On your way home from work today don't grab that massive Sunday Seattle Times from the yard and toss it straight into the recycling bin. Usually, yes, if you don't get to it on Sunday it isn't worth reading, but at least pull the section with the "Is ecosabotage terrorism?" article out and bring it into the house this time. It's worth reading. Once upon a three months ago the Seattle Times was the local king of referring to all manner of arsonists and politically-motivated sabateurs as "ecoterrorists." Maybe they've had a change of heart.
Some balk at putting the terrorism label on activists who have targeted property — not people.In the post-9/11 era, they say that the word tilts the criminal-justice system against defendants and helps the Bush administration justify a broader infiltration — and surveillance — of groups that protest government policies.
Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union indicate that the FBI has monitored the activities of some environmental, animal-rights and peace groups.
"You couple spying on political dissenters with grand jury subpoenas and a series of arrests, it's had a huge shared some of the letteeffect," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. "There is a serious danger of chilling dissenting points of view."
The FBI decision to run these investigations through a counterterrorism branch also has been questioned by its own Office of Inspector General, which in a 2003 report recommended that the cases should be handled by its criminal division.
Well that's just fair thinking after such headlines as "Six people arrested for Northwest ecoterrorism attacks," "FBI arrests three suspected eco-terrorists," and "FBI, building industry offer reward for capturing ecoterrorists." It looks like the Times changed their style from "ecoterrorist" to "eco-terrorist" sometime late in 2005 - Are they preparing for a change from "eco-terrorist" to something less loaded?
The paper shared some of the letters it's received in response to the article online today and by our unscientific count they printed 15 "eco-sabotage is not terrorism" letters, 12 "yes it is" letters and 5 "yes it is, but with these huge qualifications" letters. We can only guess as to the volume of each they actually recieved.
We've noted in the past that the P-I has been less willing to use the word "terror" when discussing politically-motivated arsonists and the like.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Here in Kitsap the organizers of the Viking Festival (http://www.kitsapsun.com/bsun/local/article/0,2403,BSUN_19088_4684836,00.html ) have been receiving racist threatening letters since they picked an African American girl as the festival queen. Is that terrorism? Are the psychos that mail packages of dish soap labeled as anthrax to women’s clinics terrorists? Are the psychos that stockpile firearms and plan to fight the ATF and FBI terrorists? Are the psychos that harass women’s clinic doctors terrorists?
Groups like ELF and ALF are idiots and vandals but since they are not threatening violence against people I have a hard time considering them terrorists.
Are union members who picket for higher wages considered "terrorists?" No. Are people who picket to stop logging an old growth forest considered "terrorits?" Yes. Hmmmm, seems there is a disparity in the system. Anything that slows a company from raping our ecosystem is now considered "ecoterrorism" and that folks is our money hungry administration at its best. I consider the IRS more of a "terrorist," but we wouldn't want to over-use the term now would we?