Environmental Extremists Likely to Attack, Says NIE

playfullheart · 07-20-2007, 05:01 PM

The most dangerous domestic terrorists in the United States may have nothing to do with Islam or Iraq but may be little-known extremists who regard violence against animals as akin to violence against people, according to FBI officials.

This week, a declassified portion of the latest National Intelligence Estimate for the United States warned that Americans can expect attacks from these groups within the next three years.

The estimate refers to "single issue" groups that, according to law enforcement, often include radical environmentalist organizations. Among the most visible: the Animal Liberation Front and allied Earth Liberation Front, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).

"When they hear 'terrorism' a lot of times people just think al-Qaeda and some of the international extremist groups that pose the real serious risks in national security, and that is not always the case when you're talking about terrorism," said FBI Spokesperson Paul Bresson.

For example, the FBI is offering a reward of up to $250,000 for information leading to the arrest of Daniel Andreas San Diego.

San Diego, who has suspected ties to the ALF and SHAC, is accused of bombing two corporate offices in California to protest animal research. The offices belonged to Chiron, a biotechnology firm, and Shaklee, a cosmetics company.

Authorities believe the companies were targeted because of their ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a U.K.-based animal-testing laboratory with facilities in the U.S. The attacks in 2003 caused no deaths and minimal damage, but they briefly captured headlines on the West Coast.

Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division John Lewis called the bombings another instance in "a relentless campaign of terror and intimidation" that began in 1999.

"Despite what I've heard and read in the past that this type of activity is on the decline, we don't see it that way," Bresson said. "I'd say it's either stayed the same or slightly increased."

Those close to the animal liberation movements object to being called terrorists. They say the "eco-terror" label is part of a government effort to discredit their message and brand the entire movement as a group of extremists.

"I live in New York City, I watched planes go into buildings," said Camille Hankins, a press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.

"We saw on the news people jumping off the twin towers, and that's terrorism. Terrorism is not waking up to find an activist on your doorstep calling you a puppy killer. I'm not saying that the latter is pleasant, but it's not terrorism," she said.

Congress in 2006 passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which according to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works "expands criminal prohibitions against the use of force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises and increases penalties for violations of these crimes."

Bresson said laws like the AETA will help prosecute those engaged in such activities but added that eliminating the threat is difficult at best.

"You can have a lot of laws on the books and great prosecution strategies, and sometimes it still doesn't preclude individuals from violating the law," he said.

Charles Tilby, captain of the investigations division of the Eugene, Ore., Police Department, said the violent movement began in the 1980s when people in political organizations became dissatisfied with the speed of changes in public perception and policy.

He said this was the start of what is now a justification of criminal activity to prompt political change.

The movement began with low-level criminal activity such as trespassing and has escalated to the large-scale property damage and death threats some animal researchers and their affiliates are seeing today.

For the past five or six years, Tilby said, environmental political anarchist groups have been gradually realizing that in order to effect change, "the focus had to move away from property damage more toward terrorizing people."

Dr. Jerry Vlasak, also of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, said the shift in philosophy was a natural progression for a movement being forced underground. He said legislation like the AETA made it more difficult for "above ground" animal liberation groups to make their message heard.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable," he said, quoting President John F. Kennedy.

Vlasak said the FBI and other law enforcement agencies were affecting "legitimate" animal liberation organizations but that their efforts to shut down violent groups and individual's movements were ineffectual.

"There have been thousands of underground direct actions in the United States in the last 15-20 years and very few of those people have ever been held accountable," he said. "It's a lot safer to do underground actions because you're a lot less likely to be involved in the legal system at all."

(CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer Jeff Golimowski contributed to this report)

teethandclaws · 09-27-2007, 08:49 PM

I think that violence against animals is wrong, and violence against people is wrong. As is the use of violence against people by animals.
To say that one would justify the other is wrong, and hopefully the environmentalists would see this as true as well.
The highest form of change is non-violent resistance. It doesn't breed hatred and animosity, and though in some cases this would involve trespassing into the area where abuse is taking place, I would find this justified.
One very effective non-violent deterrant to animal abuse is to boycott the place where this is taking effect. And let people know why you are boycotting, be specific and accurate. Money talks.
Having said that however, I think it would be good for the animal rights activists to realize that a lot of the animals in captivity are rescued animals, who would not have had a chance to live out as long of lives without the care of their captors, if at all, and that any resulting offspring are often co-raised by the mother and the staff, and are thus unprepared for a life in the wild.
Animals in captivity are of a great benefit to those who get to encounter them. They educate the public about their habitats, their behavior and the threats that face them. Without them, people would not experience them, the creatures we share this earth with and contribute to the world as we know it.
Animals in captivity are often trained in a style called positive reinforcement. Behaviors that are encouraged are rewarded and behaviors that are undesireable are ignored. This is a very effective system of behavior modification that assists veterinary staff to monitor the health of the animals, as well as feed them safely and appropriately according to their needs.
The abuse of these animals would serve no purpose.
I do not know about how things for animals in captivity are, in other countries, but I've heard of the horrible treatment of elephants, baby harp seals, apes and chimpanzees.
It does merit reformation for sure, but violence is not the way to go.