"UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
07 May 2008 UNIVERSAL ADVERSARY DYNAMIC THREAT ASSESSMENT
Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights Militants in the United States
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The term ecological terrorists,1 or ecoterrorists, refers to those individuals who independently and/or in concert with others engage in acts of violence and employ tactics commonly associated with terrorism to further their sociopolitical agenda aimed at animal and/or environmental protection. The ecoterrorist movement is a highly decentralized transnational network bound and driven by common ideological constructs that provide philosophical and moral justification for acts of violence against what it perceives to be the destructive encroachment of modern society on the planet’s habitat and its living organisms.2 The ecoterrorist movement represents the fringe element of the broader ecological and animalrights community that argues that the traditional methods of conserving and preserving the Earth are insufficient, and is willing to use violence as the principal method of the planet’s defense against anyone “guilty” of exploiting and destroying the Earth. (U//FOUO) The overall strength of the movement is impossible to determine given that individuals who take part in ecoterrorist activities generally lack a common profile and exercise a high level of operational security. Nonetheless, ecoterrorists are known to have a global presence and are particularly active in the industrialized West (North America and Western Europe). In the continental United States (CONUS), militant ecological and animal-rights activists are geographically dispersed and operate in both urban and rural settings. The movement has demonstrated a great deal of tactical and strategic sophistication. Ecoterrorists have shown a high level of ingenuity through their ability to “weaponize” common objects and use them to perpetrate acts of economic sabotage and terror with virtual impunity. Ecoterrorists have also proven to be particularly adept at using media and the Internet, for both propaganda purposes and to disseminate vital training, technical, and targeting materials. (U//FOUO) From a security standpoint, the activities of the ecoterrorist movement are significant for several reasons and should be of interest to domestic security and law enforcement officials. First, Ecoterrorists have perpetrated more illegal acts commonly associated with terrorism on U.S. soil than any other known group, including al-Qaeda and radical Islamic militants. At present, the economic cost of these acts exceeds $100 million and is likely to grow in the future. In addition, while ecoterrorists thus far have generally refrained from harming individuals, there are indications that some within the movement are advocating more drastic measures to further their sociopolitical agendas. Finally, if ecoterrorists choose to target nuclear or chemical facilities in the United States, as some reports suggest, the ramifications of such attacks could have devastating consequences for the general public and U.S. national security. (U//FOUO)
COMPOSITION
The ecoterrorist movement in the United States is an elusive and highly decentralized collection of individuals and groups operating on the fringes of the mainstream environmental and animal-rights community. It is comprised of like-minded individuals committed to environmental and animal protection by any means necessary, including tactics commonly associated with terrorism. Although they all believe that the planet is facing impending
1
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
environmental catastrophe, the principal force uniting heterogeneous and geographically dispersed radical environmental and animal-rights activists is a willingness to engage in illegal, and often violent, activities in what they perceive to be a defensive struggle against the destructive and exploitative nature of profit-driven society. (U//FOUO) A number of extreme environmental and animal-rights organizations operate in the United States. Among those, the following are known to be or suspected of being involved in activities commonly associated with ecoterrorism: • • • • • • • • • • Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Earth Liberation Front (ELF) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) Arissa3 Animal Rights Militia Band of Mercy Animal Liberation Brigade Vegan Dumpster Militia Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Direct Action Front (U//FOUO)
ALF and its sister organization ELF are considered to be the most active, the most dangerous, and the largest domestic terrorist groups in the United States.4 Therefore, this Dynamic Threat Assessment (DTA) largely focuses on what is known about these two organizations and addresses all other individuals and/or groups involved in ecoterrorism only when pertinent. Moreover, this DTA focuses primarily on ecoterrorist activities in the United States. (U//FOUO)
Figure 1. One of the numerous logos used by ALF
ALF, created in England in 1976 as an outgrowth of mainstream environmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds Conservation Society, is predominantly concerned with animal-rights issues.5 The organization migrated to the United States in the 1980s and is active in more than twenty countries.6 In 2001, ALF’s strength in the U.S. was estimated at approximately one hundred hard-core members.7 (U//FOUO) ELF was founded in the early 1990s in England and like ALF later migrated to the United States. Also like ALF, ELF emerged as a derivative of another environmentalist organization, Earth First! (EF), which had abandoned its illegal and violent activities by 1992 and become more mainstream. The first known ELF activity occurred in 1996 when members set fire to a United States Forest Service truck in Oregon.8 The group has since perpetrated major attacks across the United States. (U//FOUO)
Figure 2. Original ELF logo by Awest, Santa Cruz, CA.
2
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Figure 3. ARISSA’s logo clearly depicts the organization’s revolutionary nature and nationwide ambition.
Arissa and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) are two splinter groups that evolved from ELF and ALF, respectively. Arissa, founded in 2003 by two former ELF spokesmen, is a militant faction of ELF that advocates more radical tactics, including assassination of individuals and entities deemed threatening to the environment. SHAC, an ALF splinter group, was founded in 2000 and is spearheading a campaign of economic terror against the Huntingdon Life Society (HLS), a pharmaceutical company that engages in animal drug testing, and other corporations involved in similar activities. (U//FOUO) The information available in open source material precludes accurate estimates of the number of individuals and/or groups who participate in or advocate acts of ecoterrorism. The principal impediment to assessing the composition of the ecoterrorist movement and its strength is that individuals are not required to join groups engaged in ecomilitant activities. Groups such as ELF and ALF are not composed of members in the traditional sense. Rather, individuals willing to engage in illegal acts, including violence, to protect animal and earth “rights” are considered to belong to the movement by the virtue of their actions. (U//FOUO) Despite the lack of a uniform “ecoterrorist profile,” one can make certain observations about individuals involved in ecomilitant activities. People who tend to be attracted to ecoterrorist activities are usually under the age of twenty-five, are from industrialized Western nations, and support animal-rights and environmental causes, but have nonetheless become disenfranchised with what they perceive to be the lack of progress among mainstream groups.9 It appears that the majority of ecoterrorists tend to be Caucasian, middle- or uppermiddle-class individuals. (U//FOUO)
IDEOLOGY
The ecoterrorist movement does not have a clearly articulated singular ideological platform. Rather, individuals who engage in illegal and violent activities in the name of environmentalism and animal protectionism are motivated by several overlapping and complementary philosophies designed to protect the environment and animals from perceived peril. (U//FOUO) The dominant idea behind the ecoterrorist movement is biocentrism, more commonly known as deep ecology (hereafter, these two terms are used interchangeably). The central premise of this philosophy rests on biospheric egalitarianism: a belief that all forms of life in the universe are equally valuable and have a right to live and flourish.10 Deep ecology asserts that humans are merely one strain in a web of life and, as such, are no more valuable than any other living organism on the planet Earth. Not only does this philosophy stress equality among species, but it also advocates the need for the human race to adopt a more active and critical view of its role in the overall ecosphere. According to proponents of deep ecology, humans need to start “[e]xperiencing [themselves] as part of the living earth and fin[d] [their] role in protecting the planet. In this approach, the relationship is more of an involved participant, who feels connected with and part of the world around them.”11 (U//FOUO) Similarly, individuals who engage in violence in the name of animal liberation invoke the principals of speciesism, an ideological construct that differentiates between humans and animals but does not adhere to the supremacy of the former. Followers of this ideology generally embrace the same ideological tenets outlined by biocentrism; however, they place particular emphasis on the need for humans to radically alter their approach toward animals. Radical animal liberation activists reject any notion that would place animals in a subordinate role to
3
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
humans, and charge that modern Western civilization is unlawfully subjugating and exploiting animals. They do not believe that humans should keep animals as pets, consume and/or exploit them for food, or use any animal products in their daily lives.12 Rather, radical animal-rights activists advocate that animals should be accorded the same rights as humans. This is clearly visible in Dr. Steven Best’s13 2004 work, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, when he declares that “animals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which contradicts the property status that is often literally burnt into their flesh.”14 (U//FOUO) Perhaps the most extreme ecoterrorist ideology is anarcho-primitivism, a philosophy that seeks a return to primitive societies based on a hunter-gatherer way of life.15 Proponents of this view embrace individual freedom in the context of free communities living in harmony with each other and the biosphere.16 According to anarcho-primitivism, for the symbiosis between humans and their environment to take place, earth’s natural equilibrium needs to be restored through the systematic deindustrialization of modern civilization. Hence, a return to primitive society would lead to revolutionary changes that would abolish the existing social and economic stratification of society and pave the way for the coexistence of all living organisms in harmony with nature. (U//FOUO)
Figure 4. One of many ELF propaganda posters denouncing the damaging effects of capitalism on the environment
All of these beliefs stand in direct contrast to the notion of individualism as promoted by Western culture. Ecoterrorists argue that the concept of “self” has enabled the human race to disregard the degradation of the earth’s habitat and that Western sociopolitical and economic concepts of civilization, modernity, and capitalism are exploitative in nature and have altered the equilibrium among species in pursuit of fiscal benefit. Therefore, they need to be countered through “direct action.” The concept of direct action, as ecoterrorists practice it, is a euphemism for illegal and violent activities designed to halt the destruction of the environment and liberate animals.17 It is precisely this willingness to engage in illegal acts to further their sociopolitical aims that separates ecoterrorists from mainstream environmentalists and animal protectionists. (U//FOUO) Ecoterrorists consider themselves to be freedom fighters engaged in a defensive conflict against the damaging encroachment of capitalist societies whose sole concern is profit regardless of any social or ecological costs or consequence.18 They believe they are the “voice of the voiceless” and “the defenders of the defenseless.” Extreme environmental and animalrights activists do not consider themselves to be terrorists; rather, they believe it is the anthropocentric19 nature of modern societies that allows the wholesale destruction of the environment. For as Paul Watson, the founder of the environmental organization Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, asserts: There are indeed eco-terrorists. Exxon committed eco-terrorism in Alaska. Union Carbide committed acts of eco-terrorism at Bhopal, India. The forest industries commit eco-terrorism each day. These corporations will not be found on any federal list of “terrorist” organizations, because they have money, and money calls the shots in what Mark Twain once described as the “Parliament of Whores” in Washington, DC. The wholesale destruction of our oceans and forests and the incredible assault on biodiversity is terrorism of the highest order—terrorism that is accepted by anthropocentric culture as normal.20 (U//FOUO)
4
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Figure 5. This ALF logo clearly depicts an emphasis on actions.
Jeffrey Luers, an ELF activist currently serving a twenty-two-year sentence for acts of economic terrorism and sabotage, perhaps articulated the movement’s ideological mind-set best when he declared that radical environmentalists and animal protectionists “have no choice but to fight. Literally fight, in the physical sense of the word. There is too much at stake for us to be tame in our struggles.”21 (U//FOUO) In sum, ecoterrorists adhere to a utopian ideological construct that borrows from, and merges together, several complementary philosophies and “are dedicated to the ideal of all living beings (plants, animals, even ecosystems as a whole) living together without being ‘commodified’ as resources or used, oppressed or destroyed for economic reasons.”22 Ecoterrorists contend that the U.S.-led Western capitalist system represents the single most important threat to the global environment and are willing to oppose it by any means necessary. (U//FOUO)
OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGY
The overarching objective of the ecoterrorist movement is to change the prevailing social attitudes about the environment and establish biospheric equality among all species. This new form of biospheric egalitarianism, as promoted by radical environmentalist and animalrights activists, not only would fundamentally alter the nature of social norms regarding the planet’s habitat and its living organisms, but ultimately would lead to a new system of governance and social relationships that is anarchist and antisystemic in nature.23 In practice, this would mean a return to a quasi-preindustrial society and the abolishment of all forms of economic, social, and political structures, as defined by modern civilization. (U//FOUO) The movement does not have a comprehensive strategy to achieve this aim, however. Rather, groups such as ELF and ALF define their goals in more modest, but consistent, terms. ELF states that its primary objectives are: • • • To inflict economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment To reveal and educate the public on the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and nonhuman24 (U//FOUO)
As a sister organization, ALF objectives closely mimic those of ELF, but place particular focus on the plight of animals. As such, ALF seeks: • To liberate animals from places of abuse (e.g., laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc.) and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives free from suffering To inflict economic damage on those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing nonviolent direct actions and liberations To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, whether human or nonhuman
• • •
5
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
•
To analyze the ramifications of all proposed actions and never apply generalizations when specific information is available 25 (U//FOUO)
On the other hand, Arissa, an ELF splinter group, argues that the goals of single-issue organizations such as ELF and ALF are shortsighted and will never bring about the necessary changes. The primary goal of Arissa is to “create social and political revolution in the United States.”26 (U//FOUO) To meet their stated objectives, radical environmental and animal-rights activists use “direct action,” a euphemism for an organized campaign of illegal and violent activities, designed to inflict monetary damages on entities and individuals engaged in practices deemed detrimental to the environment and animals.27 Through a prolonged campaign of economic sabotage and intimidation, ecoterrorists hope to drive up the costs of environmental and animal exploitation. Although ecoterrorist “direct action” campaigns often use violence, ELF and ALF, in particular, pride themselves on taking extraordinary measures to avoid any physical harm to humans and insist that their activists act accordingly.28 (U//FOUO) Some individuals in radical environmental and animal-rights circles, however, believe that the current strategy of direct action, as practiced by the majority of ecomilitants, is inherently flawed and champion more radical measures. They point out that many companies engaged in animal research or urban development have insurance policies in place against such attacks, thereby becoming largely immune to punitive financial measures. Moreover, certain individuals, mainly within the militant animal-rights community, also argue that the policy of “no physical harm” should be reconsidered and, in some cases, supplanted by more radical measures. For example, Dr. Jerry Vlasik, a passionate animal-rights advocate and the current ALF press officer, was quoted as saying at the 2003 Animal Rights Conference in California, “if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work.”29 A similar reference to escalating the use of violence was echoed in 2002 when an anonymous ecoterrorist claimed that the movement “will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet.”30 (U//FOUO) Whatever the shortcomings of ecoterrorist direct action strategy may be, the calculated and systematic use of violence is also designed to bring publicity to issues related to the politics of nature that otherwise would remain marginal and foreign to the public at large. For ELF and like-minded groups, “publicity is a key part of their agenda” and can be seen as the “oxygen of the movement.”31 (U//FOUO) In the final analysis, extreme environmental and animal-rights activists feel that “the legal means of affecting change have been exhausted” and have opted for a strategy of violent and highly visible attacks, as a ..."
|
You need to upgrade your Flash Player , or try to enable javascript in order see this document properly.
|
|
Comments
