In your last statement to me, Arian, you specifically mention “Stromfront”. I never once stated “Stormfront”. I wont make accusations, assertions, or assumptions about your comment, but your comment did cause red flags to fly all around my thoughts on that one. Anywho – if you feel inclined to review, there is an FBI report in the link above.

The even more fundamental flaw in your argument is that like the ELF the KKK believed that they were justified in their bombing and burning attacks to defend their ideology. That the ELF “supports” a worthy cause (preservation of natural wilderness land, better treatment of animals) does not change that their motive is to use terrorism to get their goals. That the ELF tries to avoid human causulties does not alter the fact that arson is always dangerous and their motive is to use terror – the fact is that if someone is running around blowing up and burning unoccupied structures still creates terror and fear.

Thus you cannot justify the actions of the ELF without also justifying the actions of the KKK – ultimately both groups have the exact same motive – to use force and terror to get their way and achieve their political goals. You also cannot say that the ELF is acceptable without saying it is acceptable to have some people running around burning structures they believe are empty for kicks. Quite simple, what you forget is that to the KKK perserving white supremacy was just as morally obligated as perserving old growth forests is to the ELF.

Who decides what is a sufficiently right and just cause to justify violent criminal attacks? If you say that Gerald or the ELF can decide what is a sufficiently worthy cause to justify violence than every other person in the same world also must have that same ability. That is a recipe for either dictatorship or anarchy and sheer chaos and likely extinction of the species. Either way, sweetie i have a feeling that you wouldn’t like the result.

That you fail to understand the simple point that might does not make right and that left wing terrorism is just as adhorrent – and almost without exception ultimately counterproductive – as right wing terrorism (not to mention the fact that you are constantly trying to deny the fact arson and firebombing always creates an extremely high risk of human death) suggests that you are extremely obtuse.

Actually, I was comparing a particular form of non-violent civil disobedience, used in separate contexts, to show that a moral judgment on one action does not magically transfer to the other.

“ELF is no different from the KKK” = reluctance to seriously examine the actual costs, risks and benefits of particular ELF actions.

For an expert historian, your lack of appreciation of context and motive is stunning.

first, you have the history totally wrong: a very large number of the civil rights sit ins – in fact, all of the first ones as well as the Freedom Rides and it is quite likely a majority of all sit ins – involved activity that was purely legal and the only illegal activity present was the refusal of a business to serve based upon race. The first civil rights sit ins took place in Illinois in the 1940s which had a state anti-discrimination law – the sit ins were designed to get the state to actually enforce the laws on its books. Many of the other sit ins took place in areas where racial discrimination was already made illegal – for example interstate facilities (see the Freedom Rides as well as sit ins in interstate bus stations). Sit ins continued well after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed outlawing discrimination in public places.

Therefore, many of the arrests of protesters within the civil rights era were completely unlawful and ultimately were overturned by the courts.

Second, your morality is frightening in its implication. The sit ins were non-violent protests. What part of the name Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee do you fail to understand? Sit ins were non-violent actions which were often engaged in legal activity such as requesting service at a place of public accomodation which was legally required to serve people regardless of race. Even in areas where places of public accomdation were allowed to legally discriminate (prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964) they were still non-violent protests. The only violence was directed against the protesters.

Third, you are mangling the history because the ELF does in fact have a Civil Rights Era parallel – but that parallel is the Ku Klux Klan who conducted violent illegal actions such as burning black churches, bombings, and murders.

Bombings and burning is not non-violent action. That is violent action which poses an extremely high risk of human death. If you justify the ELF burning property because you agree with the cause, you justify anyone burning property for a cause. In fact, you ultimately justify anyone burning property for any reason or no reason at all. And if arson is okay than murder for a “good cause” is also perfectly acceptable.

That simple fact is what you fail to understand! To compare non-violent civil disobedience against an unjust authority enforcing an illegal law to burning and bombing attacks is the heights of stupiditry.

You also fail to understand that the risk of death of a bombing attack or especially a bombing attack is severe – you can pretend it is not the case all you want, but you are justifying a firebomb attack that accidentially kills a guard or someone working late just as much.

You are right that the ELF is like an actor in the Civil Rights Era – you just got it wrong – the ELF is no different from the KKK. In the abortion debate the ELF is no different from the people who blow up abortion clinics or shoot abortion doctors. Burning and other violent actions against persons are never acceptabl – it is a dangerous act which if undertaking for a political cause has always met every rational definition of terrorism.

Quite simply you have no concept of history or morality.

“The hypocracy which y’all display is overwhelming. All you are doing is exercising selective morality whereby all laws are optional. Once you justify violence to suit a cause you care about you are justifying violence for everyone and calling for pure mayhem.”

There is no hypocrisy in supporting a sit-in at a lunch counter to protest segregation, but denouncing a sit-in at a health clinic to protest abortion. Why? Selective morality! Racism = WRONG. Access to reproductive health services = RIGHT.

Unlawful acts are sometimes justified and morality is inherently selective.

ALF would argue that liberating animals from certain death, and sending a message to those that systematically kill for profit, justifies risks to office plants, fish, mice, cockroaches, flies, for which you humorously shed crocodile tears.

It’s reasonable to argue that arson creates so many risks that it doesn’t justify protecting captive animals or old growth forest. But it’s bonkers to conflate civil disobedience with mindless destruction or theft.

What part of “Wild Horse and Burro Facility” don’t you understand? Yes, I know that no horses or burros were killed in the fires, but what if by accident they were?

I don’t disagree with the facts that there are many companies raping and pillaging our lands for profit, that there are companies hurting and killing animals, but our side should be better than them.
We should not do evil just because they have. We do not need to “fight fire with fire”, literally or figuratively. Burning down ski chalets will essentially do nothing because insurance will likely pay for them to be rebuilt.
And what have you done? – nothing, except waste precious resouces – the water used by firefighters fighting the blazes (and possibly risking their lives). The gasoline used to power the vehicles cleaning up the debris. The additional wood and other materials used to rebuild the buildings. Not to mention small animals that may have been killed in the fires. You would have wasted less, and damaged the environment less by simply doing nothing!

A terrorist is a terrorist, whether on the right or left. Period.

first, saying that no one was hurt focuses only on humans – i thought the environemntalists were supposed to respect all life (human and animal). It is almost undoutable that at least some animal and plant life perished during the fires set by the ELF and ALF. Most offices will have plantlife and many have animals such as fish which people like and such as mice, cockroaches, flies, etc. which people do not like. It is without a doubt that fire attacks on offices even if conducted in teh middle of night when no one is there will result in the loss of some sort of life. It seems that the selective morality displayed here is even more severe than i realized.

Second, you still have the fact that fire attacks pose a huge risk of losing control – fire is dangerous and difficult to control and if it gets loose will kill people and animals. That is without a doubt. The fact remains that the only reason why those idiots have never been documented at killing anything is because of sheer luck and applying the same “only humans count” attitute that you pretend to decry.

Third, would you be so ready to say “its only property” if someone torched your house when you weren’t home or smashed up your car? OR would you be upset? What if your pet dog was trapped inside and died during the fire? WOuld that be okay because your dog was just your property? What if the firebomber wanted to torch the logging company’s executive’s house next door but torched your house by mistake – is it okay because it was protecting the environment? Or would you be mad because someone even for a cause you approved of destroyed your property?

The hypocracy which y’all display is overwhelming. All you are doing is exercising selective morality whereby all laws are optional. Once you justify violence to suit a cause you care about you are justifying violence for everyone and calling for pure mayhem.

Unless you think its fine for the KKK to firebomb black churches on days when there ins’t a service its not okay for these ELF idiots to firebomb a logging company’s headquarters becuase it is the exact same thing. In fact, there is really no difference between torching an office building for a “cause” and torching an office building for the thrill of seeing something burn.

Burning someone else’s property for a cause is also the exact same thing as stealing someone’s property. Unless you think it is fine for someoneto break into your house and steal your property to fund whatever cause they have you are a hypocrite in thinking its okay to burn someone else’s property for a cause or for any reason at all.. There is no difference between the ELF people setting fire to a building or a crackhead breaking into my house to steal my platium charm bracelet with different shark species and sea turtles.

Burning or destroying someone else’s property for a cause is not acceptable. Putting the lives of people and animals at severe risk of death through fire for a cause is not acceptable.

What you are justifying is not animal’s rights (animals have undoubtably been harmed in these idio’s’ attacks) – it is anarchy, chaos, and mayhem and a notion that might makes right.

And Patricia, I apologize for the tone I used previously. But for someone who seems so cognizant of FBI activities, your lack of knowledge of the infiltration of the Stormfront crowd amazes me. I’m not the only one coming off as smug here.

Judi suffered the remainder of her life from a car bombing that severely injured her, The FBI accused her of bombing herself. Her coworker Darryl Cherney was injured tho less severely in the same car. He took the case to court holding the FBI accountable for charging Judi with bombing herself while doing nothing to apprehend or find the true culprit. After Judi’s death in ’97 from breast cancer, Darryl kept up the fight winning the case. He used some of the settlement money to make the documentary “Who Bombed Judi Bari?” which was recently released.

Ted Kazinski, who killed several people with his letter bombs, was also a lone right wingnut who had no ties to environmentalists. Idiots like John Zerzan, however, have displayed absurd admiration for Kazinski.

One of the most disturbing things about SPLC is the blanket maligning of anarchists which happened after the WTO in a piece written for the 2000 winter issue of the Intelligence Report called “Neither Left Nor Right” portraying those of us who shut down the very secretive World Trade Organization as being comprised of right wing bigots like Pat Buchanan and David Icke as well as violent anarchists who broke windows. I really wondered where Lee got his info as i personally was attacked by police as well as my dear friend. She was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet on D1 and beaten the day before N30 during nonviolent actions we participated in as we have done for decades. Neither of us have ever displayed any violence in our work over the years. There was absolutely no excuse for the attacks we suffered and my friend is blinded permanently as a result.

Tho Buchanan and fans of Icke were present at the WTO protests, the overwhelming majority of the over 50,000 people present were nonviolent. But we have all since discovered that law enforcement, now militarized all over the US, are primarily concerned with protecting the corporations ruining the planet and the super rich that run them. Police brutality has reached unprecedented levels and especially in Oakland and Seattle where the Feds have investigated inappropriate use of force including senseless killings of innocent people. But the Feds will never back the people. It is counterproductive to what is being done to carry out the corporate killing free trade agenda. Now young, inexperienced anarchists are being jailed with no charges due to the convening of grand jury hearings in March which claims to be targeting anarchists involved in May Day window smashing. Why did they convene in March then? I believe we have a very sophisticated infiltration operation that is designed to ruin any of our efforts to stop the wholesale destruction of land and life.

Radical does not equate with violence. Radical means root and those of us who stand for the earth with full soul force nonviolence are sabotaged regularly. Infiltration is a real problem and it undermines all efforts to do something effective about the wholesale greedy destruction now in the process of destroying all life and a healthy children’s future.

Those who are addicted to ever escalating greed will stop at nothing to get what they want at great cost to a livable planet. In my 30 plus years of activism, i see for myself the arsenals used by police against people who simply are standing for a livable reality in this dire times. We have no resources and those opposing us have unlimited funding and weapons. It is very disheartening.

I appreciate SPLC’s work on addressing white supremacy, but have always been disturbed by lack of accountability that has never been extended towards the FBI for their long history of racism, especially on the Lakota Reservation during the siege at Wounded Knee as well as the notorious use of a cutout target of Martin Luther King used for target practice. The FBI is now involved in infiltrating occupy groups and setting up young, disaffected youth for crimes they would have not committed otherwise if not for FBI providing ideas, materials and explosives as in the case of the 4 so called anarchists from Ohio.

The FBI also declared occupy a national security threat. Once again, peaceful protesters were met by unprecedented police brutality before any rock throwing window smashers showed up which was similar to the WTO. In both cases, the police assaulted peaceful protesters long before the window breakers started in. In working on my friends lawsuit against the city of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department, we discovered evidence of infiltrators destroying property and that has been an issue every since in the realm of US protests as well as in other parts of the world. Right now Egypt has pro dictator forces raping female protesters. But activists are now alerted and keeping a close eye on such attackers.

I suspect this comment will be erased as was my effort to address these relevant issues was yesterday.

Bill, the eco-activists ought to be doing activism based on a no harm rule. There are non-thinking or crazed folks in every movement. As an example: I am a Christian, but I definitely would never think to harm a doctor at an abortion clinic, or any other person for that matter. That is madness. Each individual must be responsible for her or his own actions. A few nutters doesnt make everyone in the eco or animal movements insane killers. As a law enforcement official, I am happy to know you care about the environment as well – without it in tact, we all die at some point. However, I’m not sure that the issue surrounding the article meets the criteria for a “hate crime”. Perhaps I am wrong. Im sure ole Aron here will chasitise me if I am.

There is not one documented case of environmental extremists ever killing or injuring anyone as far as i know. Ted Kazinski was a solitary nutjob who was a mentally ill killer.

The truth is this whole country is controlled by huge corporations and law enforcement protects them above and beyond anything they do for the common citizen. In fact, we live in a growing police state where our first amendment rights to peacefully protest were seriously violated in Seattle, not only during the WTO, but also during occupy. In both cases police violence was used long before window breakers showed up to do their smash fest.

Anyone who bothers to do some online research can find out easily just how many people ELF and ALF never killed or injured.

Radical means at the root. I have to say the police pose more of a threat to my life than any enviro fanatic. My friend, a Gandhian scholar and activist, was shot in the eye during the WTO by a a member of a Seattle Police SWAT force and did nothing to deserve that. She is partially blinded for life.

Sadly, the media is mostly owned by a few corporations and people do not bother to do self educating around many of the issues being raised here. It really makes a difference to have clear and accurate information. Most americans simply do not pay close attention to what is going on to their peril.

All of life is in dire straits. Sadly, i doubt we have the will or stamina to unite for the sake of all our children’s future and that is the worst tragedy of all.

However, if you look at the statistics of people who are harmed by tree spiking, and the statistics of deaths in custody or the kinds of human rights abuses that are common in police in certain parts of the country, I think by far the greater harm is the latter.

I do not wish to be misconstrued because my own family members have served in law enforcement, and there are many, many more examples of good police work, and it is a difficult, often thankless job.

The Justice Department is now finally getting off its duff and doing something about the horrendous cases of violence and civil rights abuses that are routine in Texas which is among the most notorious states for police who act in complete disregard for human dignity and the protections of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, it is not just the police but the grand juries who no-bill obvious violations such as shooting an unarmed person in the back, the prosecutors who are cronies with police, and elected officials who tolerate ridiculously lenient punishment for internal complaints such as PT or riding a desk when someone suffers nerve damage or cracked teeth while routinely detained, or even just simple bullying by badge and gun.

So given the scale of this threat, I would be very interested to hear your opinions about the relative level of impunity for dangerous cops in the South (and I am not talking about qualified immunity, I am talking about being above the law), vis-a-vis the “dangers” of tree spiking or so-called “ecoterrorism”.

Whether you like it or not, eco terrorism is a threat to all of us, period. Destruction and killing to make a point only makes one point, that the people who do it are willing to hurt you and I.

For the record, I am for protecting our enviornment and I do know that our natural resources are finite, so it is important that we take a stance here.

Yet again, life is important and these people have killed or maimed others many a time over for their cause. For instance the logger who is doing their job and all of a sudden the saw blade hits a nail that was put into the tree by the eco terrorist. The saw bounces back and severely cuts or kills the logger. This person or his family suffers and all he/she was doing was working a job to put food on their family’s plate. This means we are not talking about only one person, we are talking countless others that suffer as a result of one incident. So again, how does justifying this cause allow for the death or serious injury of another, it doesn’t.

Do I have an answer for this issue, no, I don’t but I wish I did. Human life is precious and the people who are hard line eco terrorist have no compassion for human life when it interferes with their cause.

This is deserves the attention SPLC gave it and more. Radicalism in any shape or form needs to brought to light because of the dangers it presents to you and I.

Just so you know, the neo-fascists are so heavily infiltrated by the Feds that none of them trust each other anymore. I suggest you do some more research next time.

How odd that a nation founded upon principles of individualism and selfishness at a time when the North American continent was ripe for exploitation, discovers now, when all the world’s arable land has been occupied and our economic systems are instruments of destruction, that our own culture, which spawned this mayhem, is wiggling like a bug.

The ennui of a nation, its refusal to see our path, is representative of a people in fast and irreversible decline.

The mind of nationalism and individualism are one in the same, where selfishness and greed become two of the most powerful motivators of the capitalist mind. We take, but do not question the void and trails of destruction we create as we take. We salute the jingoist dream as our drones crack the foundations of world peace.

The world suffers and weeps, poisoned, raped, scraped, choked out and left to gasp its last in a heap of plastic, name brand slavery, and possessions which own us.

The SPLC does not exist to condemn and expose all groups using violent methods.

It exists to condemn and expose right-wing white groups using, or threatening to use, or doing anything that might conceivably encourage the use of, violent methods.

If it starts including leftists, Muslims, Blacks, trade unionists, etc who do similar things, it risks diluting its message and confusing its supporters.

Stay on message!

Second, it has nothing to do with hate crimes even in the politically distorted manner the SPLC defines it.

So your point is?

“Violence is violence”….

Sure it is. Sometimes the ends justify the means. I don’t think some of these “experts” and regulars on here understand the grave impacts of oil drilling, timber cutting, coal mining etc. That is proven to be far more destructive to the planet than a few “eco-terrorists”.