ECOTERRORISM?

Question:

I am seeking info on Earth First or other groups that have used Ecoterrorism. What is their stated policy toward the use of Ecoterrorism and the environmental mvmt in general? This is for a paper that is due Wednesday, so comments are welcome up until Tues night, and opinions are welcome too. Info on specific incidents as well… thanks,

Response:

Earth First! does not use or endorse any form of terrorism. Here I define terrorism as threatening the physical well being of third parties in order to coerce an authority to mandate some change. Earth First!, while not an official organization with an official membership or policy, has certain movemnent wide philosophies. These range from the IWW/EF!-ish types such as Judy Bari (car bombed for unionizing some loggers against job and eco dead end pillage logging tactics) who renounce even tree spiking, to the Dave Forman (and beyond types) who are constantly labelled with some sort of pro-violence slant. I would referr you to the Dave Forman & Co-author book, MonkeyWrenching: a feild guide to eco defence, for a positively pleading and neurotic "don’t do anything which could so much as bruise anyone, ever!" spiel. See also Dave’s autobiography for the general logic behind his switch from Washington Eco-wussie lobiest to proponant of industrial sabotage. In this book you will be able to find the long ignored facts behind the infamous tree spiking injury case. This case is the oft cited paradigm example of tree spinking as seen by it’s opponants. What happened is this nut was complaining about the noise produced… well I don’t have the book at hand and don’t want to get my facts wrong. Basically the guy was 1) Not an environmentalist. 2) Not opposed to logging. 3) A veritable nut. 4) Spkied a felled tree, in the base (parallel to the grain). 5) Told no-one. 6) The guy who sawed the log said he hit metal all the time, it’s just that there is shit loads of metal in trees (bullets, nail;s &c) 7) the guy who sawed the log was shit scared of the saw, knew it was unsafe, and was on the verge of quitting the place over safety. Tree spiking a la EF! is aimed at keeping trees standing, and informing the logging companies is therefore necessary. It is in the logging com[panies interest to not tell their workers, let them get hurt, and whine to the media about ecoterroism. This is why EF! is giving up on tree spiking. It ois worth noting that the US Forest Service also spkies trees as a method to deterr poaching of valuable hardwooks in some places, they don't inform the public about where the spikes are. So thing twice before you try sawing down any walnut trees! A case that may come closer to Ecoterrorism would be Capt. Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace. He sank much (all?) of the Icelandic whaling fleet in their harbour. Sort of like the French Commando raid on the Rainbow warrior (now that's ecoterrorism!), only they hurt no humans. Capt Paul has recently been cruising the Pacific in the Sea Shepard (a converted icebreaker) ramming illegal drift net fishing boats. Drift net fishing is illegal according to international law, no one is interested in enforcing the law, (recently some countries have agreed to start obeying by the law withing the next X years). Unfortunately for the most endangered ecosystem on earth, Capt. Paul Watson has run into docking fee problemsand his Tora Tora Tora! approach is shelved while the sea shepard is in the red. For further info check out the EF! journal, or Dave Forman's toned down Wild Earth journal, in book stores, see also Dave's autobiography Confessions of an Ecowarrior, the afore mentioned Eco-defence &c. Please note that the FBI operatives that brought you the Black Panther murders and the American Indian Movement murders are at work on the Eco-activists. A bunch of eco-types were recently shotgunned in your country by vigilanties, as was the case with the BPP and AIM, EF! &c are being branded as violent terror organizations while they are the brunt of serious repressive violence. These people may be labelled as terrorists, but they have every reason to beleive that they are putting their lives on the line, and may be expected to be a bit paranoid about becoming the next Karen Silkwood, Anna Mae Aquash, &c. thanks,

Response:

such as Judy Bari (car bombed for unionizing some loggers against job and eco dead end pillage logging tactics) who renounce even tree spiking, to the note that the FBI operatives that brought you the Black Panther murders and the American Indian Movement murders are at work on the Eco-activists. A bunch of eco-types were recently shotgunned in your country by vigilanties, as was the case with the BPP and AIM, EF! &c are being branded as violent terror organizations while they are the brunt of serious repressive violence. These people may be labelled as terrorists, but they have every reason to beleive that they are putting their lives on the line, and may be expected to be a bit paranoid about becoming the next Karen Silkwood, Anna Mae Aquash, &c. thanks, Sure, just please stay skeptical, eh?

This description of the Judi Bari incident is pure fantasy. If the FBI had tried to kill Judi Bari, she would be dead. The FBI doesn't use amateur pipe bombs to assassinate people. But if you insist on believing this nonsense, you must also believe that the FBI planted evidence of bomb manufacture in the van which was accompanying Judi Bari's car. You must also believe that the FBI is diabolically clever, having used an earlier pipe bomb of the same manufacture to attack a Louisiana-Pacific plant, presumably for setting up a cover story so that Bari would be blamed for her own death. Bari got exactly what she deserved. The poetic justice is delicious.

Response:

As is the case with most groups, the primary perpetrators of violent actions are FBI agitators. Although I don't know EF! specifically, it's generally safe to assume that front page news stories about "ecoterrorism" are well-planned negative-publicity PR moves, especially when the groups have stated policies against violence, such as EF! So if you want to know what they're planning to blow up next, call your local FBI field office and ask them. Paul Southworth | ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu (Not speaking for) | Political Archives in /poli Information Technology Division | Writable incoming directory on: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | redspread.css.itd.umich.edu <Representing myself. Everything I say is for educational use only.

Response:

This description of the Judi Bari incident is pure fantasy. If the FBI had tried to kill Judi Bari, she would be dead. The FBI doesn't use amateur pipe bombs to assassinate people.

No, the FBI probably doesn't use amateur pipe bombs to assassinate people. But did you stop and think that maybe they weren't trying to kill her? But if you insist on believing this nonsense, you must also believe that the FBI planted evidence of bomb manufacture in the van which was accompanying Judi Bari's car. You must also believe that the FBI is diabolically clever, having used an earlier pipe bomb of the same manufacture to attack a Louisiana-Pacific plant, presumably for setting up a cover story so that Bari would be blamed for her own death.

Entirely possible. Do you really think our government is without any corruption at all? And need I also remind you that the FBI dropped their investigation of Bari into the bombing incident. Bari got exactly what she deserved. The poetic justice is delicious.

You are one sick person. You obviously know little about Earth First! -- Zack Sessions University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus) "Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

Response:

What a pile of BS! Please document these claims. And don't give me any crap about the FBI planting pipe bombs, slashing tires, or kidnapping people's cats. It just isn't logical that the FBI would work that way. If you look back to the 1960's, when the FBI was killing Black and American Indian activists right and left, they were killing with guns and other standard police weapons (such as tear gas bombs, which in at least one case ignited ignited and burned down a house with all the "activists" inside). Why would the FBI use a gun, when pipe bombs are available? Because guns are reliable. They are efficient. FBI guys are trained to use guns. Unorthodox weapons and unorthodox tactics are much more likely to fail. Obviously the eco-nuts are feeding each other's paranoia. I can just imagine what a gathering of EF! must be like: "They're watching my house!" "They're watching my house too, and one of them stole all the apples from my tree!" "They got your apples, huh? They placed insect eggs on my tomatoes and now they're all ruined!" "I'm pretty sure they loosened up the brakes on my car. Obviously they are trying to kill me and make it look like an accident." "Does anyone here have a meter than can measure house current? The lights seem brighter at my house recently and I think they're trying to increase the electromagnetic field so that I get leukemia."

Response:

The FBI backed killings during the BPP/AIM cointelpro era were just that, FBI backed. The FBI's founding purpose was the control of dissent groups withing US borders. They have traditionally used vigilante groups to do their dirty work, the FBI used vigialnte groups to kill wobblies during the twenties, they used bad jacketing to foster shooting wars between the BPP and related groups to do thier hits, some local police forces as well. They armed the GOONs through the millitary to do thier hits on AIM members. The case you referr to above (I beleive) about the arson murders of AIM spokesman John trudel's family (John played the indian rebel character in ThunderHeart, and speaks eloquently in Incident at Ogalala, Paul Neuman's documentary), was about as low tech a hit as can be. The fact that primitive means were used to kill (opps attempted to kill) a non-violent union organizer (Judy) does not rule out in any way the FBI as a sponsor of the vigilantes, or negate the fact that they participated so actively in covering up any evidence as to who was responsible. This is all besides the original point that was, the FBI has oprganized violent and lethal repression of dissent. The FBI officers who did this work are now working on EF!, and I mean here the specific individuals within the FBI. Now this leads us to conclude that the EF! people have every reason to fear for their lives, does it not? You yourself admit that the FBI killed people back during the 60's, throught their intermediaries I remind you. Why do you think eco-nuts, bombed, shot, run down a la sikwood, are paranoid? Obviously the eco-nuts are feeding each other's paranoia. I can just imagine what a gathering of EF! must be like:

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As is the case with most groups, the primary perpetrators of violent actions are FBI agitators. Although I don’t know EF! specifically, it’s generally safe to assume that front page news stories about "ecoterrorism" are well-planned negative-publicity PR moves, especially when the groups have stated policies against violence, such as EF! So if you want to know what they’re planning to blow up next, call your local FBI field office and ask them. Paul Southworth | ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu What a pile of BS! Please document these claims. And don’t give me any crap about the FBI planting pipe bombs, slashing tires, or kidnapping people’s cats. It just isn’t logical that the FBI would work that way. If you look back to the 1960’s, when the FBI was killing Black and American Indian activists right and left, they were killing with guns and other standard police weapons (such as tear gas bombs, which in at least one case ignited ignited and burned down a house with all the "activists" inside). Why would the FBI use a gun, when pipe bombs are available? Because guns are reliable. They are efficient. FBI guys are trained to use guns. Unorthodox weapons and unorthodox tactics are much more likely to fail.

Talk about a pile of BS, the reason they use pipe bombs is to make it look like a self-induced accident. If the FBI used a gun it would be more suspect. Also, well constructed bombs are what make the military tick… what is so unorthodox about a pipe bomb? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Obviously the eco-nuts are feeding each other’s paranoia. I can just imagine what a gathering of EF! must be like: "They’re watching my house!" "They’re watching my house too, and one of them stole all the apples from my tree!" "They got your apples, huh? They placed insect eggs on my tomatoes and now they’re all ruined!" "I’m pretty sure they loosened up the brakes on my car. Obviously they are trying to kill me and make it look like an accident." "Does anyone here have a meter than can measure house current? The lights seem brighter at my house recently and I think they’re trying to increase the electromagnetic field so that I get leukemia."

Very creative, you should try focusing some of your energy on positve things rather than speculation, try attending a meeting before you make any comments. Reflect what you have learned don’t flaunt ignorance. — Take ‘er easy…. Shane .watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric ..informal… a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune…….

Response:

[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet -- Redistribute Freely] CLOROX COMPANY’S PUBLIC RELATIONS "CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN" LEAKED TO GREENPEACE Seattle, May 13, 1991 (GP) — A public relations "Crisis Management Plan" prepared for the Clorox Corporation and leaked to Greenpeace recommends labeling environmental critics as "terrorists," threatening to sue "unalterably green" journalists, and dispatching "independent scientists" on media tours as means to counteract bad news for the chlorine industry. The plan, prepared by the public relations division of Ketchum Communications, was apparently prompted by fears that the environmental group would target household use of chlorine bleach and call for its elimination. Greenpeace has an international program aimed at ending the use of chlorine in the pulp and paper industry. Its slogan "Chlorine-Free by 1993" is cited in the Clorox plan, which outlines numerous "worst case scenarios" in which Greenpeace and "unalterably green" journalists figure prominently. "They failed to anticipate the worst of worst case scenarios," said Shelley Stewart, Greenpeace toxics campaigner. "That some conscientious person would obtain the plan, and leak it to us." Greenpeace verified that Ketchum Communications, a Pittsburgh- based firm which is one of the nation’s largest advertising and public relations entities, is under contract to Clorox. One portion of the leaked document is comprised of a fax transmission between two Ketchum offices. "Lying is a growth industry," Stewart said of such PR firms. "The truth is that chlorine is a chemical whose days are numbered. Its use has created some of the most intractable environmental problems in history." DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, CFCs and dioxin all originate from use of chlorine. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Clorox plan is that while it’s clear that the company knows it has a genuine environmental problem on its hands, the document suggests that Clorox feels more threatened by a public interest group like Greenpeace than they do by the federal authorities. The Crisis Plan makes reference to studies linking chlorine use to cancer, and with remarkable candor suggests ways to discredit the findings if they ever became public. Ketchum recommends that Clorox should "cast doubts on the methodology and findings," of potentially damaging scientific reports which haven’t yet been written. The PR firm also recommends labeling Greenpeace as violent self- seeking "eco-terrorists;" attempting to sue newspaper columnists who advocate use of non-toxic bleaches and cleaners for the home; "immunizing" government officials; dispatching "independent" scientists on media tours; and recruiting "scientific ambassadors" to tout the Clorox cause and call for further study. While "crisis" public relations specialists have been deployed to effect spin control on virtually every major environmental issue in recent years, the chlorine industry has been a prolific consumer of the type of service outlined in the Ketchum memo. The Clorox PR strategy sounded familiar to Stewart. "We’ve seen the same kinds of ploys coming from the American Paper Institute and the Chlorine Institute surrounding the toxicity of dioxin," she said. NOTE: Copies of the Clorox Crisis Management Plan are available from Greenpeace’s offices in Washington, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, Canada.

Response:

[From the May 22, 1991 issue of _Anderson_Valley_Advertiser_] Misery Loves Companyy by Judi Bari So what does it feel like a year after getting bombed? Well, I’m maimed for life and it still hurts a lot. It hurts to sit, stand or walk, and I get tired easily. I’m profoundly saddened that I can no longer hike in the forest or teach my youngest daughter how to ride her bike. I’m really angry at whoever did this to me, and at the police for making sure not to find him. And I feel like a rape victim, still being blamed for the crime. But I’ve also received support from all over the country, and as we have had to deal with the reality of lethal force being used against us, our movement has gotten stronger. We have connections all over now, and I’ve heard some true stories that you will never read in the mainstream press. The attack on me last year was certainly one of the most brutal in the environmental movement to date. But it was not the only one. Besides well-known examples like the sinking of the Greenpeace boat Rainbow Warrior (a bomb attack that killed a crew member) and the assassination of Chico Mendez, there seems to be a pattern of violence being directed at rural environmentalists. The most recent example that I know of is Pat Costner, whose house in Eureka Springs, Arkansas was burned to the ground on March 2 of this year. Pat is Director of Research for the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign, and she has testified as an expert witness to successfully stop toxic incineration plants from being built in several places. During the months before the fire there were two there were two separate incidents when two men, described by the locals as "thugs," were seen around Pat’s small town, asking about her. When her house burned down, investigators found a gasoline can in what had been her living room, near where her Greenpeace files had been reduced to ashes. yet local authorities did not see cause to investigate, and Greenpeace has called on (ha ha) the FBI for help. Another even more ominous case of rural violence around the toxics issue occurred last February in Calvert City, Kentucky. Lynn "Bear" Hill was a bulldozer driver for Liquid Waste Disposal co. (LWD), who was ordered to illegally bury and cover 5000 drums of chemicals. Bothered by his conscience, Bear told the local newspaper about it, but pleaded for anonymity because he feared for his life. This was February 10, 1991. The newspaper editor did not take him seriously enough, and conducted his investigation of the charges in a way that Bear’s identity could be deduced. On Feb. 26, Bear Hill was found dead, half in and half out of his pickup truck with his keys in his hand. He was bruised and bloody, and, according to local accounts, "his nose was pushed into his brain." His kitchen was also splattered with blood, but local authorities ruled his death a suicide. Tennessee has also seen its share of violence against environmentalists, dating back to 1983 when a citizens’ group began a campaign to stop the Middlesboro Tanning Co. from dumping toxics into Yellow Creek. When they tried to bring a TV reporter to film the pollution, shots were fired over their heads. A short time later activist Ed Hunter had his windshield shot out while driving to a meeting. Two days later two other group members, Larry Wilson and Gene Hurst, were driving on a rural road when they were attacked by a shotgun blast from a passing car. It shattered Larry’s windshield, spraying him with glass and barely missing his head. This group is a good example of how to stand up to violence, because they stuck together and kept up the fight, despite later attacks which included Larry’s wife Sheila having her brake lines cut, and somebody killing their dogs. They have succeeded in stopping the poisoning of Yellow Creek, but are still working to get it cleaned up. One other outrageous use of force against environmentalists took place in Mobile, Arizona on May 7, 1990. Local activists, with help form Greenpeace, were leading a successful campaign to stop the construction of a toxic incinerator. When 400 people showed up for a public hearing, some of the organizers asked that the meeting be moved to a larger hall. County police responded by grabbing them and escorting them out. Once out in the hall, the stun-gunned the activists, knocking them to the floor and immobilizing them before handcuffing them and arresting them. "We weren’t even being rude!" said one amazed participant. I’m sure there’s a lot more of this going on than any of us know. Certainly threats and intimidation are becoming common tactics against all kinds of environmentalists. We shouldn’t have to take our lives in our hands to stand up against poisoning a creek or over-cutting the forest. But the corporations and police are all too wiling to use excessive force against us. This article is also contained in the book _Timber_Wars_and_ _Other_Writings_, which is available via mail for $12 from Judi Bari, 106 West Standley, Ukiah, CA 95482. Copyright (c) 1992 by Judi Bari. All rights reserved. Non- commercial use of any of this material is permiited without prior approval, providing that all copies or reprints show this book title and author as the source. Commercial copying or reprinting is strictly prohibited without prior written approval of the author.

Response:

I see your logic — the more amateurish and less deadly a bomb is, the MORE likely it is to be an FBI job. But if Judi Bari had simply been approached on the street by an unknown assailant and shot in the head with a policeman’s special, that would be less suspicious, that would be more likely to be random street crime. Extending this reasoning to the world at large: up is down, in is out, and black is white.

Response:

I am seeking info on Earth First or other groups that have used Ecoterrorism. What is their stated policy toward the use of Ecoterrorism and the environmental mvmt in general?

=o= The quick answer is that the people practicing terrorism on behalf of the environment are rarely organized into groups, and are in any case few and far between. =o= The word "ecoterrorism" is used very loosely. I think of terrorism as something that endangers life and limb. Earth First! does not do that. Some factions of Earth First! do commit sabotage. =o= I will also post articles to this newsgroup containing (1) an article by Judi Bari of Earth First!, who was the target of a *real* terrorist attack, entitled "Misery and (2) a Greenpeace press release concerning a memo from a public relations firm hired by the Clorox Corporation, detailing their plans to deal with an ecological crisis — by depicting groups like Greenpeace as "ecoterrorists" =o= Your query has prompted some discussion, and I will address that discussion in alt.activism.d and talk.environment. <_Jym_

Response:

Filed under: Activist Movement

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism

ECOTERRORISM?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Categories

Recent Entries

Popular Posts

RSS