In the aftermath of the Arizona shooting, FBI agents are investigating what they say may be another act of domestic terrorism: spraypaint on fishing boats.

The Boston Herald reports that slogans including “Commercial fishing first class rape” and “sea life kidnapped, murdered, maliciously” were spraypainted on fishing boats in North Plymouth, Massachusetts this week.

The FBI is investigating whether it was the work of the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, which FBI officials have called the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

As the FBI and local press rush to label this vandalism “terrorism,” though, there’s reason to doubt whether it was a crime by environmentalists at all. Local fisherman are upset about government regulations restricting overfishing. And two of the spraypainted slogans were signed “Greenpeace” (a national group which condemns property destruction).

It reminds me of another incident in Massachusetts, where a pet store owner burned down his shop after spraypainting ALF at the scene. It was an insurance scheme.

As I wrote recently, the FBI has already been warned by the Justice Department that its obsessive focus on environmentalists ignores more violent threats.

I think it’s safe to say that this is not the “targeting” that most of the country is concerned about right now.

The oil spill in the Gulf is on track to surpass the Exxon Valdez as the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. That doesn’t bode well financially for BP, and it doesn’t bode well politically for the drill-baby-drill crowd. So how has the far right responded?

By trying to blame it on “eco-terrorists.”

Rush Limbaugh, after reminding listeners that “Al Gore urged young people…to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants,” speculated that the explosion was the work of “environmentalist wackos”:

Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has also said that environmental activists could be the culprits:

“I think it’s a possibility clearly… This plays right into the real policy of this administration, which is ‘we hate big oil, we hate off-shore drilling and now we have an excuse not to do it.’”

This is, of course, complete garbage. BP officials have said the explosion was caused by a failed piece of equipment. And the “SWAT teams”? Right-wing bloggers noted that the Interior Department was speaking metaphorically about a team of inspectors.

Nevertheless, the eco-terrorism conspiracy theories are running wild. Tea Party bloggers have caught on to it, as have Sean Hannity fans.

In making these comments, Limbaugh was not giving voice to what his average listener was thinking. Regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, no reasonable person could see this unprecedented environmental destruction and think, “You know who must be behind that? ENVIRONMENTALISTS!”

So what’s really going on? The comments by Limbaugh and others are an attempt, however absurd, to do two things:

1. Deflect corporate responsibility. According to the New York Times, the spill is costing BP $6-7 million a day, and total costs could exceed $8 billion. Those are only a portion of the costs. After the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act. It changed the legal landscape around oil spills, and said that lawsuits against the company are not limited to those directly touched by the oil: those who have suffered economic damages can sue. Already, 26 lawsuits have been filed.

   Speculating about “eco-terrorists” is an attempt to cast doubt on the cause of the spill, in order to shift blame away from corporate polluters.

   As Sarah Palin recently said, amidst the increasingly macabre predictions about the Gulf: “I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry.”

2. Deflect attention from the bigger questions. If eco-terrorists were responsible for the spill, then we don’t need to question an industry that, at its core, is unsustainable and destructive. If eco-terrorists were responsible for the spill, then we don’t need to question our reliance on a substance that, no matter how much we drill, is about to run out.

   We can just go on with business as usual. Everything is fine, but these extremists want you to think otherwise, so they can push their “green socialist agenda.”

   Questioning whether “eco-terrorists” were responsible avoids taking a hard look at who, and what, is really responsible: an American way of life that is inherently unsustainable, and can only be maintained in the short term through increasingly reckless energy policies.

None of this is anything new, for those of you who have been following this “Green Scare.” Animal rights and environmental activists have been labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Because of this, they have been frequent corporate and political scapegoats.

For instance, in 2004, when luxury homes in Maryland burned down, everyone shouted “eco-terrorism,” and then OOPS it turned out to be a group of guys with personal vendettas or out for kicks. Or there was the Boston pet store owner who burned down his store, with the animals inside, and tried to blame “animal rights extremists” as part of an insurance scheme.

In many ways, Limbaugh’s comments are not extreme, they are the norm. Forty years after Earth Day, going green has gone mainstream, but corporations and the politicians who represent them are labeling environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” The problem is not Rush Limbaugh; the problem is misplaced government “terrorism” priorities and scare-mongering that are natural fodder for political opportunists, no matter how untenable their claims.

A Seattle man who drove his Subaru through a group of Critical Mass bike riders has called the cyclists… wait for it… “eco-terrorists.”

It seems that the lunatic driver, Mark, says he felt intimidated and afraid because of the cyclists, so he tried to rev his engine and instead accidentally put a couple people in the hospital. Oops.

The Stranger’s blog interviewed Mark:

While a some cyclists I’ve spoken with have written Mark off as another indignant road-hog, Mark says he actually used to be a bike commuter when he lived in Seattle a few years ago. “I sympathize with [cyclists’] cause. I ride bikes too. I’m a liberal hippie democrat,” he says, adding “I’m gay, the person with me was a lesbian and we were attacked by eco-terrorists. It’s the most Seattle thing that could have happened.

This wasn’t the only recent attack on “eco-terrorist” bikers. Check out this YouTube clip of another Critical Mass ride where a cop randomly tackles a cyclist (and the cyclist was charged with assault and resisting arrest).

I think this may actually top the story of whalers calling Paul Watson an “eco-terrorist,” then shooting him.

What do you think?

The danger of all this “terrorism” rhetoric is how politically malleable it is: industry groups can mold it into “eco-terrorism,” KFC can hammer it into “corporate terrorism” to smear Peta, and on and on and on. The word can be melted and reformed into a weapon against the latest enemy of the hour.

The flipside of that is that people in power can choose to NOT use the word, choose to not smear someone as a terrorist. And, unfortunately, it’s not too surprising what type of activity isn’t labeled “terrorism.”

So when someone spraypainted racist graffiti on Peta’s office, it wasn’t “terrorism,” it was “vandalism.”

“We have 11 different victims, vandalisms occurred sometime between 11:30 p.m. Monday and 6:00 a.m. today,” said Norfolk Police spokesman Chris Amos…

Amos says investigators don’t believe the vandalism is work of “gangs.”

[Don’t you love how “gangs” is in quotation marks? Curious how “eco-terrorism” rarely appears that way.]

So let’s get this all straight. Groups like Center for Consumer Freedom, which protested a book signing by Peta’s Ingrid Newkirk with black masks, religiously call vandalism “terrorism.” Yet when racists vandalize CCF’s political opponents, the group distributes emails poking fun at it: “Irony: Vandal tags PETA headquarters with spray-paint graffiti.”

Clearly, they have their priorities straight.

Meanwhile:

• In Austin, a prominent activist who had been repeatedly harassed by the FBI is found dead, and mainstream media hasn’t had much to say.
• In Idaho, fire gutted an unoccupied home. Whaddayouknow, much like the Seattle arson:
  

  The 3,000-square-foot home was going to be entered in the North Idaho Building Contractors Association Parade of Homes in August, said Todd Stam, the owner of Aspen Homes. Stam said he thought the blaze might be an act of ecoterrorism.

  Buried in the article was the fact that the $720,000 home was unsold. And insured.

• In Kansas, police say a “vandal” used a propane torch to cut through power poles and police consider “eco-terrorism.”
• A “suspicious device” was found outside a research lab in Nevada, and immediately animal rights activists are suspected.

In contrast, when a man sent 17 letters to lawmaker, activists, and journalists, with threatening statements and a substance intended to look like anthrax, he was a “hoaxer,” not a terrorist. (A hoaxer inspired by right-wingers like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin).

When the SHAC 7 post personal information about animal researchers, it’s “animal enterprise terrorism.” But when Michelle Malkin posts the names and addresses of students who protest military recruitment, it’s all in good fun.

The message we’ve seen, time and again: it’s not “terrorism” if right-wingers do it.

Yesterday’s Seattle Times article by Jonathan Martin and Mike Carter raises some good points about the recent arsons outside of Seattle, arsons that the FBI and industry groups like the National Association of Home Builders have rushed to label as not only an Earth Liberation Front action, but “eco-terrorism.”

Some highlights:

“This could be insurance fraud; it could be something to do with the housing market,” said Charles Frahm, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism operations in Washington, D.C.

At the Street of Dreams, a bedsheet painted with “ELF” and a message rejecting “green” building practices was left. Although such signs are an “ELF” calling card, federal agents are not assuming there is an active ELF cell in the area, Frahm said.

So at this stage, they can’t rule out any possibility, including “that ELF is being used in an attempt to misdirect the investigation,” said David Gomez, the FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge.

[That's an interesting change in tone from what federal law enforcement was saying immediately after the blaze.]

Thanks to Jonathan Martin for the critical article, and for interviewing me:

Will Potter, a freelance journalist in Washington, D.C., who has covered the fringe environmental movement since 1999, said it may be a mistake to take the lack of communiqués as a sign that ELF isn’t alive and well. In fact, the silence may represent an evolution in the group.

In the past, prosecutors used the news releases and manifestos to argue for boosted prison sentences under terrorism laws, Potter said.

“Activists may be realizing it’s just one more fingerprint tying them to the crime,” he said.

“Or it means there it is not an ELF action.”

And:

They’re not going to be motivated by their fear; they’re motivated by the ideology,” Potter said.

UPDATE: This blog post was also published by Counterpunch, on March 07, 2008.

Multi-million dollar mansions in a Seattle suburb–each about 4,200-4,750 square feet, going for about $2 million a pop, touted as “green”– were burned Monday. About $7 million in damage on the “Street of Dreams.” Nobody injured, nobody home. But before the smoke had even settled, before the ashes had even cooled, before the Feds had even sorted through the debris, a chant of “Terrorists! Terrorists! Terrorists!” had started rising from politicians, corporations and, most disturbingly, the press.

Most reporters couldn’t even hold off on using the T-word until the second paragraph. The New York Times headline? “Ecoterrorism Suspected in House Fires in Seattle Suburb.” The Telegraph: “Arson attack on green homes by eco terrorists.” The Los Angeles Times photo caption: “An act of terrorism?”

Vested corporate and political interests are revving up the “War on Terrorism” PR-mobile, sexifying and terrorfying a property crime story, and they’re doing it brilliantly. But reporters would do well to remember, regardless of how you feel about the moral or political implications of arson as a tactic, regardless of how you feel about classifying property crimes as “terrorism,” regardless of how you feel about global warming or suburban sprawl or any environmental issue, we still don’t even know the facts. It’s truly shocking–and, after writing about these issues for years, it’s getting harder and harder for this stuff to elicit any surprise–that the press has so boldly proclaimed these suspected crimes as “terrorism” based on off-the-cuff speculation of law enforcement.

Raising Doubts

So far the only evidence of “eco-terrorism” has been a bed sheet left at the scene, hanging on a fence. In spray-painted block letters: “Built green? Nope Black!” and “McMansions + R.C.D.’s r not green.” ["R.C.D.'s" are "rural cluster developments."] The sheet also had the letters “E.L.F.” presumably the call sign of the Earth Liberation Front. The Times noted that banners have been left at other ELF arsons, too. But that doesn’t mean squat. Remember the pet shop owner who burned down his own store, animals included, and spray painted that it was done by the ALF? Or the bomb scare at an animal testing lab, where the feds shouted “Terrorism!” and got the wrong guy?

Or, better yet, have reporters forgotten a nearly identical incident in 2004, when luxury homes in Maryland burned down, everyone shouted “eco-terrorism,” and then OOPS it turns out to be a group of guys with personal vendettas or out for kicks. Among them, a security guard for the subdivision, a member of the volunteer fire department, and some pals, all car-racing aficionados. Not an “eco-terrorist” in the bunch.

It’s simply irresponsible to begin tossing around these terms, and attribute the crime, authoritatively and definitely, without concrete evidence. It’s a dangerous path for journalists to swallow the sound bites of the FBI so willingly, so gleefully.

Eli Sanders of The Stranger raised a very interesting point along these lines, from his “architect friend.”

There’s a part of me that suspects that it was actually just an insurance job. Here’s why: The ‘Street of Dreams’ was in June. And not a single house has sold yet. Each one is about $2M. And the market is only getting worse. If I were a developer… a $7M insurance payout would help a lot.

Federal Speculation
Cops, fire chiefs and the Feds don’t have their stories straight yet. The Associated Press reported, “Crews removed incendiary devices found in the homes, Snohomish County District 7 Fire Chief Rick Eastman said. Later, however, Kelvin Crenshaw, special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in Seattle, said there was no evidence such devices had been used.”

A lack of evidence hasn’t stopped FBI agent Dave Gomez from not only attributing the fires to “eco-terrorists,” but determining what the Elves were thinking. The Washington Post ran a story from Elizabeth M. Gillespie that said:

FBI agent Dave Gomez theorized that those responsible might have chosen not to use any incendiary devices to avoid long sentences if they ever stood trial. Using a destructive device during a federal offense carries a mandatory 30-year sentence, Gomez said, “so whoever committed this crime may have been cognizant of that.”

Again contradicting previous “official statements,” the fires were started with “available combustibles” (perhaps paper or wood) and not incendiary devices. Gillespie also notes that investigators had yet to enter the two damaged homes.

Meanwhile Rick Eastman, the fire chief, told The LA Times: “It was clear the fires were deliberately set.” Eastman let the blazes burn and did not send in firefighters because, the LA Times reports, “he feared the homes might be booby-trapped.”

It’s not clear what, exactly, gave him this impression, because to date not one ELF action–even the most extreme, and potentially dangerous crimes like arsons–has harmed a human being. And to my knowledge, having spoken with former ELF and ALF press officers, there’s never been a “booby-trapped” arson to harm firefighters.

What use are facts, though, with such a sexy story?

Stacking the Deck
The government is trying to stack the deck here. They’re labeling crimes like this as terrorism before they have started investigating and before they’ve even talked to a suspect, because it immediately skews the odds in their favor. If someone is arrested for this crime–whether an environmentalist or another insurance scammer–how could they ever get a fair trial?

What’s worse, as we can see from the comments of FBI Agent Gomez, the government is already setting the foundation for another story: “These eco-terrorists are cunning, they’re getting around existing laws and trying to get reduced sentences. We need more terrorism laws! We need more surveillance powers! We need more more more!”

Terrible Timing
The “eco-terrorism” buzz comes as a jury in Tacoma deliberates the case of Briana Waters. A mother, a violin teacher, Waters is accused of serving as a lookout during a 2001 arson at the University of Washington. The Earth Liberation Front targeted the horticulture center for what they thought was genetic engineering of poplar trees.

Robert Bloom, her lawyer, requested that the judge declare a mistrial, because the “eco-terrorism” buzz of the trials would surely influence the jury against his client. For instance, in 2001, environmentalists set fire to the Romania Truck Center in Eugene, OR as lawyers prepared for the trial of Jeffrey “Free” Luers. Luers was charged with arson at the same truck center, in 2000. That probably wasn’t the best idea: the judge hit back with a 22-year sentence for Luers. There has been no communiqué connecting this week’s arsons to Briana Waters, rhetorically or otherwise, but that doesn’t mean the crimes will not have an impact, as she faces 35 years in prison. The judge has rejected her attorney’s request.

Waters has a lot on the line right now, as the only remaining “Operation Backfire” defendant fighting the charges and maintaining her innocence. In Oregon, other individuals wrapped up in the same government sweep of environmental activists were hit with “terrorism enhancement” penalties for their crimes. Many turned state’s evidence, or cooperators, or snitches, whichever you prefer, and a few held out for non-cooperating plea agreements. Waters’ case is built upon the testimony of two women who agreed to name her name in exchange for a drastic reduction in their own sentences, from more than 30 years down to as low as two. The Seattle arsons aren’t going to help her case.

In light of this, in light of the fact that Waters has been held up as a hero for refusing to cooperate in any way with the government, reporters should be questioning whether environmentalists would choose to commit these crimes and jeopardize her case. I don’t doubt that there are people dumb enough to sabotage someone else’s freedom for their own purposes, but this just doesn’t add up.

Green Scaring and Green Washing

This Green Scare, this crackdown on activists by the FBI, corporations, and the politicians that represent them in the name of fighting “terrorism,” has been escalating at the same time that public awareness of environmental issues has been escalating. Everyone, it seems, is an environmentalist. I’ve seen Hummers with environmental bumper stickers. I’ve seen $200 t-shirts marketed as “organic” and “sustainable.” Everyone is seeing green, green, green, including corporations seeing green potential in this consumer trend.

The Washington Post had a wonderful article by Monica Hesse, “Greed in the Name of Green: To Worshipers of Consumption: Spending Won’t Save the Earth.” Hesse writes:

Congregation of the Church of the Holy Organic, let us buy.

Let us buy Anna Sova Luxury Organics Turkish towels, 900 grams per square meter, $58 apiece. Let us buy the eco-friendly 600-thread-count bed sheets, milled in Switzerland with U.S. cotton, $570 for queen-size.

Let us purge our closets of those sinful synthetics, purify ourselves in the flame of the soy candle at the altar of the immaculate Earth Weave rug, and let us buy, buy, buy until we are whipped into a beatific froth of free-range fulfillment.

And let us never consider the other organic option — not buying — because the new green consumer wants to consume…

When many environmentalists I spoke to first heard about these crimes, destroying luxury homes that were luxurious but also built “green,” they said they cringed. Not only will this be labeled terrorism, they thought, but any shred of information about the environment will get lost in the frenzy. People just won’t get it. Surprisingly, some have had to eat their words.

From the New York Times:

“Stick it to the man!” Mr. Olsen said when told who claimed responsibility for the fires. “I’m not supportive of those tactics but there’s been far too much development.” He added, speaking of the development, “Nobody wanted it.”

From the LA Times:

…Loren, seemed concerned about the rapid pace of development in the area, known for its stables and boutique wineries.

“I don’t feel sorry for the developer,” he said, beginning a long gripe about over-development and “cheap pressboard materials.”

People are fed up. And I’m not just talking about “eco-terrorists” taking drastic action in the name of the environment. I’m talking about everyday people who are fed up with the green washing, fed up with the spinning of environmental passions for corporate profit. And, perhaps most importantly, fed up with the reckless push to label people as “terrorists,” fed up with the domestic spying and terrorism enhancements and grand juries and arrests, fed up with the greening of the never-ending War on Terrorism.

A man who sent letter bombs in the UK apparently used hype and fear around “eco-terrorism” as a “smokescreen.” When news of the letter bombs first broke back in January, there was a lot of talk about the fact that one of the envelopes had the words “Dr Barry Horne, RIP” (the name of a “notorious animal rights terrorist” who died on a hunger strike, according to the prosecutor) along with a small Animal Liberation Front logo.

Whadda you know, it looks like the crimes turned out to have nothing to do with Barry Horne or the ALF. From the BBC:

During the four-day trial, Cooper told the jury his anger at the country’s authorities had intensified when his father Clive was unable to have DNA samples removed from the police database, even though he had been cleared in 2003 of assault.

“I felt my father had been used and I felt unable to do anything about it,” he said.

Cooper had also earlier told the court the letters he sent containing explosive devices were intended to cause fear rather than harm.

They were sent, he added, to organisations he believed were connected to government control, surveillance and monitoring.

Sounds a lot like the Boston pet shop that burned down, and had “No more exploitation of animals” spray-painted on the storefront. Turns out the owner was trying to use fear of “animal rights extremists” for an insurance scam.

Or, like when a UK fish farm owner blamed animal activists for poisoning fish.

That’s one of the dangers of all this “terrorism” scare-mongering. It’s all about opportunism. Corporations, industry groups and politicians are pushing the T-word to protect their own interests, with a reckless disregard for the civil liberties implications of it all. And individuals and smaller businesses see what’s going on, and they jump on the bandwagon to take advantage of the blame game as well.