A court decision in a case against the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) describes why its members (and, by extension animal liberation criminals such as, ALF, SHAC, etc.) deserve to be called terrorists. From the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision U.S. v Christianson, starting at page 12 (no link, email me privately if you want PDF):
ELF’s members take their activism to unconscionable levels: since ELF’s inception in 1987, its members have been responsible for bombings, arson, vandalism, and a host of other crimes. In fact, between 2000 and 2005, 43 of the 57 reported terrorist attacks committed on American soil were done by ELF members or their sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front. ELF’s terror attacks have caused over fifty million dollars in damage to public and private property, including the arson of condominium complexes, multiple university research facilities, a ski resort, logging facilities, a high-voltage energy tower, and almost a score of other pieces of private property.5 A perfunctory survey of some of the cases involving ELF shows the breadth of its destructive force…These people are not peaceful protestors…
Beyond the damage inflicted, it is impossible to calculate how these acts would have intimidated the workers of the Rhinelander facility. Arriving at work the next day, employees were greeted with “F*** U USFS” and “F*** TREE BIOTECH” spray-painted on their work vehicles. And as the employees surveyed the facility, they discovered that valuable experiments they spent decades working on had been destroyed. The employees would be familiar with ELF, and the communique about the attack the next day foreshadowing “more appropriate action” would likely make employees think twice before they stayed late at work or came in on the weekend to finish some project. Such behavior is not in the same genus of non-destructive and non-violent protests that can be honestly described as well meaning but misguided.
Simply put, a terrorist is “any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.” Nos. 09-1526 & 09-1615 13 XVII Oxford English Dictionary 821 (2d ed. 1989); accord Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2361 (1981) (“an advocate or practitioner of terror as a means of coercion.”)…The Guidelines provide a practical definition for what constitutes an act of terrorism, and thereby establishes a very workable definition of who is a terrorist. It looks at the crime involved and the perpetrator’s motive. If the act is among the litany of crimes listed in § 2332b(g)(5)(B), which include a bevy of the most harmful and odious acts in the criminal code, including everything from murder and torture to the destruction of government property, and it was “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct,” then it is a federal crime of terrorism.
And these people have the nerve to compare themselves to Martin Luther King and Gandhi, and their crimes as “free speech.” The court is right: Terrorism is terrorism and its perpetrators should be treated as such.
November 18th, 2009 | 2:34 pm
These judges have uniformly and correctly pointed out that the cause for which these acts are committed is irrelevant. It’s a question of the methods used to advance the cause, not the cause itself.
I believe the basic model for terrorism is the old protection racket. People paid money to the Mob or other for fear of having their homes or businesses destroyed. Rarely did the Mob actually have to destroy anything; the threat was sufficient if they made it believable.
The other problem with terrorism is that it is not effective in promoting a positive cause. Slavery was not undone by terrorism, John Brown notwithstanding, it was undone by the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Vietnam war did not end because of violent protests, but because Richard Nixon could get elected by promising to end it. The people wanted change and they elected the officials to enact it.
These causes have resorted to terrorism only because they have failed socially and politically. The Sierra Club is more effective than ELF and the ASPCA is more effective than ALF because they have been willing to work through the governmental process. In my opinion ELF/ALF are just excuses for sociopaths to attack a society they don’t really want to be a part of.
November 18th, 2009 | 3:06 pm
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion is available online at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=09-1526_002.pdf
November 18th, 2009 | 4:56 pm
“…any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.” Like members of Operation Rescue?
November 18th, 2009 | 7:30 pm
HW, you betcha as far as I’m concerned. It’s the methodology, not the motive. If you slip into terrorist tactics, you lose your moral high ground.
November 19th, 2009 | 12:38 am
“The other problem with terrorism is that it is not effective in promoting a positive cause. Slavery was not undone by terrorism, John Brown notwithstanding, it was undone by the election of Abraham Lincoln.”
Uh no, the election of Abraham Lincoln didn’t end chattel slavery, the civil war, one of the bloodiest brutal wars of all time: inflicting unheard of terror on civilian populations (ie. scorched earth policy), ended chattel slavery in the south. It is utterly facile and ignorant to tout the abolition of chattel slavery as a victory for non-violence.
“The Vietnam war did not end because of violent protests, but because Richard Nixon could get elected by promising to end it. The people wanted change and they elected the officials to enact it.”
The Vietnam war didn’t end because of “violent protests” or the election of Nixon (Nixon actually escalated the bombing of South Vietnam and continued the war for 3 years after his election). The US military left Vietnam, because of an effective campaign of armed guerrilla resistance carried out by the Viet Cong. So once again it was violence that ended the occupation of Vietnam not non-violence.
Really though your whole point is irrelevant. The effectiveness of an action has no bearing on whether or not an action is ethical, and certainly using emotionally charged terms such as “terrorism” doesn’t change anything either.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:38 am
[...] SecondhandsmokeBlog, quoting from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision U.S. v Christianson: … between 2000 [...]
November 19th, 2009 | 10:16 am
Surely if these things make the ALF and ELF terrorists, then the farmers, vivisectors, and polluters they attack must SURELY be terrorists. They inflict terror on humans and other animals for a living, causing damage to our resources, animals lives, the planet, and so on.
The amount of damage to life and property caused by ALF/ELF pales in comparison to the amount of damage caused by polluting and animal exploitation industries and the state.
Yet who is always on trial? The people who free the animals, who stop the pollution, etc.
Think really hard about that.
Also, by these definitions of terrorism, all above ground organizations from the ASPCA to the NRA would be included for coercion. Of course, the NRA and more right wing organizations will never be called terrorists by the govt (even if an anti-abortion group kills a doctor). While the ALF/ELF have never killed anyone, right wing violent activists have killed many but are not labeled terrorists by the govt.
Even if you disagree with every fabric of the ALF/ELF, you have to acknowledge how ridiculous the green scare is. Or, perhaps you won’t until the state comes for you…
November 19th, 2009 | 10:18 am
Oh and PS MLK and Gandhi were called terrorists by their government as well. They also participated in property destruction and “intimidation” and “coercion”. Surely those terrorists were attacked by the government as well.
But, you conveniently left that out of your entry, didn’t you?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Corvus: Baloney. King never did that, and I don’t believe Gandhi did either. I do know that neither threatened murder, committed arson, slashed tires, stole valuable property, etc.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The quote in question came from a book review of CULTURE OF DEATH published by those particular bioethicists in Hastings Center Report. They were no more factually based than the assertions of our Dutch friend, and indeed, I rebutted them in a letter to the editor, part of which is quoted in my Wiki entry. But our Dutch friend didn’t bother with that either. As for the reliability of Wiki, it once listed someone very close to me as Jewish. She isn’t but refused to alter it because it would imply that was a valid criticism and because it illustrated the stupidity of ever relying on Wikipedia, now used by the political left as a way of spreading misinformation.
November 19th, 2009 | 4:09 pm
MLK Jr:
“If an oppressed people’s pent up emotions are not nonviolently released, they will be violently released. So, let the Negro march… For if his frustrations and despair are allowed to continue piling up, millions of negroes will seek solace in security in Black nationalist ideologies.”
“I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail.”
“Apart from bigots and backlashers, it seems to be a malady even among those whites who like to regard themselves as “enlightened”. I would especially refer to those who counsel “Wait!” abd to those who say they sympathize with our cause but cannot condone our methods of direct action in pursuit of those goals. I wonder at men who dare to feel that they have some paternalistic right to set the timetable for another man’s liberation.”
History does not quote these things because the authorities don’t want you to know that your heroes got arrested quite often, destroyed property, and so on.
Gandhi, at the end of his movement, switched to condoning violence because he felt that violence was better than cowardice and and watching his people be massacred and raped for so long changed him.
So, actually, the ALF/ELF are less violent than Gandhi and King. Fancy that.
Do us all a favor and read up on your real history before writing stuff like this.
November 19th, 2009 | 4:33 pm
Ecokid: ‘Uh no, the election of Abraham Lincoln didn’t end chattel slavery, the civil war, one of the bloodiest brutal wars of all time: inflicting unheard of terror on civilian populations (ie. scorched earth policy), ended chattel slavery in the south. It is utterly facile and ignorant to tout the abolition of chattel slavery as a victory for non-violence.’
Right, the Civil War, that was triggered by the Emancipation Proclamation, that was triggered by Abraham Lincoln’s election. And I didn’t say it was a victory for non-violence, I said it was NOT a victory for terrorism. Violence and terrorism are not the same thing. There’s violence without terrorism and there’s terrorism without violence.
‘The US military left Vietnam, because of an effective campaign of armed guerrilla resistance carried out by the Viet Cong.’
The US military does not decide when to give up on a campaign. They do what their commander in chief tells them to do, and that was Nixon. And again you’re misstating my point. I didn’t say violence is ineffective. It’s damned effective when used properly. I said terrorism is ineffective in advancing political and social causes.
‘The effectiveness of an action has no bearing on whether or not an action is ethical, and certainly using emotionally charged terms such as “terrorism” doesn’t change anything either.’
No, but the ethics of an action can have a bearing on whether it’s effective, particularly in social and political arenas. That’s where AR’s go wrong. They think their ethics trump other people’s ethics, their ends justify any means while other people have to find a balance of ends vs means. Like Robert Heinlein once said, “Do the ends justify the means? They damn well better!”
Wow, two d-words in one post. Sorry Wes.
November 19th, 2009 | 4:56 pm
King was arrested, as in “Letters From Birmingham Jail.” But not for the terroristic activities of ALF/SHAC, but for peacefully marching.
November 19th, 2009 | 8:45 pm
“Violence and terrorism are not the same thing. There’s violence without terrorism and there’s terrorism without violence.”
Under the definition of terrorism sited by the above ruling and the definition you are championing “any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation” all forms of violence (and many forms of non-violence) used to further a political goal would absolutely be considered terrorism. Under this definition the U.S. governments action during the civil war were terroristic. All I’m trying to get at is: so what, It doesn’t matter what emotionally charged label we put on an action; whether it be “terrorism”, “violence” or “peaceful”. It has no bearing on whether or not that action is morally and ethically justified. It doesn’t matter what we label the civil war or the actions of the ALF. Let’s evaluate the motives and social context in which those actions were taken and go from their. To start throwing around emotionally and politically charged words like terrorism only serves to retard discourse and propagandize.
November 19th, 2009 | 8:54 pm
Corvus: “So, actually, the ALF/ELF are less violent than Gandhi and King. Fancy that.”
ALF/ELF have actually committed acts of violence.
Gandhi opposed violence as a first resort, but the idea that he opposed it completely is a myth. See http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html
King didn’t advocate violence; his statement indicated he didn’t mind benefiting from it, but he didn’t send anyone out with Molotovs.
Neither directly committed acts of violence or terrorism. At worst they tolerated it or failed to condemn it. If that was a crime Jerry Vlasak and Ingrid Newkirk would be behind bars.
But even if they did advocate terrorism, doesn’t that make your argument “Gandhi and MLK did it for their cause, so I can do it for mine”? You really think you deserve to be in that company?
November 19th, 2009 | 10:21 pm
Actually Padraig, I was just addressing the ignorant inconsistencies in the author’s writing. I’m more of Malcolm X person myself- I prefer men who don’t see women as secretaries or fire people for being gay like MLK Jr or who have oppressive abusive (violent! omg!) relationships with their wives like Gandhi.
But you all can whitewash that out of history as well I am sure…
November 20th, 2009 | 10:14 am
ecoKid: ‘Under the definition of terrorism sited by the above ruling and the definition you are championing “any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation” all forms of violence (and many forms of non-violence) used to further a political goal would absolutely be considered terrorism.’
Not so. The key is “any one,” as in an individual acting in that individual’s own (perceived) interests, as opposed to society’s interests. A vigilante, in other words. You may not like the military’s mission or tactics, but it’s not terrorism as long as they’re authorized by their government and act within the rules of engagement.
The importance of this distinction was highlighted by the decision to try 9/11 co-conspirators as civilian terrorists rather than war criminals. I believe that’s appropriate because the co-conspirators acted on their own behalf, or as part of a movement, and not as representatives of any particular country. (The neo-cons hated that of course, because 1) Obama had something to do with it and 2) the military tribunal was a sure slam-dunk for a guilty verdict and execution.)
A reasonable military counteraction to the use of force, say, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, is violence without terrorism. So is a football game or a boxing match, for that matter.
Placing an unlit molotov cocktail on somebody’s front porch with a note, “Next time it’ll be lit unless you stop vivisecting” would be terrorism without actual violence.
(It’s “cited” not “sited” btw.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact