Prosecuting Ideology: Turning “Vandalism” into “Eco-Terrorism”
by Will Potter (Nov. 2)
When environmental activists around the country were rounded up as part of “Operation Backfire,” Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told reporters, “Today’s indictment is a significant step in bringing these terrorists to justice.” And when the SHAC 7 were sentenced for “animal enterprise terrorism,” it was for “their roles in a campaign to terrorize officers, employees and shareholders,” the Department of Justice said. The “Operation Backfire” defendants are charged with serious crimes, but not accused of harming any human being. And the SHAC 7 are not even accused of committing any of the property crimes that they vocally supported on their website).
Keeping that in mind, take a look at some fires in the news the last few weeks.
According to The Detroit News:
A Tuesday night fire at a longtime salvage yard caused more than $50,000 in damage — and the loss of some hard-to-find car parts coveted by hobbyists.
The owner of the lot suspected criminal intent:
“I’ve had a lot of trouble over here, a lot of vandalism,” he added. “We’ve had vandalism the last two Devil’s Nights.”
This radio station said police were on the lookout for “tricksters” and “will be out in force to make sure any mischief doesn’t take place” on Devil’s Night. In many town these “tricksters” set buildings on fire the night before Halloween.
And in today’s New York Times:
RENO, Nev., Nov. 1 — Six people were killed and more than 30 injured Tuesday night in a fire that at least partly destroyed a historic residential hotel in the downtown casino district here. A 47-year-old casino worker was arrested and charged with arson and multiple counts of murder.
The police said they did not know of a motive. The Houston Chronicle reports that the suspect had previously served prison time for murder. And CBS News reports:
…Valerie Moore, 47, had been drinking and apparently flew into a rage Tuesday night after she quarreled with a fellow resident at the Mizpah Hotel before setting a mattress afire…
So causing $50,000 in an arson, and destroying a man’s livelihood, is not terrorism. Vandalizing property is the work of “tricksters,” not terrorists. And burning down a hotel, murdering six people and injuring 30, is still not terrorism.
Why? Because those criminals committed those crimes out of anger, stupidity or malice. Not politics. When animal rights or environmental activists commit similar crimes — but don’t injure anyone — it is “eco-terrorism.” And when they simply support underground activists through websites and fiery rhetoric, they are convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism.”
The solution to this hypocrisy is not to label individuals who burn down car lots, or even those who murder people through arson, as terrorists. All crimes instill fear, instill terror, but labeling all crimes as terrorism sucks all meaning from the term.
Instead, we must make sure terrorism rhetoric isn’t batted around against the enemy of the hour, and used to prosecute actions that, while they may be criminal (or in the case of the SHAC 7 do not amount to anything more than words), have not injured any human being. It is an insult to victims of true terrorism around the world. And it robs the accused of the possibility of a fair trail.
If all this sounds like an incredibly conservative argument, you’re right. Years ago when hate crimes legislation was a much hotter topic in state and federal legislatures, conservatives argued that:
…the real danger of “hate crime” laws is that they criminalize thoughts and beliefs. The law should concern itself only with actions. Prosecutors must prove intent, but examining underlying beliefs goes far beyond that.
Conservatives feared the prosecution of crimes based on the political beliefs of those in power. Now they’re making their own fears a reality by using their power to prosecute activists they disagree with as “terrorists.”
Share This
First of all, I believe that any type of act made by a large group that even threatens the well being of others and others’ property can be considered terrorism. ALF is indeed a terrorist group. Their track record of blowing up scientific research buildings makes everyone on high alert when any other activity is carried out by them. I for one greatly support the AETA. Mary Beth Sweetland, the vice president of PETA, obviously does to considering that she uses insulin for her diabetes. Insulin was developed using dogs as research. It might seem ridiculous to consider the ALF or other radical animal rights groups as terrorist, because their causes are completely ridiculous.
angie- first, to call “their causes” ridiculous, is to call me ridiculous. and i don’t allow disrespect towards me in my house.
second, ALF has been around for more than 30 years and only recently have some of the people claiming actions as ALF used fire. the vast majority of ALF actions have done nothing more than liberate animals (and perhaps spray paint a wall).
third, AETA doesn’t just consider those who use fire or otherwise damage property as terrorists. proponents have proudly stated that it can be used to imprison any type of animal rights activist as a terrorist, including nonviolent activists. if AETA were applied to other areas of activism, even the likes of MLK would be considered as terrorists (although the CIA obviously already considered him such, so nothing is really new). just because you consider an activists cause ridiculous does not mean you have the right to charge them with terrorism. unless you support totalitarianism. in which case, we are not going to find common ground. i think the NRA and the Heritage Foundation are ridiculous, but i certainly wouldn’t consider them terrorists.
fourth, virtually everything in modern society has been tested on or uses some part of animals. sidewalks, CD players, herbal medicines, you name it. even penicilin was tested on animals - pretty much every kind of animal - and it killed every one that was tested upon except humyns. we can’t changed what has happened in the past. but we are at a point in scientific research where animal testing is no longer a necessity. besides, why is it that advocates of animal testing always point to the rarity of a drug that was successfully tested on animals instead of the vast majority of pointless tests that occur. but then again, you like to point out rarities when it proves your point, don’t you?
but to get to the actual question of the post, so you believe it becomes terrorism when it is more than one persyn? so osama bin laden by himself is just an angry guy, but with al-qaeda he’s a terrorist? that seems a little ridiculous to me. face it, terrorism is a politically-charged word. if it weren’t, then the US would be considered a terrorist organization because of our killing of hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis in the past few years (just to name one example).