Eco-Terrorism in the Legal Context - Essay Example

Outline I. Introduction a. General definition b. Legal definition c. Opposition to accepted definition d. Forms of eco-terrorism II. Legitimate Issues related to eco-terrorism a. Abuse of natural resources b. Abuse of animal rights c. Illegal actions resulting from legitimate issues III. Historical accounts of environmental activism a. The early evolution of environmental activism b. The recent scenario IV. A glimpse to active environmentalists a. The EFM b. The AFL V. The need to stop eco-terrorism a. Why the urgency for action? b. Results of past eco-terror activities VI. Suggested Peaceful Solutions a. Massive IEC based campaigns b. Promulgating laws with higher penalties VII. Conclusion Stopping eco-terrorism Introduction Terrorism’s general definition Ecoterrorism is a major issue in current times in relation to societies concern over the environment and its dwindling state of quality. It is also considered as eco-sabotage and is a crime committed for nature’s sake (Runyon p. 1). The term ecoterrorism, as understood by the general society, refers to acts which are destructive and criminal in nature inflicted to innocent entities, humans, properties, and other physical structures, in order to echo out sentiments that are environmental and politically related. The acts are manifested as a sign of opposition against some form of abuse upon nature, such as the over-exploitation of the environment, use of plants, animals, and other natural resources beyond the normal ways, which these people think are detrimental to the over-all state of our ecology. Definition in legal context In a legal context, the official definition referred here is based on a law promulgated by a government entity. Although other definitions exist and are used officially such as those used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, discussions are focused as far as the meaning of ecoterrorism through a law passed in the state of Pennsylvania. House Bill 213 published by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2006 defined ecoterrorism within the context of criminalizing the acts of harming properties to intimidate individuals lawfully involved in activities that use animals, plants, or other natural resources. Critics on the accepted definition of ecoterrorism But those sectors branded as ecoterrorists contest the meaning and remarked that the use of the term is a form of propaganda against their cause. They claimed that the term connotes terror inflected against the ecology which is the opposite of what these groups are fighting for. It is further alleged that the use of ecoterrorism in branding environmental activism is a political maneuver of the opponents of the causes for environmental activism. This is a fatal blow as far as extremists are concerned since the acceptance of the term has created acceptance that environmental activists are terrorists. This classification would result to “more investigation, infiltration, and disruption of radical environmental groups regardless of whether any law is actually violated, longer terms of incarceration for convicted activists, and the harassment of mainstream environmental groups” (R. Smith 564). Forms of eco-terrorism The violent acts mentioned in the law and described by authorities as eco-terrorism are varied. These include: arson offenses, causing or risking catastrophe, vandalisms in any form, crop destruction, burglary, criminal trespass, theft, and other criminal acts committed in order to commit another specified offense. In actual scenarios, reported activities include sabotage of equipment and facilities by destroying equipment, arson, firebombing, and others (Bohn et. al). Tree spiking or putting of spike in tree trunks to inflect harms to those who cut them or when spikes are hit by band saw blades during milling of the lumber, is another reported act. Destruction of properties, whether private or government owned, is considered a crime whether reasons for doing it are justifiable or not. Ecoterrorism is of the same character but is specifically focused on crimes related to ecology. The official definition clearly considers acts meant to do harm on others, humans, animals, plants or properties doing lawfully acceptable activities that uses plants or animals. When Sea Shepherd activists harm or attempts to harm sea whalers in Japan during the process of catching whales, ecoterrorism is therefore committed by direct reference to the law. But by the activists’ point of view, the acts of harming the whales during the process are what constitute ecoterrorism based on statement of Paul Watson, President and Founder of Sea Shepherd. Both can be considered as a right definition but at this juncture, the attempt to harm a person who is legally doing the catching is a crime. Unless a clear law criminalizing the harm to whales in this particular instance is defined then whale catching could also be a crime. Legitimate issues leading to violence Abuse of natural resource Environmentalists today claimed a lot of environmental problems emerged due to indiscriminate activities of poaching and other illegal activities involving ecology. Allowing large scale logging deprives the local flora and fauna of their habitats. Capturing animals from the wild contribute to the massive extinction of animal and plant species. And quarrying of geological materials such as sand, gravel, and aggregates increases the danger of erosion, flooding and other geological problems. These issues are legitimate and the support provided by other environmental activist individuals, groups, and political backing constitute a force to pursue the cause and the urge to do ecoterrorism to show that issues raised are serious. Abuse of animal rights Legal and socially recognized organizations such as animal welfare societies have for years lobbied on their just cause. The issue raised for this matter is the concern over the welfare of animals used in experiments and industrial processes wherein animals are inflected with pain beyond their consent. Rats, dogs, and the likes are used for medical studies and are sometimes injected with deadly diseases to test the effectiveness of vaccines and others. Activists feel the rights of animals are abused in this case. Some actions of animal welfare societies created good results, but there are cases where some important and popular issues have dragged radical elements into picture that have now become fascist and resorted to threats, violence and destruction of property to achieve their ends (Smith 1). Illegal actions to show legitimate issues Unruly action to show sentiments had been used in the past by other radical groups which use extreme civil disobedience coupled with violence to put pressures on public institutions and governments to foster sound policies. The same tactics were employed by, the activist group “The Weather Underground” in 1969 which resorted to a massive violent actions such as rioting and bombing public buildings to show their opposition to the US government’s involvement in the Vietnam War. In the present times, a lot of animal right activist groups are terrorizing research institutions that use animals as experimental subjects, environmentalists harming people and properties that utilized endangered and other species of ecologic importance. These forms of ecofascism are just few of the many issues environmental management agencies are facing which resulted to a magnified cause for violent actions. Historical accounts of environmental activism The early evolution of environmental activism Records show that ecoterrorism acts developed as early as 1977when Sea Shepherd Conservation Society a group that emanated from the pro-environment society Greenpeace, was organized and advocated the freeing of endangered sea species such as dolphins, whales, and others from capture of legal fishermen and fishing companies. Their acts include tearing of fishing nets and obstructing fishing lures. Animal Liberation Front (AL) was the primary radical animal rights movement that started in England in 1976 (Kushner 117). They consider the use of animals in research, factories, and other industrial establishments as a direct violation to animal rights and uses violence to achieve their purpose of freeing them. The first extreme radical environmental ideologies came out when Earth First was made known by the early part of the 1980s. Their acts include tree spiking, which as discussed earlier was harmful both to humans and the equipments used in logging and saw milling. Although Earth First intention was not to harm, reports showed the acts resulted to casualties which also caused the decline in civil society’s support to the group’s cause. The actions from environmental activists slowed down by 1992 expecting for a more sympathetic policies from the world leaders, as a new President lead the US. But when systems didn’t work out for their cause a new breed of activism emerged and this time harsher than the previous with the formation of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). They consider their actions as a self-defense: shielding the earth against exploitations from entities that foster economic gains at the expense of the ecology. By considering exploitation as violence, the activists resulted to violence to counter violence. Law enforcement agencies, however, consider these groups as nothing more than garden-variety terrorists and their deeds an act of terrorism. The recent scenario Since the September 11 terrorism act, the world centered its eyes on terror groups. Aside from external terrorism forces, the act of ecoterrorism is considered as another threat to US homeland security as domestic terrorism. Chief James F. Jarboe, FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Section clearly testified at United States House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health that special interest groups pose greatest domestic security threats (Jarboe 2). He specifically considered the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and the Coalition to Save the Preserves (CSP) as among “the most active extremist elements in the United States” (Jarboe 4). Aside from these groups there are other organized societies who were reported to be strong advocates of environmental activism, and that includes Sea Shepherd. It is clear that environmental activists and radical environmentalist are not similar to organized terrorism groups. While other terrorist organizations have recognizable constituted groups with real membership clearly defined, environmentalist movements do not. And these groups even reject “the idea of a structured organization” (Trujillo 143). Because of these it is hard to track links and accountabilities of their actions. Because of these reasons also that individual violent acts are treated in a case to case basis not collectively. It should be taken into consideration that those environmental activists foster justifiable cause, in the environmental perspective. It is the method by which their cause is made known that makes them unjust. Standing true to earlier argument, the cause is honored yet their acts of showing the cause are condemned. A glimpse to active environmentalists The Earth First Movement In the history part Earth First movement was mentioned as the precursor to environmental activist groups such as the Sea Shepherd and the EFL. EF’s strategic desire to save the planet from destruction is based on real threat of possible biological meltdown caused by indiscriminate exploitation of earth’s natural resource for economic gains of a small portion of society. The group’s environmental protection policies and approaches were focused on non-violent direct actions as well as destruction of facilities that are threats to environmental conditions. Later on this movement was divided into two separate ideologies, one fostering the campaign through peaceful means such as non-violent actions, education campaigns, and massive environmental protection advocacies, while the other one promotes radicalism and violence and adopted the goals of protecting the earth by any means possible. Animal Liberation Front (ALF) The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is a globally renowned name applied to animal right activists who are involved in doing act in behalf of the animals. The main cause raised by these people is to stop violence and harm inflicted animals used in gambling, sports, research activities, as sources of industrial raw materials, and other forms of animal rights exploitation. Their actions includes taking out animals from laboratories and farms, and sabotaging facilities used in animal testing and other structures utilizing the animals. While doing this, ALF claimed they exercise extreme precautions not to harm humans and the animals. These environmental activism advocates provides extreme importance on the right of the animals as against the benefits the objected use brought to the society. This is a question of moral and ethical issues and could hardly be reconciled with what is legality acceptable. Interpretations of ethical and moral issues vary with individuals and so respect within legal bounds must be exercised by individuals in showing their position relative to a particular issue. Because of this forcing a rat out from the laboratory or a sheep out of the farm for reasons that their “animal rights” are violated is ethically right for the animal rights activist but is un-ethical for the scientist and even illegal because it constitute burglary, theft, and trespassing crimes. In the case of animal right activists, the struggle to liberate animals requires radical changes in the norms and values of the society which had been learned even before prehistoric times (Best and Nocella 5). The ALF’s attempts to foster their cause are near to impossibility and thus require extra force beyond legal boundaries to achieve them. And the extra force becomes a crime which consequences are borne by the society which they ought to protect. The need to stop eco-terrorism Why the urgency for action? As the world reacted seriously to the terrorism threats which is real and imminent as experienced in the 9/11 attack, there is an urgent need to act on ecoterrorism before it would reach to a magnitude which would be hard to control. While nothing these extremists have done yet insofar as damage to lives is concerned the potential for a large scale terror could not be shrug off (Liddick and Liddick 113). Law enforcers even admit that threat from ecoterrorism “has become greater than that of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and right-wing militias” (Knickebocker “A Troubling” p.1) Therefore a legitimate action is needed to control or stop the acts. And these require careful evaluation of the principles of ecoterrorism equated as a form of radicalism. Studies showed that radicalism is actually an output of social movements and its proliferation is facilitated by several external factors one of which is the political climate. Generally, environmental radicalism, just like any other form of fascism, “follows a life cycle” (Beck 161). By studying this cycle enables law enforcers to determine their most vulnerable points and determine approaches to control and strategies to counter them. Effects of past ecoterrorism efforts Analyzing the impact of all existing environmental activists efforts since the beginning of their campaign showed that there is a negative result as far as pushing their cause through violence are concerned. Instead of stopping or preventing the use of the environment and other natural resource, parties who are victims of terror even pushed further and continued, revived, or even developed new ones even greater than the previous. When a ski resort was destroyed another larger one was built. And where a research laboratory burned, another one rose up higher. The effect, however, of the ecoterrorism acts are more on the financial and economic side. In the United States alone $110 million property damage was recorded since 1976, notwithstanding the cost entailed for failed research, increased security cost, and others (Phillipkoski cited in Trujillo 142). Although these are not the main goal of their works, the impact could have caused the victims to give-in to demands for change, but they were never realized. The tendency therefore, is either these group would stage a more devastating blow or adopt another strategy. And this is where preparations and surveillance must be conducted by intelligence agencies. Suggested peaceful solutions The information mentioned above is good starting points to make a sound plan to counter ecoterrorism actions. While existing radical ideologies are not easy to fight with mere education, some approaches must be put in place to discourage other individuals from participating into the cause. Among the perceived solutions are massive information and education campaign and stricter laws and policies. Massive IEC based campaign Greenpeace, although considered as the primary advocate of environmentalism their general approach is much of the peaceful way. They are internationally recognized as a legal organization with clear structure and a clear mandate to promote advocacy as far as protection of the environment is concerned. They use legal means such as information campaigns, research, political lobbying, public education, and direct action (Ostopowich 4). The methods pursued by Greenpeace are a model that must be promoted by authorities for other groups to follow. The public support to the group is even enormous as they have more than 3 million memberships and receives donations from other independent institutions that support environmental protection. Governments from different countries of the world even support their cause and activities. Peaceful efforts and political lobbying resulted gains for Greenpeace as they first institutionalized the banning of whale hunting through the International Whaling Commission in 1981 (Ostopowich 20). Other notable accomplishments as far as peaceful efforts of Greenpeace are concerned are the UN enactment of guidelines to stop destruction of forest and lake pollution in 1987 and the stop of ice whaling in Iceland among others. Greenpeace made good accomplishments as compared to those which opt for violence. Promulgating laws with higher penalties One of the approaches currently employed by independent states to combat ecoterrorism is by promulgating laws that impose higher penalties upon the offenders. As early as 2003, the need for laws aimed “specifically at radical environmental and animal-rights activists” has already been felt (Knickerbocker “New Laws” p.1) although laws were already crated in 1988 to 1992 most of them are focused towards protecting animal enterprises (Liddick and Liddick 99). Several states in the US have already adopted stricter laws that carry greater penalties for offenders. Oregon state as an example has a bill, that put a Class A felony charge on offenders who vandalizes or steals from a research facility, logging operation or livestock business more than two times in five years. Convictions carry a penalty of 20 years in prison and a $300,000 fine. Conclusion The complexity of ecoterrorism as compared to other forms of terrorism lies on the type of parties involved. While ecoterrorist groups such as Earth First, EFL, and AFL, or other organizations operating throughout the world are known for their violent acts, the members creating havoc upon entities with environmental involvement operates in an independent way and are hard to track down. The growing threat to destruction of properties and ultimately to human lives is real and so action is required with urgency. While it is true that violence cannot be solve by violence, stricter laws and government policies must be in place giving heavier consequences upon perpetrators of ecologic based crimes. The world must be one in condemning the acts of ecological terror and join major countries that denounce these radical group’s actions. In dealing with environmental causes, government throughout the world should also reconsider their environmental policies and make changes to give in to demands of advocates as long as benefits are greater over the consequences as supported by reliable information. In coming up with actions, there is no better tool than proper information, education, and dissemination involving not only the government but also the public as a whole. With all sectors participating in a common cause of environmental protection, there is no reason why ecoterrorism could not be stopped. Works Cited Beck, Colin J. “On the Radical Cusp: Ecoterrorism in the United States, 1998-2005.” Mobilization 12.2 (June 2007):161-176 Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella, II eds. “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front.” Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?  Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. New York, NY: Lantern Press. 2002: 9-63. Bohn, Kevin et. al. 11 Indicted on ecoterrorism charges. January 20, 2006. CNN.com. September 4, 2008 Bosworth, Brandon. “America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” Terror Watch. May-June 2002. 48-49 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Governor Signs Ecoterrorism Bill into Law. April 14, 2006. September 4, 2008. < http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp? Q=451790&A=11> Jarboe, James. “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism”: Testimony before the House Resource Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. 105th Cong., 1st Session. 12 Feb. 2002. Knickerbocker, Brad. “A troubling rise in violence for green causes.” June 6, 2005. The Christian Science Monitor. September 5, 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p03s01-ussc.html?s=widep Knickerbocker, Brad. “New laws target increase in acts of ecoterrorism.” November 26, 2003. The Christian Science Monitor. September 5, 2008 < http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1126/p02s01-usju.html?s=widep> Kushner, Harvey W. Encyclopedia of Terrorism. 2003. SAGE. 523pages. Laurendeau, Jason. and Van Brunschot, Erin. "‘Ecoterrorism’ and Moral Panics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles, CA, Nov 01, 2006. Liddick, Don and Liddick, Donald. Eco-terrorism: Radical Environmental and Animal Liberation Movements. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. 189 pages Lee, Martha F. “Violence and the environment: The case of earth first! Terrorism and Political Violence, 7:3(Autumn 1995):109 – 127 Ostopowich, Melanie. Greenpeace. 2003.Weigl Publishers Inc. 32 pages Runyon, L. Cheryl. “Eco-terrorism-A New Kind of Sabotage.” National Conference of State Legislatures. September 4, 2008 Smith, Rebecca K. “Ecoterrorism?: A critical analysis of the vilification of radical environmental activists as terrorist.” Environmental Law 38:537 (2008) 537- 576 Smith, G. Davidson. Single Issue Terrorism. 1998. September 4, 2008 http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/pdfs/C-17.pdf Trujillo, Horacio R. “Chapter VI: The Radical Environmentalist Movement.” Aptitude for Destruction Vol 2: Case Studies of Organizational Learning in Five Terrorist Groups. California, USA: RAND Corporation. 2005. 141-172 Watson, Paul. “Dealing with the Hypocrisy of the Human Perceptions” Feb 10, 2007. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. September 4, 2006. Read More