Is Eco-Activism Crossing the Line into Terrorism?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of eco-activism, particularly the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), as terrorism. Participants explore the implications of legal definitions, the motivations behind ELF's actions, and the broader societal context of eco-activism. The conversation touches on legal, ethical, and philosophical dimensions of activism and violence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the actions of ELF, including arson and sabotage, constitute terrorism due to their intent to instill fear and achieve political change.
  • Others contend that ELF's actions do not involve violence against humans and are primarily aimed at economic sabotage, questioning whether this fits the definition of terrorism.
  • A participant highlights the distinction between vandalism and terrorism, suggesting that the severity of ELF's actions warrants a serious classification.
  • Some express concern over the judicial system's role in defining terrorism, suggesting that judges may broaden definitions inappropriately.
  • There is a discussion about the FBI's classification of ELF as a domestic terror threat, with some participants agreeing that this reflects a broader trend of labeling radical eco-groups as terrorists.
  • One participant challenges the idea that terrorism must involve physical harm to individuals, proposing that the intent to coerce through fear is sufficient for classification.
  • Another participant raises the issue of whether definitions of terrorism can be constructed to exclude certain groups while including others, questioning the objectivity of such definitions.
  • Some participants argue that the ELF's stated goals focus on economic damage rather than instilling fear, complicating the classification of their actions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether ELF's actions should be classified as terrorism. Multiple competing views remain regarding the definitions and implications of terrorism in the context of eco-activism.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying interpretations of the legal definitions of terrorism and the implications of judicial decisions. There are unresolved questions about the criteria that should be used to classify actions as terrorism, particularly in relation to intent and the nature of the acts committed.

Andre
Messages
4,296
Reaction score
73
I guess it was inevitable

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/23/elf_arsonist_gets_13_years_in_prison/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

ELF arsonist gets 13 years in prison
By Jeff Barnard, Associated Press Writer | May 23, 2007

--Declaring that fires set at a police station, an SUV dealership and a tree farm were acts of terrorism, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced a member of a radical environmental group to 13 years in prison...cont'd
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Andre said:
I guess it was inevitable
It was more than that. It was the prime goal. Some people are terrified of their own shadow. Polititians are falling over each other to take advantage of this fact.
 
I don't know man, isn't the judicial branch supposed to be the check and balance on those damn politicians.
 
Smurf said:
I don't know man, isn't the judicial branch supposed to be the check and balance on those damn politicians.
The branch? Yes. The individual judges? Your mileage may vary.
 
Arson and toppling a high-voltage transmission line tower is more than just vandalism. Vandalism would be graffitti or TPing the police station, etc.

I don't think his sentence is very extreme for six counts of arson and toppling a high-voltage transmission line tower.

The judge's comment, "It was your intent to scare and frighten other people through a very dangerous and psychological act -- arson. Your actions included elements of terrorism to achieve your goal," is the only reference to terrorism. I don't think her editorial comment was the basis of the sentence.
 
BobG said:
I don't think her editorial comment was the basis of the sentence.
I don't either. There are crimes between vandalism and terrorism, and I think that she broadens the meaning of the word terrorism. Since she does so in her role as a judge, she scares me.
 
they're not terrorists! they're 'politically-challenged'!
 
The ELF is a cell-organized group that uses sabotage and guerrilla tactics to achieve their goals. This one cell committed over 20 acts of arson and caused 40 million dollars in damage. If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.

The FBI classified the ELF as the top domestic terror threat in the United States.
 
D H said:
The ELF is a cell-organized group that uses sabotage and guerrilla tactics to achieve their goals. This one cell committed over 20 acts of arson and caused 40 million dollars in damage. If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.

The FBI classified the ELF as the top domestic terror threat in the United States.

If Elf isn't terrorism, then you don't know what is... hmm, so what you're saying there then, is that it's not possible to have a narrow-enough definition of terrorism that includes, for example, Al-Qaeda, and FLQ, but not ELF?
 
  • #10
20 acts of arson is not playing patty cake or burning flags. It is terrorism. Spiking trees to kill tree cutters is terrorism. I take it you agree with their cause but not their methods?
 
  • #11
I don't know anything about ELF or their cause, except I do no they've never killed or harmed anyone. And a quick wiki search shows that it's in their mission statement to protect humanity as much as the environment. I think there's definitely a line to be drawn between a group like this, that refuses to go beyond economic sabotage, and another group like FLQ which does kidnappings, holds up banks, has killed several people in bombings and at least two with gunfire. et cetera.

And then there's even worse...
 
  • #12
"Terrorism" just means that a group is carrying out systematic acts of violence with the intent of using fear to coerce political change. Murder and kidnapping can be performed by terrorists, but terrorists are not characterized by murder and kidnapping, and people can perform either or both crimes without being terrorists. It's just a stipulation as to intent, much as "hate crime" gets added to acts of vandalism, batter, and murder, to clarify that mitigating circumstances exist making the crime more severe.

This judge hasn't expanded the definition, either. The FBI did that when it classified these radical eco groups as being terrorist organizations a while back.
 
  • #13
Smurf said:
hmm, so what you're saying there then, is that it's not possible to have a narrow-enough definition of terrorism that includes, for example, Al-Qaeda, and FLQ, but not ELF?
Of course it is - but would that definition be reasonable, objective, and internally consistent? Or would it be constructed specifically for the purpose of excluding ELF? Why don't you construct it for us so we can judge...?

The generally accepted definition of terrorism (given by lyn) is clear, objective and clearly applies here.

By the way, there has long been a crime on the books called "terroristic threats", which is the threat of terrorism. "If you build it, we will burn it" is a terroristic threat. The arson is the terrorism.

As a side-note, because it uses a cell organization, it is tough (impossible?) to connect members, but an ALF member was convicted of attempted murder for mailing a nail bomb to the CEO of a biotech firm: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1706
 
Last edited:
  • #14
loseyourname said:
...mitigating circumstances...
Exacerbating circumstances... :wink:
 
  • #15
Smurf said:
If Elf isn't terrorism, then you don't know what is... hmm, so what you're saying there then, is that it's not possible to have a narrow-enough definition of terrorism that includes, for example, Al-Qaeda, and FLQ, but not ELF?

Odd when I call Pro-life of America a terrorist group people get upset
 
  • #16
The vast majority of those who are pro choice don't bomb abortion clinics and aren't terrorists.

[I'm pro choice]
 
  • #17
Interestingly unlike Pro-life the ELF guidelines for action are:
To inflict maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.
To reveal to, and to educate the public about the atrocities committed against the Earth and all species that populate it.
To take all necessary precautions against harming life.

While many
 
  • #18
Is ELF really using fear though? I mean, they don't use violence against humans, and they target mostly (all?) large companies and institutions. They're stated goal is making it uneconomical, not scaring people into submission. And calling them 'violent' just because they lit a few fires is a stretch imho. The only difference between that and a construction crew demolishing a building is control and ownership. I don't think you can use the same word 'violent' to describe assault and murder as you can to describe private property damage.

This judge hasn't expanded the definition, either. The FBI did that when it classified these radical eco groups as being terrorist organizations a while back.
It's not the FBI's job to litigate. I haven't looked into it, but if the judge was the first authority to do that, then he is responsible for "expanding the definition of terrorism"
 
  • #19
loseyourname said:
This judge hasn't expanded the definition, either. The FBI did that when it classified these radical eco groups as being terrorist organizations a while back.
Agreed. As I implied in an earlier post, the laws recently passed to protect us from terrorism were aimed at Americans.
 
  • #20
Smurf said:
Is ELF really using fear though? I mean, they don't use violence against humans, and they target mostly (all?) large companies and institutions. They're stated goal is making it uneconomical, not scaring people into submission. And calling them 'violent' just because they lit a few fires is a stretch imho.
Again, if you want to make up your own definitions, you are going to have to explain your definition and justify it. What you just said does not follow the definition of terrorism. Here is the dictionary definition:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

Also, you are being disingenuous in your constraint of the ELF mission. As stated several times already, it has a cellular organization and there is no one voice and no mission statement. Though I don't think it is actually a requirement to be called terrorists, ELF some/manymost members advocate tree spiking, which is a violent crime in the classic sense: it is against people.
On 1/23/2001, Frank Ambrose was arrested by officers of the Department of Natural Resources with assistance from the Indianapolis JTTF, on a local warrant out of Monroe County Circuit Court, Bloomington, Indiana, charging Ambrose with timber spiking. Ambrose is suspected of involvement in the spiking of approximately 150 trees in Indiana state forests. The ELF claimed responsibility for these incidents.
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
russ_watters said:
Again, if you want to make up your own definitions, you are going to have to explain your definition and justify it. What you just said does not follow the definition of terrorism. Here is the dictionary definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
What are you talking about, that's the definition that I'm working with.

Though I don't think it is actually a requirement to be called terrorists, ELF some/manymost members advocate tree spiking, which is a violent crime in the classic sense: it is against people. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
I don't actually know what tree spiking is, but if it kills, or even maims humans, like you say, then I guess that counts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Tree spiking is nailing spikes into a tree marked for timber. The blade of a chain saw that hits such a spike breaks into pieces, often killing or maiming the chain saw operator.
 
  • #23
Smurf said:
Is ELF really using fear though? I mean, they don't use violence against humans, and they target mostly (all?) large companies and institutions. They're stated goal is making it uneconomical, not scaring people into submission. And calling them 'violent' just because they lit a few fires is a stretch imho. The only difference between that and a construction crew demolishing a building is control and ownership. I don't think you can use the same word 'violent' to describe assault and murder as you can to describe private property damage.

Any act which intentionally causes harm is violence, whether it be assualt, murder or arson. The destruction of someone's property is harm, whether the property belongs to a private owner or a business. ELF uses violence to intimidate others with the intention of acheiving political goals. That seems to fit the definition of a terrorist to me.
 
  • #24
D H said:
Tree spiking is nailing spikes into a tree marked for timber. The blade of a chain saw that hits such a spike breaks into pieces, often killing or maiming the chain saw operator.

Tree spiking historically was not intended to harm anyone. And it is not the chainsaw operator that is at risk, but the mill operator.

Tree spiking and marking of spiked trees was used extensively to stop the harvesting of old growth in the headlands forest. When a mill operator was injured when a bandsaw blade hit a spike, the practice was largely abandoned by the activists, although I know of people who still mark trees as spiked, without actually spiking them.

I don't support violent means to effect change.

By the definition provided by Russ, all wars are acts of terrorism, especially the current occupation of Iraq.
 
  • #25
Skyhunter said:
Tree spiking historically was not intended to harm anyone.
I'm surprised to learn that anyone was ever harmed in this manner. It is an indictment of safety standards at mills more than of the spikers. The more relevant issue with spikes is the saw edge itself. It's quite expensive and can be ruined by a single spike.
 
  • #26
Skyhunter said:
By the definition provided by Russ, all wars are acts of terrorism, especially the current occupation of Iraq.
Pretty close, but governments have a loophole in the definition. They can make violence on others within the boundaries of the the law. As long as a government's violent actions are lawful they are not 'technically' terrorist actions. I think the term more specifically applies to violent individuals or political groups not acting directly on a governments behalf.
 

Similar threads

News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism
  • · Replies 110 ·
4
Replies
110
Views
15K