I wrote an article for Truthout about how, before the dust had even settled at ground zero, corporations and politicians were trying to use the tragedy of September 11th to label environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” Here’s an excerpt:

On September 12, 2001, as emergency crews searched for survivors, Rep. Greg Walden warned Congress that “eco-terrorists” posed a threat “no less heinous than what we saw occur yesterday here in Washington and in New York.” He was not alone: Rep. Don Young publicly speculated that the attack might have actually been the work of environmentalists. A month later, The Washington Times called for war against the “eco-al-Qaeda.”

Comments like this were not gaffes. They were part of a carefully coordinated campaign that had been in the works long before 9/11. When planes hit the Twin Towers nearly ten years ago, most Americans saw an unprecedented tragedy. For some corporations and politicians, it was an unprecedented opportunity.

Read the full article: The “Eco-al-Qaeda”? September 11 Ushered in War on “Eco-Terrorism” and Civil Liberties

Seven members of Greenpeace have been arrested for painting anti-drilling slogans, in crude oil, on a drilling support ship in the Gulf.

Greenpeace says the ship is scheduled to sail to the Arctic this summer, so they rappelled down the side and painted “Ban Arctic Drilling” in oil on the side of the Shell-owned ship.

According to the New York Times, the New Orleans Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI “is looking into the matter” of whether the non-violent activists will face terrorism-related charges.

If you’ve been to GreenIsTheNewRed before, you know “terrorism” laws have been recklessly used against non-violent activists for years. The scare-mongering around this disaster has been particularly bold, though. Just a few weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh was trying to blame the oil spill on “eco-terrorists.” Now, in the wake of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, we are to believe it is the activists, not the oil corporations, who are the criminals?

Phil Radford of Greenpeace put it well:

“It is outrageous that prosecutors would confront peaceful protesters with such a heavy hand while not a single BP executive has been charged for the devastation they have wrought on the Gulf of Mexico and the people and animals that depend on it…”

Thanks to B. Shuga for the link.

The Seafarers’ International Union, part of the AFL-CIO and the largest North American union of its kind, is pushing the Canadian government to label Greenpeace activists as “terrorists” and hit them with stiff penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.

Greenpeace protesters boarded a ship carrying coal and used non-violent civil disobedience to draw attention to global warming. From The Welland Tribune in Ontario:

Two protesters chained themselves to the ship’s discharge boom, which is used to unload coal. A third suspended herself from the vessel’s stern, where she dangled precariously close to the rudder, making movement of the ship impossible.

The trio was eventually cut down and taken away by Ontario Provincial Police to a detachment in Cayuga, Ont., where they were each charged with two counts of mischief.

But according to James Given, a vice-president of SIU, the union is pushing for more serious charges against the activists. The union called the environmentalists “pirates” and “terrorists.”

If you’ve been reading GreenIsTheNewRed.com for a while, you’re probably used to all the “eco-terrorism”
guilt-by-association stuff. But pirates? That’s scare-mongering 17th century style.

Anyway, back to 21st century scare-mongering and the terrorism rhetoric. It’s especially funny in this case, considering the Greenpeace folks chained themselves to the boat, and one hung from the stern, placing herself in serious danger. They aren’t accused of harming people, damaging property, or attempting or conspiring to harm people or damage property. Which begs the question: what, exactly, are Greenpeace advocates “terrorizing” except for corporate profits?