11 People Indicted in Ecoterrorism Plot

[Snivi Yllom]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ecoterrorism_investigation

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors have indicted 11 people in a series of arsons in the Northwest that have been claimed by the radical groups Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, Justice Department officials said Friday.

The suspects are believed responsible for 17 incidents, including sabotaging a power plant, in a conspiracy that dates back to 1996, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the indictment was under seal in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore. It was expected to be made public later Friday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller were expected to talk about the indictment Friday at a news conference in Washington.

Some of those charged Friday remain at large, the officials said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't feel sympathy for those who engage in destruction of property, especially arson, I have a special hatred for arson sickos. However, I would like to know more about these cases. Anyone care to offer additional info?

[boobooday]

1. "Eco-terrorism"

Arson is bad. But if they insist on calling these people "eco-terrorists" then I believe they should use the term "pro-life terrorists" when describing the people who threaten doctors and women seeking health care.

[DBoon]

2. no, "forced natality terrorists"

they aren't prolife in any real sense

[boobooday]

3. Yes, good revision

Works for me. :-)

[gorbal]

106. It is questionable as to whether some are even remotely involved

They seem to be picking up activists willy-nilly-

Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the press operation, said that because ALF was "an underground organization" of no known members, "law enforcement is rounding up known activists."

"They simply have no idea who the members of ELF and ALF are," Mr. Vlasak said. "They have received a lot of negative publicity about unsolved arson cases, so they round up people they do know and squeeze them for information on other people."

He said none of the individuals named in the indictment had anything to do with the incidents cited, "and we feel they will be exonerated."

Defense lawyers for several people charged in the indictment said their clients were innocent and unfairly accused by unsavory government informants.

"The informants are unreliable," said Craig Weinerman, the federal public defender in Oregon who represents Chelsea Gerlach, 28. "They are serial arsonists whose claims and purported testimony should not be believed by anybody."

The rest is here-

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/politics/21indict.html

[gulliver]

41. Excellent point. They are distorting the language.

Terrorist fly planes into buildings and drive carloads of explosives into crowds of civilians. Do we really need these assholes using the same name for someone who spray paints SUVs, throws blood on someone's fur, or commits arson against an unoccupied house? Doesn't that trivialize terrorism?

And you are absolutely right. If hey are going to apply the term terrorism to "eco-arsonists" or "eco-vandals" then pro-life arsonists, bombers, and killers (along with other other right wing movements like the KKK, etc.) deserve the same brand.

[Up2Late]

68. No No NO! It's not "Pro Life!" They are "Anti-Choice!" Their's nothing

Pro-Life about these people, because most of them ar also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. Pro-life is Rove-speak/RW spin.

Say it with me now, "Anti-Choice Terrorists." Now doesn't that sound better?

[SOS]

69. And Timothy McVeigh

was the "Oklahoma City bomber".

Eric Rudolph was the "Atlanta Olympics bomber".

Vicious, right-wing, mass-murderers are "bombers", but never "terrorists"!

[wordpix]

80. thank you. There are no "pro-life" terrorists, even when they kill people

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

99. ECO-TERRORISM= terrorizing our environment-term is soon to be obsolete

False and misleading use of words.
Corporations that pollute are Eco Terrorists!-(by definition)

Exploitation of natural resources to the point of depletion and actions that cause
plant & animal species extinction-now THAT's Eco Terroism--(by definition.)

It won't be long til we swap this label and place it where it belongs.
And anyone who engages in criminal activity, despite their reason is simply a criminal--(also by definition).

If a Christian is caught in a crime we don't label his crime as "Christian Terrorism" do we?

Hopefully our citizens were smarter than to fall for this mis-labeling

[cedahlia]

107. Exactly...who are the REAL "Eco-terrorists?"

Greedy, irresponsible corporations, the current administration, and any of the other "global-warming-is-a-myth-who-gives-a-fuck-about-the-environment" crowd. Those who favor the continued raping of the earth's natural resources, in the name of increased profits, are the real "Eco-terrorists." :mad:

[AngryAmish]

4. These people are a menace

Targeting power lines for destruction is an evil act.

[Bucky]

67. But remember that vandals are a teensy minority of eco-activists

They make everyone who stands up for a good cause look bad. Criminals are criminals. If they're guilty, throw the book at them.

On the other hand, don't be surprised when real eco-activists get painted with the same broad brush as these goobers in the coming election. Opposing ANWR drilling = soft on terrorism. Watch for it.

[Peace Patriot]

79. Oh, I've seen it! Photo of a perfectly legitimate, non-violent, open,

public protest at a logging gate, placed right next to an article on "eco-terrorism" in my local crap rag.

It couldn't be more blatant.

And, quite frankly, I have ZERO BELIEF in any prosecution that Alberto Gonzales has his fingers on. They could be 100% innocent of even the slightest acts of vandalism, for all we know.

This is a fascist junta, my friends. Beware of false arrests, false prosecutions, secrecy, trumped up evidence, disinformation, and every manner of lies and manipulation.

Also--even if it's true that some people burned SUVs, and so on--think of the scale of things. Those prosecuting these individuals are guilty of incinerating and blowing to smithereens tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq (100,000 from the initial bombing alone, according to the British doctors' report) and of torturing thousands of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan, and of black flights carrying anonymous prisoners to torture dungeons in eastern Europe. They are in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and of numerous laws and treaties. They are massively spying on Americans--in violation of yet more laws--and have undoubtedly reconstituted COINTELPRO in order to FRAME leftist groups and individuals for crimes they did not commit.

These are the people who are prosecuting these so-called "eco-terrorists." They are criminals themselves, guilty of massive murder, and massive thievery.

And they've got a lapdog press, and increasing control over the courts.

So, just beware, is all I'm saying. They lie. They smear. They thinking nothing of breaking the law. What right do they have even to be prosecuting anyone? They are an illegitimate government. Don't get sucked in to the news media illusions that are constantly being spun to give them an aura of legitimacy and support.

[OKthatsIT]

96. you're accusing the wrong people here

Bush is desparate, so is Gonzales and every other corrupt participant in his administration. Bush is in deep doo doo over the wiretapping of Americans and needs to keep campaigning his propaganda on 'why we need to relinquish our privacy rights'.

Its a perfect ploy ...make fires, then go after ecological groups.

PLEASE, USE YOUR MIND PEOPLE. THINK!

[K-W]

5. WHERE IS THE TERRORISM

I keep reading these stories and I have yet to hear about any terrorism involved, but every story mentions eco-terrorists.

Sabotage is not terrorism.

[Zynx]

9. They commit violent acts, then claim responsibility.

That's solely to advance the visibility of their political agenda and intimidate people.

That's a textbook definition of terrorism.

[K-W]

10. No, that isnt terrorism.

Terrorism is the intentional targetting of civillians to cause mass casualties and create political pressure. There is no reason to twist the word terrorism and apply it to these people.

[Zynx]

15. They are targeting civilians.

Just because they aren't using bombs and guns - yet, these guys are serious wingnuts - doesn't make their actions any less violent.

If Hamas blew up an empty building in Tel Aviv to show that they could and claimed responsibility with their usual diatribe against Israel, I don't think anyone would argue that's terrorism.

Sabotage and vandalism takes on a completely different tone when groups start jumping up and down to say "we did that, bow to our agenda!"

Politically-motivated violence is 100% unacceptable.

[K-W]

21. Prove it.

Show me where an eco-terrorist attacked a group of civillians with the intention of causing mass casualties or threatned to do so.

Just because they aren't using bombs and guns - yet, these guys are serious wingnuts - doesn't make their actions any less violent.

Not neccessarily, but you can kill alot more people with bombs and guns than you can without them. A terrorists goal is to maximize casualities. Violence and terrorism are not the same thing.

If Hamas blew up an empty building in Tel Aviv to show that they could and claimed responsibility with their usual diatribe against Israel, I don't think anyone would argue that's terrorism.

The threat of killing mass civillians is also terrorism.

Sabotage and vandalism takes on a completely different tone when groups start jumping up and down to say "we did that, bow to our agenda!"

Huh? Isnt that how it always works? Look sabatage, vandalism and violence are what they are, they just arent in themselves terrorism.

[yellowdogmi]

123. I have looked at some of these groups.

I think that I agree whole heartedly with many of their motives. As I understand it the ELF grew out of the Earth First Activist. These are people that are fighting the destruction of our planet by the corporate greedhead friends of *. They have taken to also fighting sprawl in certain cases such as Vail. I admit that they seem like wingnuts and I can not condone their all of their actions. But I feel for their cause. I don't think that they have ever tried to kill anyone. Most of their activities amount to tree spiking and pulling up survey stakes. google howie wolke or ed abbey there is also a link to david ? at the Audubon society.

[primavera]

28. No, degree still counts for something

Sabotage and vandalism takes on a completely different tone when groups start jumping up and down to say "we did that, bow to our agenda!"

It may change the tone as you suggest, but the extend of harm caused is still an important factor. For instance, if I have issues with the IMF and stand out in front of their building hurling water balloons at their windows, I'm making the political statement you claim catapults me into the terrorist category, yet hurling water balloons probably won't even get me arrested for anything other than maybe disturbing the peace, as the measure of harm I'm causing is insignificant. If, on the other hand, I take up a rifle and start shooting IMF employees with it, well then, yeah, you're right, I would definitely have crossed the line then into terrorism.

[expatriot]

49. I do not approve of ELF and ALF's tactics of property destruction but

these people go out of their way not to hurt anyone. It is just a matter of time before they screw up and do injure or kill someone and then watch out, the anti-environment and anti-animal rights crowd will fall over themselves to scream terrorism with human casualties.
Believe me, if they (the anti-environment/anti-animal crowd) could pin one death on the acts of ALF/ELF they would scream it from the rooftops. I believe most of these arson cases involve housing developments under contruction that are burned in the dead of night when construction crews are not working. Like I said, I do not support property destruction as a tactic and I think it is very wrong-headed but I believe it is sabotage not terrorism. sabotage is when the goal is covert economic damage (increasing the cost of building on prestine land, etc.) terrorism has the goal of causing widespread terror, human loss and catastrophe among a civilian population. It is somewhat like the difference between burglary and armed robbery... in a way.



.

[LeftyMom]

91. So what's the death toll from ELF/ALF actions?

The goal isn't to scare people and get them to bow to any agenda, it's to make destrustion of the planet and exploitation of animals unprofitable. The target's not the general population (more mainstream and organized groups work on public opinion much more effectively) but the corporate bean-counters and the board room guys who really run shit.

*Note to our facist minders: LMommy is not in any way affiliated with either the ELF or the ALF, nor does she know anyone who is. I don't burn anything but dinner.

[Moochy]

110. Vandalism equivalent to using bombs and guns!!??!?!?

"Just because they aren't using bombs and guns - yet, these guys are serious wingnuts - doesn't make their actions any less violent."

Hmm, these so called eco-terrorists are already guilty of the same level of violence as if they were using bombs and guns, so why dont we just send these "eco-terrorsts" en masse to Iraq?

Give them some spray paint, some spikes for the trees in the iraqi old-growth forests, and voila no more insurgency.. We could have them licked in a few months of vandalism, since it's the same level of violence as using bombs and guns. Hell of a lot cheaper too.

:sarcasm:

Your post is lacking in logic.

[Zynx]

116. Arson is not vandalism.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

120. "Politically-motivated violence is 100% unacceptable"???.....

...Somebody should have told the U. S. Founding Fathers. According to you, they're terrorists.

[Snivi Yllom]

16. I don't think it's limited to acts that in fact kill, but create fear

Generating a feeling of fear and using violent acts to attract attention to your cause.

Thereby it's called TERRORism.

[K-W]

23. That isnt how it is defined conventionally.

Conventionally it is limited to force or the threat of force. Simply scaring people does not qualify.

[IA_Seth]

45. Definition

Not that it should even be necessary, but one of the 4 definitions on the merriam webster site is as follows:

violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

It doesn't mention civilians or mass casualties.

That being said, you are arguing connotation versus denotation. There is and always will be a negative connotation of the word "terrorism", even more so since 9/11. I don't disagree that the willy-nilly use of the word is going too far as of late.

However, if you want to argue that what they do can't be TECHNICALLY classified as terrorism, I think you are wrong.

[K-W]

46. Well as long as the DOD and one of 4 Miriam Webster definitions fit

its ok to call arson terrorism and take the meaning completely out of the word.

Obviously you can spin and define in ways that make this technically terrorism. Nobody is debating that. But I am not interested in rationalizing the term "eco-terrorist", I am interested in reality where it should be pretty bloody obvious that destroying property for the sake of destroying property and trying to kill or threatning to kill people are two very different things. And if both are terrorism, then we need a new word to describe the latter because it is monumentally worse than the former and the two should not be generalized.

Right now the word simply straddles the two because some people define it to mean both and all this does is generalize two different things together distorting reality.

[primavera]

22. More destructive than violent

I don't know for sure, but my impression - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that the targets here are physical property, not life. If I damage your property, I can be charged with vandalism or destruction of property, but not with murder, and the two charges carry hugely different penalties, and appropriately so. Terrorists kill people to make their points; these eco-militants do not, and that's an important distinction.

[K-W]

24. The US government does define destroying property as terrorism

but I think thats absurd and bogus on the face.

[Zynx]

29. Definition of terrorism does not require killing.

al-Qaeda and people like Timothy McVeigh - who want bodycounts for bodycounts sake - are actually fairly rare.

Most terrorist groups primarily want to get on the news and raise their profile and the profile of their cause. Intimidation is the name of the game, because the actual amount of force most groups can use is very small.

That can mean killing people. It can also mean phoning in a bomb placement to let people get out of the way before detonating something. The IRA and ETA did this all the time.

The KKK was probably the most successful terrorist organization in history, and compared to the number of people it intimidated (an entire large segment of the US population over several generations), it killed pretty rarely. But it certainly achieved its goals (racial suppression) via threat of force and display of power.

al-Qaeda has nothing on the old KKK in terms of intimidation of a population.

[K-W]

33. It requires killing or the threat of killing.

Destroying property for the sake of publicity is NOT terrorism.

The IRA, ETA, and KKK were threatning violence, that was the message behind thier vandalism and sabotage, please prove that this is the case with radical enviro groups.

[Peace Patriot]

95. What about union vandalism, back when? Was that "terrorism"?

I just want to insert here that, back in the day when workers had no rights*, when unions were just being formed, strikers sometimes vandalized corporate machinery--and even broke windows, lit fires, and beat people up--to prevent scabs from being hired by the robber barons to break their strike. They did this to intimidate the robber barons and their hired thugs--and their sometimes fairly innocent scabs--in an effort to force the robber barons to recognize the union, and to get bargaining power for the workers?

Was that terrorism? Or legitimate protest in very oppressive conditions?

If you identify with animals and nature, and/or feel that our biosphere is being destroyed--and that our home, planet earth, will soon be dead, within 50 years or so (for which there is considerable scientific evidence), you might just feel that's it's worth burning a few SUVs, or yet another unsustainable housing development, to make your point.

Is that terrorism? Or is it legitimate protest in very oppressive--and, indeed, quite scary conditions?

IF--and, to me it's a big IF--people have actually burned SUVs or unoccupied home construction sites, for environmental reasons, while I would not do it myself, I think it's a defensible, legitimate protest, based on another IF...if they admit it and take the legal consequences. To me, that is always the key to non-violent civil disobedience--the willingness to do it openly and to suffer jail and social punishment. If your purpose is education, or warning, or expressing moral revulsion, that's how to do it--openly. Secrecy just makes people afraid and paranoid--and they all go out and spend a lot of money on locks and security guards and so on. Fear and paranoia are not good changers of hearts. To save our planet, for instance, we need a BIG change of heart--massive alteration of behavior. We can't force it--not if we also believe in freedom. (This doesn't mean we can't force corporations, though--I'm talking about individuals.) Anyway, if we want to set an example and have people follow you, you have do it with an open hand and with social courage, or it never will be big enough to save our planet.

-----

Someone here said arsonists should receive severe punishment--that arson is never forgivable (because it's so dangerous).

During the Vietnam War--while upwards of TWO MILLION Vietnamese and southeast Asians were being slaughtered all around them by U.S. forces (and many incinerated by napalm)--several Buddhist monks prayerfully lit themselves on fire in the streets of Saigon, to protest the war.

Was that creating a fire hazard? Or was it legitimate protest in terribly oppressive conditions? If you had been able to stop the monk from lighting himself on fire, would you have then prosecuted him for creating a fire hazard, or singeing automobiles, or endangering others?

Almost everything is relative to the circumstances in which it occurs.

I DO think that there is a basic humanistic set of rules and rights that is in operation in almost all human beings, and that is evolving over time, but that includes some bottom line ethical principles about killing others, decent treatment of others, protection of the weak, fair distribution of goods, and rights to food, shelter, making a living and liberty. Lately, I would add, the right to a healthy living planet.

How these ethical principles work out in the justice system of individual societies is another thing. Sometimes laws are very unfair. For instance, why are war profiteers, war criminals, oil barons and other major polluters NOT in the dock right now, in the U.S.--while a few people who may have destroyed some relatively minor pieces of property ARE?

[Critters2]

119. It would be under this admin

[Media_Lies_Daily]

122. Delusional. Totally.

[Snivi Yllom]

103. the State Dept defintion of terrorism

"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

[Milspec]

105. "Sabotage is not terrorism." ??

Oh really.

[gratuitous]

6. Harming corporate "rights" is highly illegal in Bush's America

I mean, if you try to damage Wendy's reputation for offering its customers delicious chili, you can expect to go to jail for nearly 10 years. If you run a corporation that undeniably rips off thousands of people, loot millions of dollars, engages in money laundering and bank fraud (like Westar), you'll get just a smidgen over four years in jail.

Anyone named in this particular indictment should beware of how seriously the current Justice Department takes any action designed to make corporations look bad for their bad actions.

[Zynx]

7. Um, arsonists are scum.

It's an inherently highly dangerous crime because of the firefighters that have to put it out and the possibility for fire to spread. Sabotaging a power plant is also potentially deadly.

No sympathy.

[gratuitous]

11. Did I say anything different?

But how many lives were actually ruined by Westar's malfeasance, and how many folks' lives were actually ruined (not possibly, not potentially) by the so-called eco-terrorists?

And who is the Bush Justice Department going to come down on like the Hammer of God, and who is going to graduate from prison in four years with most of his wealth intact?

I'm just saying that if you're going to commit a crime, it's apparently a lot wiser to fuck up the lives of a lot of powerless individuals than mess with the right of a corporation to pollute the planet.

[OKthatsIT]

100. Hey Zynx...are you new here?

The worst terrorists Ive seen so far are Bush&Co.

[Zynx]

115. Um, no. Fairly sure I've been here longer than you have.

[LeftyMom]

12. Exactly.

I don't like to throw the F word around lightly, but when the govt is more interested in protecting corporate interests than human lives, that's facism.

[mike923]

51. And in any America i want to live in.*

[Moochy]

113. Property Property uber alles!

Property Rights > Human Rights

[NaturalHigh]

8. I have no sympathy for these people.

Yes, arson and sabotaging power lines are acts of terrorism. If these people get the twenty years or so in prison that they deserve, maybe they'll stop to think about what they've accomplished - which is nothing but turn people against them and hurt their own cause.

[K-W]

13. No, they actually arent acts of terrorism.

Why is everyone so eager to dillute the meaning of the word terrorism to smear environmental radicals?

[Roaming]

18. Just because they're environmentalists doesn't give them a pass

The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Seems like a pretty accurate description of what these bozos did.

[The2ndWheel]

27. That's the definition?

Who gets to determine what lawful use of---or threatened use of---force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve poltical, religious, or ideological objectives, would be?

If there are unlawful ways of doing that, then there must be lawful ways. Right?

I hate civilization. I really do. If there was some place that I knew would never be rolled over by it, I'd go there. Instead, we're all stuck on planet Irony.

[AngryAmish]

44. I don't see it is possible to hate civilization.

I think literacy, division of labor, indoor plumbing are good things. Not to be mean but you are complaining about civilization on an internet message board. There is irony in there somewhere.

In a representative democracy, it is ultimately the people who decide what is lawful and not violence. (Present regimes aside). Lawful violence in such a system can be war justly declared.

[K-W]

50. Civilization is a word with many meanings.

To some people it means social harmony and progressive development, but think about the meaning of the word civilization when President McKinley decided that God wanted him to "uplift and civilize and christianize" the people of the Phillipines as the civilizing mission of American empire moved from securing the American west to building a global empire.

[The2ndWheel]

78. Well if all our lives weren't

moving ever more towards the internet(and releated things), I wouldn't use it. I don't, and hopefully won't, own a cell phone, nor a car. My own(most likely pointless) way of trying to chip away.

I know about the irony(and I also like your board name). But not many people escape civilizing forces. The Africans didn't. The natives of this land didn't. Almost every human that came in contact with the empires through time didn't. Even if you wanted to "get away", where would you go? Everything is owned by private interests or the government. I don't have much of a choice these days.

"In a representative democracy, it is ultimately the people who decide what is lawful and not violence. (Present regimes aside)."

Obviously. The present regime is different. They try to talk a good game like other regimes, but everyone knows they're lying. Whereas other regimes(including the ones in the very beginning of the republic) were pure. This Bush regime though, they're somehow different. If we just get rid of them, we'll all be throwing flowers in the streets for our new leaders.

"Lawful violence in such a system can be war justly declared."

Good system. When were we(or any human that didn't have power) consulted on any of these wars? Does it depend on who declares the war? One justification can be just as good as another.

[K-W]

31. DUH, but nobody said that, did they?

Nobody would ever say that. Just a strawman on your part.



The US Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

The US government defines terrorism in a rather odd way giving physical objects the same status as human lives. It does this partly because it wants to be able to call sabateurs terrorists. The US government happens to be the prosecution in this case, so I find it odd you would cite thier definition as an objective source really.

Seems like a pretty accurate description of what these bozos did.

Its almost as if the government had people like them in mind when it worked up its definition of terrorist eh?

How about we stop cheapening the term terrorism by applying it to sabatuers just because they are bozos and we like to just have one name for all bad people.

[primavera]

35. What else would you expect from DoD?

Of course they're going to choose the most expansive definition possible which allows them to act upon their most paranoid fantasies. According to that definition, if I called up my phone company and threatened to tear up my bill in protest of a certain surcharge they'd added, I would be a terrorist, and that's plainly just ludicrous.

[Peace Patriot]

85. "...a pretty accurate description of what these bozos did." And you trust

Alberto Gonzales to tell you what they did?

I just want to laugh at your self-righteousness--at your assumption, first of all, that they are guilty, that there must be some truth to it, if Bush Cartel toady and torture-memo writer Alberto Gonzales says so, and, secondly, IF--a big if, in my book--there is any substance to the charges and IF they have the right people, that this vandalism (very like union vandalism, by the way--back in the day--would you call THAT "terrorism"?)--is really worth all the effort they've put into it, all the resources of the federal government, and their spying and all, when REAL terrorists, the ones who might nuke a U.S. city, for instance, are running around freely, making and releasing tapes timed to help Bush's political fortunes.

How can you take this prosecution at face value? The people who are doing the prosecution are themselves criminals on a massive scale. This eco-vandalism--whoever did it--is nothing...NOTHING...compared to what the Bush junta has done in Iraq and other killing fields. Nothing, compared to the torture they've inflicted on thousands of people.

I'm not saying that justice here has to come to a halt, because the government are lying, illegitimate scumbags and murderers and thieves. Lordy no, we must have justice for vehicles and housing developments. Just try to keep in mind what the REAL terrorists in our world have done--whether Al Qaeda or their chief funders, the Bush/Saudi Oil Cartel, whose overt terrorism against the people of Iraq involved the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, and the torture of many more.

[milkyway]

93. That definition sounds like "shock and awe." The U.S. has used

or threatened to use force more times than I can remember. Funny also how they left out economic objectives.

[NaturalHigh]

19. How is these not acts of terrorism?

This kind of goes beyond simple protesting or civil disobedience. Burning down a housing addition or trying to take down a 200-ft electric pole (risking human lives in the process) qualifies as terrorism in my book. "Radical environmentalists" who use these tactics get none of my sympathy.

Do you approve of these tactics?

[K-W]

37. How are they acts of terrorism? Not everything is terrorism.

You seem to be suggesting that anything that goes beyond protesting or civil disobedience is terrorism. That is silly, not everything is terrorism, terrorism is a specific thing.

Burning down a house very well could be terrorism, but it isnt automatically terrorism. Not all arson is terrorism. And terrorists dont risk human lives, they intend to take them.

Do you approve of these tactics?
Do you strangle kittens?

[NaturalHigh]

47. "Do you strangle kittens?"

No, I love cats.

[Jack_DeLeon]

20. They are terrorists...

You dont think arson is terror?

You dont think the KKK burned crosses in the front yards of black people to terrorize them?

You dont think having your house burned down is an act of terror?

[K-W]

38. Of course arson isnt terror, arson is arson.

Perhaps it is terrorism, but not all arson is terrorism. Just like not all killings are terrorism.

The KKK was lynching and threatning to lynch black people, thats what makes them terrorists, not the burning crosses.

No, having my house burned down is not neccessarily an act of terror. What if it was done by an ex lover when they knew no one was in the house? Is that terror too? Is everything in our penal code called terrorism now?

[The2ndWheel]

14. Civilization always wins

They're fighting a losing battle.

Civilization answers to nobody.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. IMO arsonists should be shot.

I've got no problem with people enjoying fire. I love bonfires and fireworks and the like.

But when someone intentionally sets fire to someone's property, be it thier home, car, or whatever they deserve more severe punishments than what they get now.

[Snivi Yllom]

48. arsonists should suffer the same fate as their crime

burn them at the stake

fire is awful and those who start fires intentionally are down there with rw politicians, car salesmen and real estate brokers

[loveandlight]

25. radical does not equal terrorism

I agree these people use radical tactics to get their point across and deserve to be punished for any laws broken (certainly arson is not a defensible act, in my book any way), but that doesn't mean that it should equate with the definition of terrorism. This administration would love for us all to associate anyone who does anything that they disagree with as a terrorist. They've named Democrats who disagree with them practicially as terrorists or at the least terrorist sympathizers. They want us to get comfortable using that term for people on the farthest ends of political disagreement. But of course, they won't keep the bar there, it will move closer and closer until one day it will be about you and me who simply want to protest this war or demand action on global warming by taking to the streets, even if our actions are non-violent and threaten no one (except for Bush and his cohorts' power position.) We should not go down that path with them in defining these people are terrorists.

[JudyM]

36. Exactly! Plus by nailing anyone they call a 'terrorist' it seems they're

persuading their base they're 'winning the war on terrorism.' By calling these strident folks terrorists it's as if the govt is implicitly justified in prosecuting them to the fullest, and fomenting fundie emotions at the same time. I'm not saying what these people did was right, but I understand their anguished frustration at the govt's laxity of regulatory enforcement.

[WinkyDink]

26. The LEGAL term is "VANDALISM"!

Sheeesh.

[Jack_DeLeon]

30. So if someone burned down your home...

we could all just look back at it and laugh, oh it was just vanalism.

[K-W]

40. You think vandalism is funny? EOM

[WinkyDink]

108. I don't think I wrote it was FUNNY! But the crime would then be "arson".

Get it? NOT TERRORISM.

[Zynx]

32. Arson is not considered vandalism.

In most states, it's a Class A (most serious) felony punishable by prison terms that equal life in prison.

It's classified differently than breaking windows or drawing on a wall because fire is highly unpredictable and can kill people.

[SmokingJacket]

90. Yes. nt

[kineneb]

34. Note they are targeting "eco-terrorists" not "neo-nazis"

There are lots more really dangerous neo-nazi hate groups in this country than so-called eco-terrorists. But ecos are left leaning, while the nazi -types are merely the criminal manifestation of the NeoCon/theocrat principals. Also, for sheer quantity of illegal weapons collections, one cannot beat the neo-nazi groups. So why are we not hearing about rounding them up? Hmmm?

[Julius Civitatus]

42. Neo-nazis, Klan, and militias no longer "terrorists" to the Bush admin.

Seriously, look it up.

Last years the Bush administration released a new list of "dangerous" groups and terrorist groups operating in the US. For the first time, this list DID NOT include neo-nazi groups, white supremacist terrorist groups, the KKK, or the paramilitary militia groups that flourished in the 90s (and responsible for the largest terrorist attack in US soil before 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing).

Those groups are no longer a concern for the Bush admin.

Instead, the list replaced those groups with environmental and animal rights groups.

http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=833

[Maggie_May]

39. At this day in age everything so going to have the label of terrorism?

These people are vandals not terrorist. If we arrest people that steal cars is their label car terrorist. Even that I feel destruction of property is wrong this is not under the umbrella of terrorism.

[Catchawave]

43. Insurance scams ?

I hope this comes back to bite Bushco in the ass:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10032005.html

[uppityperson]

52. "Criminal" would work as they don't terrorize me or a large group

It seems "terrorist" evokes the word terror. For example (if true which I am not argueing but using as an example) hicjacking airplanes and flying them into buildings would evoke terror in a large number of people who fly and or work in buildings and or have loved ones who do. Spiking trees, arson, vandalism, violence, destruction that these people do are wrong, are criminal, but do they evoke terror? I do not agree with their actions, but I am more terrorized by rapists and the administration than these people.

[K-W]

53. Niether word is terribly useful.

They should be described in ways that give information about who they actually are, not ways that ethically catagorize them so the information consumer knows how to feel. Calling someone a terrorist only tells us that at some point in the past they committed an act of terror, or they intend to committ an act of terror in the future. Now there are cases where this is relevant information, although it is quite vague, but to call people terrorists in the news story about the terror is stupid and redundant and only serves to animate the imagined terrorist boogeyman, the platonic terrorist, in peoples minds. Then this boogeyman, the generalized terrorist can be waved at people to scare them.

And of course in this case terror is a misleading choice of terms.

The same is true of criminal, it is a vague categorization of behaviors, not a type of person. Obviously unlike terrorist, criminal includes both severe and mild actions as well, making it that much more vague and uninformative.

[uppityperson]

57. Yes, I don't really have a good word yet. Am tired of "terrorist" though

way too overused, makes it not useful for when it is appropriate.

[K-W]

58. Mispost. EOM

[milkyway]

54. It has begun.

[brentspeak]

56. What's begun?

[Jack_DeLeon]

74. It.

duh. lol.

[milkyway]

97. The equating of leftists with jihadists. First they include only leftists

who resort to violence. Gradually, the parameters will widen until we're all included. See the excellent post #25 above.

Every fucking day there's something else we find out about the fascist regime's chipping away at our individual rights, from demanding Google's records to the FSA's new plan to do extensive background checks on "registered travelers" (all voluntary, of course...for now).

Remember, everybody should watch what they say and watch what they do. You're either with us or against us (and guess which side the regime thinks the people of DU belong on).

[brentspeak]

55. They're "terrorists" depending when the U.S. changed its definition

of terrorism to include attacks against property. These crimes were committed between 1996 and 2001. If the word "property" was included in the U.S. government's definition of terrorism during the time period of crimes committed, these people are going to mighty sorry they went beyond just spraypainting things.

[WinkyDink]

109. The goernment isn't Humpty-Dumpty, with words "meaning" whatever they want

What the Republicans are doing is making protest and dissent illegal.
They are content to take as long as it takes, in however many increments it takes.

[superconnected]

59. in other words we have domestic terrorists so let domestic spying

be legal.

How convient, even if it is true, which I doubt.

[Catchawave]

60. Setting a house on fire = Vandalism

Setting a house on fire with people in it = Terrorism

[K-W]

63. Not only are corporations people now, so are houses. EOM

[Snivi Yllom]

66. if it was your house

and you were a minority, and it was the KKK burning it down, you would not call it vandalism, even if you were not home. In that case they would be burning it down to intimidate and to serve a cause via severely twisted methods.

These ELF assholes burn houses down builders and homeowners from building suburban homes also to intimidate and to serve a cause via severely twisted methods.

[Catchawave]

71. The KKK is a terrorist/hate group organization.....

...as proven with cross burnings and those silly costumes.

I don't think anyone here is condoning illegal activities, just the BushCo War on Terror that includes anyone who disagrees with him and his corporate cronies.

Here's a good article:

http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html

[Peace Patriot]

88. "...these ELF assholes...". Listen to yourself, Snivi Yllom. What do you

know of the people whom the Bush junta are calling "eco-terrorists"? What do you know of the evidence? What do you know of their guilt or innocence? What do you know of who they may really be? Where are you getting your information from? And what reason do you have to trust those sources?

You just jump to the conclusion that everything you have heard about "ELF" is true. You have been drawn right onto the ground of major liars and major terrorists who are operating under the guise of government, and their toadying press, who WANT to be thinking this--"...these ELF assholes..."--who WANT you to be assuming their guilt and arguing over whether it is "terrorism" or not. That's THEIR ground. But, really, you know noting of "ELF' except what you read in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press. You know nothing of the accused. "ELF" could be a COINTELPRO black op, for all you know--all set up by the junta, to be trotted out when needed, to coverup their own massive crimes, and given their lapdog press something to yammer about.

I think it's likely that it's all trumped up, but I'm willing to admit that I DON'T KNOW. And also, that I may never know--because of the secrecy of this government. The accused may be covert agents, who, if convicted and imprisoned, will be spirited out the back door. I am very distrustful--with good reason. And I DON'T KNOW.

And how do YOU know that, in fact, "ELF assholes" burned down homes with environmental motives. Hm-m? Just wondering. Maybe you DO know. Maybe you've talked to some ELFers, and you're convinced that they are what the Bush junta says they are. If you DO know something, please tell.

And if you don't, I would suggest that you exercise more skepticism--especially regarding these powerful criminals who have lied to you and to all of us time and again.

[Snivi Yllom]

101. yes they are a-holes

people who set houses on fire are assholes period


too much tinfoil, too many conspiracy theories, not enough condemnation of this kind of activity

[Critters2]

121. I consider people who build

expensive houses on land that was until recently forest or prairie, for people who don't need new homes (but just WANT them) to be assholes. Does my saying their assholes make them so?

[debbierlus]

61. This is their distraction for not getting Bin Laden

They caught some 'eco-terrorists'....

No deathes related to these people...

I am not justifying their actions. But, this is PATHETIC.

Press conference and all. They are using this as showing they are doing something.

Where are the people who blew up the abortion clinics?

[K-W]

62. Justice will be done for this house! EOM

[superconnected]

64. it's also their way of justifying spying on america.

[K-W]

65. and thier way of villifying environmentalists EOM

[laststeamtrain]

70. Agree or disagree:

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

Political violence is always wrong. It would be better if the United States didn't exist.

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising was wrong-headed.

It was wrong for Red Cloud to close the Bozeman Trail to all those nice miners coming into their territory.

Etc.
*

I submit these in the name of thoughtfulness. I don't have any ultimate answers, but I think on these things.

[Snivi Yllom]

72. details of the indictments

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/environment/usalf11906ind.pdf

x=380&y=248&sig=9Mi9jMM05xnK8WcJ6PtiVA--


According to the indictment, Joseph Dibee, Chelsea Dawn Gerlach, Sarah Kendall Harvey, Daniel Gerard McGowan, Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, Josephine Sunshine Overaker, Jonathan Mark Christopher Paul, Rebecca Rubin, Suzanne Savoie, Darren Todd Thurston, and Kevin M. Tubbs conspired to commit numerous acts of domestic terrorism as part of a group they called "the Family," an alleged group of the extremist movements ALF and ELF.
The indictment follows a series of arrests on Dec. 7, 2005, in Oregon, Arizona, New York, and Virginia. Gerlach, Harvey, Meyerhoff, McGowan, Thurston, and Tubbs were arrested at that time for various charges, including the destruction of an energy facility. Paul was arrested on Jan. 17, 2006, on a criminal complaint charging him with one of the arsons mentioned in the indictment. Savoie was arrested on Jan. 19, 2006, on a criminal complaint. Dibee, Overaker and Rubin are believed to be outside of the United States.

The indictment refers to attacks on 17 sites:

*Oct. 28, 1996, at the U.S. Forest Service Detroit Ranger Station in Marion County, Ore.;
*Oct. 30, 1998, at the U.S. Forest Service Oakridge Ranger Station in Lane County, Ore.;
*July 21, 1997, at the Cavel West, Inc. meat packing company in Deschutes County, Ore.;
*Nov. 30, 1997, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Facility in Harney County, Ore.;
*June 21, 1997, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Facility in Olympia, Wash.;
*Oct. 11, 1998, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Holding Facility in Rock Springs, Wyo.;
*Oct. 19, 1998, at the Vail Ski Facility in Vail, Colo.;
*Dec. 27, 1998, at U.S. Forest Industries in Jackson County, Ore.;
*May 9, 1999, at Childers Meat Company in Lane County, Ore.;
*Dec. 25, 1999, at the Boise Cascade office in Polk County, Ore.;
*Dec. 30, 1999, at a Bonneville Power Administration high-tension power line tower near Bend, Ore.;
*Sept. 6, 2000, at the Eugene Police Department West University Public Safety Station in Eugene, Ore.;
*Jan. 2, 2001, at the Superior Lumber Company in Douglas County, Ore.;
*March 30, 2001, at Joe Romania Chevrolet Truck Center in Eugene, Ore.;
*May 21, 2001, at Jefferson Poplar Farms in Columbia County, Ore.;
*May 21, 2001, at the University of Washington Horticultural Center in Seattle;
*Oct. 15, 2001, at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse Facility in Litchfield, Calif.

[wordpix]

81. I can only say that some of these targets have terrorized western states

for decades and obviously, people are getting angry about it. The US Forest Service continues to allow logging corps to cut old growth forest and there's hardly any left. I used to live in Oregon and the Forest Service was no friend of the forests---it was just doing the bidding of the multinational wood products companies.

[WinkyDink]

111. So why keep harping about "if they burned your home"??

Seems that NO PRIVATE HOMES are mentioned as targets.

[mike_c]

73. these people are heros, and I salute them....

I'm not going to get into verbal jousting with anyone who wants to defend corporate greed and put individual "property rights" before the collective good of all the people sharing the earth. Fighting corporate greed isn't "terrorism," IMO-- it's heroism.

:patriot:

on edit-- BTW, one of the women indicted in this case was until recently a student in my department. She is very well respected by many of our faculty, several of whom have written letters on her behalf, and at least one of whom expects to be called to testify for the defense.

[Snivi Yllom]

75. heroic?

[mike_c]

76. absolutely....

eom

[Clara T]

89. For some perspective

Over 81% of all Los Angeles workers drive to work every day.



Cattle at a feed lot


Our local environment is being sacrificed to a few companies - we grew fries and destroy our Island for the sake of a few fast food companies. When I sat destroy - look at this field in the spring. We all drive by and think that is is normal now.

The run off gets into our water systems and does this to our fish.

Time is running out. The planet is beyond repair. What can be salvaged for the future generations?

[Jack_DeLeon]

77. I put my personal property rights above...

the lives of people who would destroy my property.

I work hard to get what little I have and I'll never get that time back. So fuck anyone who would support burning down people's homes.

[Solon]

82. Not that I agree with the poster above...

In fact, I find the acts deplorable, and hope those assholes get quite a bit of jail time. But putting property above human life, ANY human life shows pretty fucked up priorities. These people do deserve jail time, but not the death penalty, after all.

[Clara T]

86. What is terrorism?

[mike_c]

92. none of those targets were "people's homes...."

eom

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flabbergasted]

84. 11 charged in ecoterrorism arsons

11 charged in ecoterrorism arsons

Millionaire fireman among those recently arrested in Northwest cases

WASHINGTON - Eleven people were indicted in arsons across five Western states that have been claimed by the radical groups Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, the Justice Department said Friday.

The 65-count indictment said the suspects called themselves “The Family” and are responsible for 17 incidents in California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, including sabotaging a high-tension power line, in a conspiracy that dates back to 1996. The indictment was returned Thursday by a federal grand jury in Eugene, Ore., and unsealed Friday.

“The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10943089/

[Peace Patriot]

98. The destruction recorded in these photos and described in details here is

nothing...NOTHING...compared to the mass murder in Iraq, the incineration of whole neighborhods and villages, the carnage in children and other helpless people, and the torture of thousands of people, 90% of whom were entirely innocent of ANYTHING AT ALL, that has been committed by THOSE WHO ARE PROSECUTING these vandalisms.

One of those people, torture memo writer and Bush Cartel toady, Alberto Gonzales, speaks below...and just think about the snakes and maggots coming out of his mouth, and the exrement of tortured innocent people, and the poor battered heads of the corpses of Abu Ghraib and other U.S. prisons, and the screams of the children who were raped, and the entrails of children who were bombed, accumulating around him as this lowlife thug speaks the following words...

“The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.

There is crime--the breaking of laws, big and small--and then there is the unforgivable, is all I'm saying. And here we have the cold-blooded accountant of torture and mass murder accusing minor criminals of conscience of vandalism, if indeed they are even guilty.

Think about it. Whose facts, and whose description of reality, should we accept? What reason do we have to believe those who are guilty of unforgivable crimes against tens of thousands of people, who accuse others?

[Raine]

87. This is CRAP

I want to see the label "terrorism" applied to right-wing fanatics too! :banghead:

[OKthatsIT]

94. WHO SAYS? Show the TRUTH!

These (NeoCon)demons can create anything. Set fires and set up innocent people, too.

[HuffleClaw]

102. funny how they never call it TERRORISM

when those assholes kill doctors and blow up clinics.

[TheVirginian]

104. Yeah, they simply call it "murder", which is its most apt description

Terrorism, on the other hand, is the most apt description of what these radical groups do.

[WinkyDink]

112. They are NOT "eco-terrorists"!!

They are FIGHTING CORPORATE eco-terrorists: polluters; pillagers; destroyers; poisoners; land-grabbing, tax-evading (and in South America, at least, MURDEROUS) THIEVES!!
THAT is the language we must use! To STOP the destruction of the environment is NOT "terrorism"!

Here's the ultimate Weapon of Semantic Destruction: "Depleted Uranium". Eco-terrorism, anyone??

[Odin2005]

114. Yep, thay're scum

I find it incredible that some people here are giving these assholes a pass, and I'm an enviromntalist for Christ's sake.

:puke:

[Moochy]

117. Maybe the ECO stands for ECONOMIC

you know property rights being more important than human rights. :eyes:

[wordpix2]

118. if you can understand why Native Americans attacked the settlers

maybe you can understand why people are so angry.

I don't condone arson but if the targets (NFS, logging and ski corporations) won't protect wild land and wildlife and say FUCK YOU to the conservationists, the targets will piss people off. I can understand why some people are lashing out, although I wouldn't deal with my anger this way.