The Indypendent
DONATE NOW - URGENT FALL 2009 FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
Search All Articles
Get The Indy by Email




Facebook Twitter

Donate

Subscribe

The IndyShop

RSS Available

Why we love The Indy






Sarah Stuteville
Journalism Workshops

Indykids

Posters!

A Threat to Peace
Artwork by The Indypendent Staff

A Threat to Peace - Artwork by The Indypendent

Buy Now! »


Army of None
Artwork by David Hollenbach

Army of None - Artwork by David Hollenbach

Buy Now! »


Community Resources

The Birth of a Buzz Word: Eco-Terrorism

By Indypendent Staff
From the September 17, 2007 issue | Posted in National | Email this article
Owl Final caroline
Owl Final caroline

As the confrontation between radical environmentalists and timber companies over old-growth logging intensified in the Pacific Northwest through the 1990s, a new threat to national security emerged: “eco-terrorism.”

The word “eco-terrorist” first appeared in a March 1990 article in The Oregonian about a “tree-spiking” tactic used by the environmental group Earth First!. Three months later, Rep. Denny Smith (R-Or.) deployed the term in a stage-managed White House meeting to lobby against stricter environmental legislation in the Pacific Northwest.
By the mid-1990s, the radical environmental movement was divided over the debate on tactics, with some favoring using only nonviolent civil disobedience while others favored property destruction. The timber industry and their supporters continued to inveigh against “ecoterrorism,” and when the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) began its campaign of highprofile sabotage in 1997, the FBI went on high alert.

By May 2001, then-FBI director Louis Freeh told Congress that the ELF and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) represented, “the most active extremist elements in the United States.” With CIA Director George Tenet sitting by his side, Freeh noted that, “some special interest extremists most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements,” were turning, “increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.”

Four years later, FBI deputy assistant director John Lewis would tell Congress that, “the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat [in the United States] is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement.”

Conservative think tanks have fueled the debate. The word is loved by antienvironmental champion Ron Arnold, Executive Vice-President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature, the World of the Unabomber. He was a paid as an expert consultant on ecoterrorism for the University of Arkansas Terrorism Research Center.

“Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement … We’re mad as hell. We’re not going to take it anymore. We’re dead serious — we’re going to destroy them,” Arnold was quoted saying in a 1991 Toronto Star article.

In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), a draconian piece of legislation that classifies as terrorism civil disobedience actions —such as blockades, trespassing, property damage and the freeing of captive animals — taken against businesses that use or sell animals. Several states have also passed related “eco-terrorism” legislation. What has been left unanswered since the word “eco-terrorism” entered the public vocabulary 17 years ago is the question of who the real criminals are. Are they the corporations that destroy the natural world for private gain? Or, rather the people who sabotage the tools used to carry out this destruction?

Illustration by Caroline Sykora

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Sphinn
  • Mixx
For nine years, The Indypendent has printed truth in the face of power. With political and economic systems faltering, there is an opportunity for real change from the bottom up. But this means having a vibrant independent media. Consider supporting The Indypendent as a monthly sustainer, donating as little as $5 a month. Please visit indypendent.org/donate.

Subscribe to the Indypendent!

8 Responses to “The Birth of a Buzz Word: Eco-Terrorism”

Ron Arnold Says:

I coined the term “ecoterrorism” in a 1982 Reason magazine article. Denson borrowed it late in the game after many other uses. I want the credit and you want to get it right. When you write about me, call me at 425-454-9470. It’s a common journalistic courtesy, I answer most questions, and I don’t bite. My 1997 book “EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature” was voted into the Random House Reader Survey of the 100 Most Important Books of the 20th Century. I left this message at your website contact email. Please let your readers know about the REAL birth of the buzzword. I’ll tell you the whole story if you’re interested.
Ron Arnold

William Says:

If my house were on fire, and I was in it, that would be terrorism to me.
If I went out to my suv and it was burned to the ground because I was ceo of a lumber company, that would be terrorism to me.
These people are reckless in their use of fire and explosives and will eventually hurt someone. Terrorism is meant to persuade people by making them afraid of violence.
Yep! They are terrorists. Just because they haven’t flown a plane into a tall building does not mean they are not terrorizing people.

Teresa Platt Says:

Good site on eco-terrorism, crime with a political twist.

http://www.furcommission.com/resource/pressSF.htm

not william Says:

hey william,
is there anything that’s NOT terrorism in your mind? get a grip.

Dillon Says:

You know when I wake up in the morning and go to the back yard to get my daily firewood I don’t want someone to tell me that i’m killing a tree and I should stop doing that besides trees are used for multible sources and if we use one of those sorces then why bother having trees to be used for those sorces besides no sacrafice no victory, oh yeah to all AMERICANS live freely, eat freely, and drees freely.

Rudy Says: Says:

I totlly agree with Dillon and William.

Fred Says:

Yeah Rudy will so do I dude.

Quinn Says:

Hey, William,

A bunch of people in my family have cancer. How about you? Anyone you know or love been affected by cancer?

The mainstream and undisputed research has established that a) environmental toxins contribute to cancer and b) large corporations like DuPont are measurably increasing toxicity levels in the air, earth, and water.

I am TERRIFIED of cancer. I live in TERROR that I will lose a loved one to cancer, and I am terrified that cancer will kill me, untimely.

These corporations don’t just hurt animals and the environment, they hurt people, too.

So, they can cause death and harm to people in order to make a profit, but that’s not terrorism.
Direct activists cause damage to inanimate objects in order to make a point, and that is terrorism.

For me, the actual suffering and violence people experience now, trumps possible, accidental hurt that direct action possibly could cause–but never has.

Leave a Reply