Letters to the Editor
-
A lot of missing of points here...
Ok....first off, let me state this: I have no love for the ELF. Groups like this serve only to tar environmental movements and serve little purpose other than to taint their own agendas.
That said...we do have a problem with what constitutes terrorism or not these days. First off, the legal definition that is used to consider this terrorism. As someone had already pointed out earlier, the idea is vague enough that so many things could be considered 'terroristic'.
"But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense 'calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government' or 'to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.'
Under this idea, minor vandalism could be considered terroristic if it's done repeatedly to try and make a political point. Simple PROTEST could be considered terrorism. It's so ridiculously vague, that its application can be used to trump up more minor crimes simply because 'it's terrorism!'.
Now this is bad in and of itself....but what's worse is the inconsistency in which it's applied. Take the case of William Krar. The man was caught in possession of a cyanide gas bomb, along with a veritable arsenal of conventional weaponry as well as more chemical bombs. This was a man linked to radical white supremacist groups. Yet he was only caught by accident, since the efforts of the FBI had been shifted away from militia groups and white supremacy groups like this. He got convicted of possession of a deadly weapon. No terrorism charges, despite being watched since 1995.
This is an example of not only bad application, but INCONSISTENT application.
Now, you might say that these guys were criminals, they deserve their punishment, and their ideological motives qualify them for terrorism. And by all technical measure, you may be right...which leads me to my next point: the layman's 'terrorist'.
Aside from legal definitions of terrorism, the fact of the matter is that in public opinion, there is a set idea of what a 'terrorist' is, often spurred on by media reports. So when you get incidents like this that get the gov't talking of 'ecoterrorism', there's often an equalizing effect of rationale. The more the term and the incidents are brought up in this way, the more of a link is formed between terrorism like that of Al-Qaida and that of the ELF, until there's a sort of false equivalence.
Now the ELF can very well be considered terroristic...but would you consider them to be on the same level of the 9/11 perpetrators? No? Well, the problem is that with heavy promotion of anti-terror efforts against groups like this, again, the equivalence in public opinion can be formed, and by proxy, it leads to not only suspicion of the ELF, but genuine, law-abiding environmental groups. Whereas this does not happen with groups like that which Krar was linked to, leading to less of a linkage and more of a concept that 'maybe this was a few bad eggs'. Which is an unfortunate thing, considering that, in my opinion, such groups are much more dangerous and viral than extreme environmentalist groups like the Earth Liberation Front.
The issue with Briana Water's case, whether she be guilty or not, raises the issue of glaring and dangerous inconsistencies over what can be considered 'terroristic', both legally and practically. If we go after the ELF for terrorism, then at least go after groups that advocate and commit abortion clinic bombings or assassinations, and the like.
It's a matter of consistency, and this is demonstrating a marked arbitrary nature in the way we go after 'terrorism'.