tend to overreach and trample liberties. And it's only in resisting these temptations that certain kinds of governments -- democracies -- grow stronger.

With a climate disaster looming, I've worked very hard for many years to promote clean, renewable energy. But perhaps the greatest contribution I'll ever make to this cause is the action I'm taking right now: standing up and working hard to keep government itself clean.

Related Links:

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Preserve states’ right to fight climate change

Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining

Alleged Earth Liberation Front member Marie Mason pleaded guilty Thursday to aggravated arson and conspiring to commit arson for her role in a New Year's Eve 1999 fire that destroyed part of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall. Mason and her co-defendant (who has already pleaded guilty) were accused of pouring gasoline on and around records relating to the university's government-supported research of genetically modified plants; the resulting fire caused some $1 million in damage to the building and set Mason's hair ablaze, preventing her from completing the message "No GMO" on a nearby wall. U.S. Attorney Charles Gross called the arson "domestic terrorism, plain and simple," though Mason and her attorney were quick to point out that no one was hurt in the MSU blaze nor in any of the other 12 acts of property damage that Mason admitted to in her plea.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

This weekend, two University of California-Santa Cruz scientists who use animals in their experiments were the target of two separate bombings. One scientist who uses mice in his research on brain development had a firebomb ignited on his front porch while he and his family were home early Saturday morning. The other researcher's unoccupied car was bombed. So far, no animal-rights groups have claimed responsibility for the bombings, but authorities are investigating possible connections since the scientist whose house was bombed was one of 13 UCSC scientists named in a menacing brochure apparently distributed by an animal-rights group that revealed the scientists' names and addresses and read, "Animal abusers everywhere beware. We know where you live." Though no one was killed in the attacks -- the scientist and his family escaped through a second-floor window -- the bombing of the scientist's house appears to mark the first time an occupied building has been the target of animal-rights group actions; such groups typically rely purely on vandalism and intimidation. The house bombing is being investigated as attempted murder.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Convicted eco-vandal Briana Waters has been sentenced to six years in federal prison and was ordered to pay $6 million in restitution for her role in the 2001 blaze that destroyed a University of Washington horticulture center. Waters was a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., at the time and allegedly acted as a lookout for members of the Earth Liberation Front who were accused of setting the fire. Waters was the only one of the group who went to trial; two of the women pleaded guilty and testified against her; one man killed himself in jail; and the other, Justin Solondz, is on the run. At her sentencing, Waters told the court, "I do believe our planet is in need of healing but not through violence and force. ... I don't agree with property destruction or violence. I don't want to be a martyr for any cause. My cause is to take care of my family."

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

The Earth Liberation Front has made the news yet again: Four people tied to the radical group have been indicted on arson charges for a 1999 blaze at Michigan State University.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

A federal jury has found 32-year-old Briana Waters guilty of two counts of arson for her role as the lookout in a 2001 blaze at the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture. Of more than a dozen people connected with the radical Earth Liberation Front and arrested in connection with various property crimes in the West, Waters was the only one who went to trial rather than plead guilty. She faces five to 20 years in prison. Waters maintained her innocence throughout the trial and her lawyer plans to appeal, saying that the recent Washington development fire linked to radical environmentalists may have affected the jury's decision.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Four unoccupied multimillion-dollar homes burned in a Seattle suburb Monday in what officials have reason to believe was eco-related arson. Explosives were found in the homes, and a spray-painted sign out front -- "Built green? Nope black! McMansions in RCDs r not green" -- bore the initials of radical environmental group the Earth Liberation Front. The Woodinville, Wash., homes were built with water-pervious sidewalks, efficient insulation, and recycled materials, but critics had raised concerns that the development could have a negative impact on a nearby creek and wetlands. Said the president of the targeted "Street of Dreams" development, "My understanding is that it was an act of terror." Time for everyone to get hot and bothered about "eco-terrorism" again!

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Learning how to count to 350

A mistrial has been declared in the case of an eco-activist in California who was charged under an obscure, seldom-used federal law making it a crime to tell others how to make explosives with the intent of encouraging a lawless act. In 2003, Rodney Coronado, who had served some four years in prison for burning down a mink research facility at Michigan State University, spoke to a group of vegans (and at least two undercover agents from area law enforcement agencies) at a community center in San Diego. At the speech, in response to a question from an audience member, Coronado described the explosive device he used in the MSU fire and another, simpler device made out of an apple-juice jug. Coronado was later arrested and charged for the speech. Defense attorneys argued that Coronado was charged for political reasons, that he hadn't encouraged his audience to use explosives, and that his comments are protected under the First Amendment. A hearing on whether to retry the case is set for Sept. 28.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

U.S. prosecutors compare "eco-terrorists" to KKK

In its unyielding quest to root out terror at its terror-y roots, the U.S. government is battling to have 10 eco-activists sentenced as terrorists. At a hearing in Eugene, Ore., yesterday, attorneys argued that 10 members of the loosely coalesced Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front deserve the label, which could not only net them longer sentences in scarier prisons, but also redefine how other forms of activism are prosecuted. U.S. attorneys compared the 10 -- who have pleaded guilty to arson and conspiracy in connection with 20 fires from 1996 to 2001, including a mega-blaze at a Vail ski resort -- to the Ku Klux Klan. The defense objected, pointing out that the KKK killed people. On purpose. The U.S. attorney's response? The fires are "a classic case of terrorism" because the groups were trying to coerce the feds into changing their policies, and it was "pure luck" that no one was killed or injured. Did we mention no one was killed or injured? A ruling is expected next week.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Related Links:

The Climate Post: Congress Returns, Teen Saves World

Veterans push for climate bill with new ‘Operation Free’ coalition

NYT: Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

Related Links:

Republicans for Enviromental Protection push back for Graham

Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer

Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

In 2000, 21-year-old Jeff Luers and an accomplice set fire to three pickup trucks at a dealership in Eugene, Ore., to bring attention to gas-guzzlers' contribution to global warming. They were promptly arrested. Luers, who refused to plea bargain, was sentenced to 22 years, eight months in prison. It is the longest term ever handed down for environmentally motivated sabotage in America -- and far longer than sentences given to arsonists in Oregon who have destroyed more property and endangered peoples' lives.

Jeff "Free" Luers, Oregon State Penitentiary, 2005.

Photos courtesy Freefreenow.org.

But Luers' sentence may be surpassed if any of the upcoming trials of 11 people arrested in January for eco-motivated arson and vandalism yield convictions. Though Luers' crime was minor by comparison, his case serves as a precedent: the fact that one of those arrested, Daniel McGowan, used to run a website for Luers was raised in an attempt to deny McGowan bail.

Because Luers is already in prison and knows he is under total surveillance, he is willing to speak his mind on eco-sabotage as few others are. He regularly issues communiqués from prison through a website maintained by outside supporters, and co-published Heartcheck in 2005, a prison zine that sounds a call for unflinchingly hands-on eco-revolution.

But Luers' ability to communicate more widely with the outside world has been hampered by the authorities. He has been classified as a member of a "security threat group" -- a measure designed to disrupt gangs, but applied in Luers' case to his anarchist and environmental affiliations. Restrictions on his communications have frustrated many reporters, but Grist was able to interview Luers over the phone from Oregon State Penitentiary -- the first interview he's given in nearly a year.

How do the latest arrests change the landscape for radical action?

This is pretty much the make-or-break point for the radical ecological movement in this country. A lot of people are scared and intimidated right now. They're either going to fall apart, or they're going to come together and show that, no matter how many arrests are made or how hard the government tries to crack down on dissent, the people aren't going to be quiet. That's what people need to do: whether or not they support radical action, they can't be intimidated into silence.

Did your conviction serve as the deterrent it was apparently intended to be?

Unfortunately, yeah, I think it has -- particularly in the local community that I got arrested out of. There's been a noticeable decline in underground activities, and part of that is the harsh sentence I received. But I think part of that is also the fact that we had a lot of people who put their hopes into easy solutions. It looked like it was going to work for a while: there was a huge galvanization of the public after [the WTO protests] in Seattle in '99. But the actions stopped. There was a lot of pressure from the police forces on separating unions and radical activists, and everything just kind of collapsed.

Coming out of that period, "eco-terrorism" was identified by the federal government as one of the biggest threats to the nation, right alongside things like al Qaeda. Did you consider yourself engaged in terrorism when you burned those trucks?

If someone believes I'm a terrorist, I don't think there's anything I'm going to say that's going to change their mind. When you look at the use of the word today, "terrorism" is basically a way to define armed struggles you disagree with.

What is it that you are struggling for?

The biggest thing I'm trying to achieve is a change in social conscience. Our society operates under an extreme capitalist system that is completely unsustainable. You can't take a limited amount of resources and exploit it infinitely and expect it to continue to yield the same results year after year.

I think we're finally starting to realize that: we've got climate change, our oil's starting to run out, our forests are disappearing. But the thing that bothers me is that technologies exist to create a greener lifestyle and they're not being implemented. In part it's because big companies don't see a profit in them, but it's also because consumers don't demand it.

When I think about the people who are out there sitting in their SUVs and sitting in front of their TVs and just consuming, consuming, consuming, it seems to me that most of them aren't doing it because they are evil and trying to consciously destroy the earth. It's just that they're not thinking about how they're living.

Though they may share some of your goals, a lot of environmentalists are committed to nonviolent change, and would certainly disagree with your tactics. What do you think of their tactics?

We need groups like the Sierra Club; we need people who believe in support and reform. But at the same time, I think that we need people like me who are willing and able to get our hands dirty.

Free in a tree, pre-OSP.

Any individual that cares enough to act knows whether or not they can take that extra step. Everyone has a level of commitment they can make, whether that's taking more mass transit, or riding your bike one day a week, or not using a vehicle at all. You can organize a boycott of the biggest local polluter. If you're already an activist, you can up the scale of what you're doing and get more involved in civil disobedience. Or you can go with other, extralegal activities.

And that, of course, is the route that landed you in prison.

That is the route that landed me in prison. So I advise people to use caution.

Was the truck-burning action you were convicted for the most extreme thing you'd done?

Yeah, I'd say it was. I was trying to move into the realm of more radical actions. This was one that I felt was not only symbolic in nature but allowed me to take that baby step. I was working toward being more of an underground guerilla activist.

Did you consider yourself a member of the Earth Liberation Front?

No. It might just be my political ideology, but I have a hard time identifying with any organization. While I strongly support what the ELF does, and I definitely can identify with their tactics and reasons why they use them, any person in the United States who claims ELF in any action automatically opens themselves up to investigation by the FBI.

As we've seen recently, the bar isn't even that high: people are being investigated based on what they eat or drive, for example. Because a lot of mainstream environmentalists share overarching goals with people like you, isn't there a danger that these acts of eco-sabotage are just giving mainstream environmentalism a bad name?

No. When you've got groups like ELF out there burning things down, it makes aboveground activism look tame. Because of that, the general public knows it's asinine when Greenpeace gets charged with piracy for boarding a ship and hanging a banner.

In Heartcheck, you write things like, "Smash it. Break it. Block it. Lock it down. I don't care why you do it or how you do it but stop it. Get out there and stop it." It sounds like you're not repentant.

Gristmill

I'm not. Social change is never a strictly peaceful thing. I simply don't think that you're going to see any type of true social change in this country without a show of force from the people, whether that comes in the form of millions of people marching in the streets or in the form of a few thousand out there committing acts of sabotage.

Political direct action today is following in the footsteps of the noble acts of social rebellion for human liberation that have always occurred in this country: things like the Boston Tea Party, the Underground Railroad, the Suffragettes, and the civil-rights movement.

You write that many activists are "stuck in a stagnant cycle," and can't get "outside the box of activism." What are you referring to?

In this country, protest is basically a relief valve for public stress. Great examples of that now are the designated protest zones miles away from the actual thing that people are protesting. It's built into the social equation now that if you give people an outlet, they won't take things further and actually threaten the status quo. So when I say, "thinking outside the box," I mean exactly that: if you're doing something that the group you're protesting is actually allowing you to do, then it's probably not very effective.

In the same zine, you also wrote "it's a beautiful thing to see the financial district of a major city smashed to pieces." Of course we saw that in New York -- was that a beautiful thing?

That's a tough one. From a militant standpoint it's sad, but I'm not going to say that it was entirely wrong. I have friends who witnessed 9/11 and I have friends that lost family. I hate to see loss of life, period. And yet, I can understand how the World Trade Center is a legitimate target in this country. The U.S. economy is a trade economy, and when you're striking out and trying to cripple a country, you go after what it is that makes that country operate.

Some eco-tage actions have been pretty major, and could conceivably kill people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In your view, would that be justifiable collateral damage?

If you're looking at actions like burning cars, then no, injuring someone is not justifiable collateral damage. People are taking a lot of caution. We've seen relatively few injuries in any of these types of actions, and those that have occurred are generally the people committing the actions themselves. I don't think that it's just a matter of time before a bystander is injured through property destruction -- those groups have a track record of nearly four decades of underground illegal direct action that's involved all kinds of sabotage, and we haven't seen a single injury.

But then again, I wouldn't be opposed to physical violence against a human being if it was necessary.

You're advocating violent social change, but your ultimate goal is to have a peaceful, sustainable society. How can a violent path lead to peace?

It's hard. You know, I ain't gonna deny that. But I don't think that an entirely passive resistance in this country could be successful. I don't think the government would allow it, frankly -- it would be quashed through force of arms.

But if people are too dispirited to even keep doing the level of actions that you mentioned in Eugene, how are they going to do something like band together and rise up in armed struggle?

I don't know. That's why I write about it. If I had solutions, believe me, I would have them all over the place whether people wanted to hear them or not. I don't. All I know is that things are very, very wrong and I'm willing to work in a myriad of ways to try to fix them.

My greatest success is in simply trying to inspire people. Out of all the people that have read anything I've written or heard any interview I've done, maybe .001 percent have actually gotten involved in illegal direct action. But I've gotten a lot of people to start recycling, or to write their representatives. And to me that's huge. If I can get just a handful of people that never cared about anything to suddenly care and want to do something no matter how small, then maybe they'll get a handful of people to do the same thing. It has to start somewhere.

But couldn't you have accomplished just as much above ground instead of going to jail? Do you think you would have had the same impact?

I don't really know, to be honest. I'm a militant, flat out. When I was 16, I aspired to be a militant, as strange as that sounds. I enjoyed being a militant. I enjoyed the civil disobedience that I did, probably in much the same way that people who become soldiers enjoy what they do. I obviously didn't fill that niche very well because I ended up in prison doing it, so perhaps there were better alternatives for me.

When I did this I was a young kid, just turned 21. I went out, did a pretty small little action and got hammered with 22 years. But I have continued to be passionate about why I did what I did, and I think that resonates with people. People want to root for the underdog, and I'm the underdog: the things that I'm struggling for are so utopian they seem almost ridiculous. Yet people want a fraction of that idealism in their lives.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash

Climate Citizen: Majora Carter

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University

Related Links:

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

Eco-vandal pleads guilty to 1999 arson at Michigan State University