The Press Drops the Ball
…Although a few speakers advocated violence on behalf of animal rights, the sessions predominately emphasized non-violent tactics that would appeal to a broader public spectrum.”
Jim Beers saw things differently. A former police officer and 30-year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he attended on behalf of Conservation Force, a consortium of 56 hunting and conservation organizations worldwide. “Although the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech and free assembly,” Beers reports, “many of the things I saw and heard could only be characterized as inciting mayhem. Many of the people making presentations crossed state lines to get there, and there were numerous inferences, suggestions, and encouragements to commit violent and unlawful acts of major magnitudes.”
The Earth Liberation Front's l999 arson of the Vail Ski Lodge complex — an expression of “the burning rage of a dying planet” — is the most dramatic ecoterrorist action to date. But it's hardly the only one. In the last several years, ecoterrorists have been responsible for more than $40 million in damage to homes, ranches, research facilities, businesses, and equipment. Outgoing FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that ecoterrorists are “the most recognizable single-issue terrorists of the present time.”
If animal-rights and ecoterrorists are so nasty, why don't we hear more about them in the media, or about what is being done to curb them? Apart from 60 Minutes, which devoted a major segment of their January 14 show to ecoterrorism, the press haven't done a good job of spotlighting the violent acts of those who believe they can break laws in Mother Nature's name. More significant, however, is the possibility that law enforcement is not doing much to counter the ecoterrorists. Even beyond property damage, there is a considerable amount of electronic terrorism — viruses sent to computers, harassing phone calls, envelopes with razor blades, etc. — happening daily.
What's Being Done?
I spoke with three agents from the FBI about ecoterrorism. They acknowledged that the Vail arson fire is under investigation, but were reluctant to comment on any other actions. A suggestion to the new director of the FBI: Cloaking your actions in secrecy may help an investigation, but it does not win the trust of those who have been — or are concerned they may become — targets of ecoterrorists.
Let's assume the FBI and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies are doing the best they can do. What else is being done? Three strategies currently underway deserve public recognition:
1) Legislation — One thing the FBI did tell me is that you need permission from the Justice Department, which is not automatic, to open an investigation. They also said they need more funding from Congress to combat domestic terrorism. They are getting some help from Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R., Calif.) and two of his House colleagues, Reps. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) and George Nethercutt, Jr. (R., Wash.), who have just introduced a bill to counter animal-rights terrorists. The Agroterrorism Act of 2001 will increase protections — currently extended to plant research facilities — to include animal facilities, and will give the FBI new tools to investigate criminal conspiracies. The bill will also increase penalties for Animal Terrorism, and establish an FBI National Animal Terrorism and Ecoterrorism Clearinghouse to gather and disseminate information on ecoterrorists nationwide. Similar bills were introduced in the Senate and House last fall, but both died in committee. “We must take federal action to deal with the ongoing wave of violence aimed at our researchers and farmers,” said Cunningham.
Tax-Exempt Activities
2) Petition to Investigate Tax-Exempt Status — One of the primary forces rallying against ecoterrorism is the Portland, Ore.-based National Animal Interest Alliance. These are the good guys: people who work with animals — breeders, farmers, researchers, trainers, fishermen, hunters, indigenous peoples, and pet owners — and who want to restore the old standard of the word “humane.” In 1998, led by Patti and Rod Strand, NAIA launched a petition drive for the Cunningham bill. As a next step, NAIA is now actively seeking signatures for a petition to President Bush, calling for an IRS investigation of the tax-exempt status of animal-rights groups that advocate violence.
3) Lawsuit — In England, the research organization Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc., has been a frequent target of violence and intimidation. Business Wire reports that Huntingdon Life Sciences has filed a lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense League, In Defense of Animals, and several individuals. According to the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the lawsuit cites physical attacks on employees, destruction of property, bomb threats, burglary, harassment, intimidation, and interference with contractual relations and economic advantage. Some of these groups are also based in the U.S. I have talked with several attorneys who say they would love to work on similar action here.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But with every right comes responsibility. When speech results in “inciting mayhem,” intimidation, and coercion, we need a system that will hold the speakers to account.
(This article is reprinted with permission from National Review Online.)
