Arte TV recently aired a fantastic new film that examines the persecution of environmental activists as “eco-terrorists.”

“Les Insurgés de la Terre” (loosely translated: “Eco-Warriors) is a documentary by Philippe Borrel that has aired in France and Germany.

The full film is available on the Arte website in French and German. But don’t worry, if you don’t speak either of those languages (like me) there is a webpage of extended interviews, in English, from:

• Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd
• Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International
• Jeff Luers, sentenced to 22 years in prison as a terrorist
• Cécile Lecomte, a French activist in Allemagne
• Will Potter, GreenIsTheNewRed.com
• Earth First Humboldt

I’m featured in the film talking about the government’s misplaced priorities, along with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Here’s the clip from the film (I’m right after an FBI agent and David Martosko). And below are a couple excerpts from the interview.

Jeff “Free” Luers was released from prison early today after a Lane County Circuit Court Judge signed a supplemental judgment granting him an additional 30 percent reduction in his total incarceration time. In 2001, Luers was sentenced to 22 years, 8 months in prison for burning three SUVs in the name of defending the environment. In 2007, an appeals court reversed and remanded the decision. And in 2008, he sentenced was reduced to 10 years. In short, this has been a very, very long time coming.

When someone is released from prison, they have to start over. They must immediately secure housing, employment and essential things that we all take for granted, like shoes and bed sheets. It’s important that political prisoners receive support from the activist community to make this difficult, overwhelming transition as easy as possible. You can donate to Jeff Luers support committee, or purchase something from his wishlist.

As I write this, it is surreal for me to see Luers, a (former) political prisoner, on the REI gift registry. It makes perfect sense, of course: for an environmentalist locked up for 9 years, the first thing he wants to do is experience the natural world. It’s just so bizarre to think that while people are using the same registry for weddings or birthdays or college graduations, activists are using it to welcome home Luers, who has been labeled an “eco-terrorist,” from prison. We live in such indescribably strange times.

UPDATE: Six hours after being released, Luers was taken back into custody. According to the Civil Liberties Defense Center, it was an error by the Department of Corrections, not Luers. That’s all I have right now. Unbelievable. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to step outside the prison walls, feel the sunshine and take photos with friends, and then be forced to leave it all once again.

While the FBI targets environmentalists, Osama bin Laden remains free.

Christopher Paul, aka “Abdul Malek,” is an Ohio native who joined Al Qaeda in the early 90s. According to the FBI, he:

• received training in “the use of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and small unit tactics,”
• fought with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan,
• and returned to Ohio to recruit and establish a terrorist cell.

He pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to use a weapon of mass destruction against Americans at home and abroad. His sentence: 20 years.

By comparison, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” for property destruction in the name of defending the environment.

Her sentence, for arson targeting genetic engineering at Michigan State University, was the most severe yet in what many are calling the “Green Scare.” Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Jeffrey “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for setting fire to SUVs. And Eric McDavid was sentenced to 20 years for “conspiracy” to sabotage the Nimbus dam, even though an FBI operative provided the group with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had the hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

The FBI has labeled the environmental and animal rights movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, and activists like Marie Mason, have clearly broken the law in the name of defending the environment. But they have never used rocket-propelled grenades, never created weapons of mass destruction, and never harmed a single human being.

This should concern everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or economic sabotage: Such skewed government priorities are wasting valuable law enforcement resources targeting environmentalists while Al-Qaeda continues to place American lives at risk.

What kind of message do you think this sends, when environmentalists who target property are a greater national security threat than the organization responsible for the most deadly act of terrorism in the history of the United States?

Jeff Free Luers

What interested me about the interview is when he’s asked about the Green Scare, Operation Backfire, and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

Marlena Gangi: First, what do you have to say about these draconian measures and second, do you have any words of encouragement for activists who have fallen to fear and retreated to the shadows?

Jeff Luers: Fear is the enemy of freedom. We fail to act because we fear the cost of living free. We live in a police state. The U.S. may be the kinder face of fascism, but it is still a fascist state. Yes, we have elected a man who may bring change, but the system that he upholds will still be a capitalist, imperialist monster. If anyone thinks that he isn’t going to protect the corporate interests at the extent of the people, they are wrong. We live in one of the few countries in the world where corporations are granted and guaranteed the same rights under our constitution. By design, our government is structured to uphold that rule of law.

I would rather be in prison or dead than blindly submit to a government I know is corrupt and wrong. I would rather dare to live free and fight against injustice than cower in silence and despair. I think many people feel the same way. We just have to be smarter in how we speak out and in how we act.

A federal judge labeled property destruction in the name of the environment “terrorism” yesterday and sentenced the first of the Operation Backfire defendants to 13 years in prison. Activists around the country– and particularly the remaining nine defendants– had been watching the sentencing very carefully, because the judge’s tenor may foreshadow the remaining court dates.

Her decision may have much broader implications, though, in that it sends a clear message to prosecutors: if you bring politically-motivated prosecutions, toss around “terrorist” rhetoric in the press, and push for “terrorism enhancements” in the courtroom, there’s not much to stand in your way.

Stanislas Meyerhoff had been labeled a “snitch” by activists for offering to cooperate with the government just hours after his detention and interrogation, and before even consulting with his attorney. He has vigorously condemned his own actions, and those of his co-defendants, and he read a handwritten statement denouncing the Earth Liberation Front:

I was stupid; it was my mistaken understanding that the ELF’s ostensible aim was to initiate public discussion of issues highlighted by the dramatic occasion of crimes. The crimes were absolutely counter-productive to this goal. They cut off discussion. Meaningful discourse cannot be forced and fear cannot replace discussion. Transformation solutions will never be comprised of transgressions.

Meyerhoff’s political about-face might have helped during sentencing: his sentence is about 2 1/2 years less than the government offered in his plea deal. Without the deal, he faced 30 to life. And “had prosecutors pursued all possible charges, they earlier estimated he could have faced a minimum of 230 years,” according to The Register-Guard.

The government met Judge Aiken’s criteria for the “terrorism enhancement,” she says, because prosecutors argued that the crimes were all intended to influence government conduct (a key point in the “federal crime of terrorism” definition).

Here’s the reasoning:

• After the September 2000 arson attempt at a Eugene police substation, an anonymous communiqué dedicated the action to a group of anarchists that had been attacked by police. Police substation=government.
• After the March 2001 arson of 35 SUVs at Romania, a communiqué dedicated the action to Jeff Luers, and his prison sentence of 22 years, 8 months for an arson at the same spot. Prosecution=government.
• After a May 2001 arson at Jefferson Poplar Farm, a communiqué referenced new legislation. Legislation=government.

True, these actions are all in some way related to government conduct (just like nearly all legal and illegal activist conduct). But making such simplistic parallel constructions ignores the bigger picture: many crimes could meet such low standards, but these crimes are being singled out to push a political agenda.

“If, as defendants strenuously assert, the government is overreaching due to political considerations,” Aiken said in her opinion, “either the enhancement will not apply to defendants’ offenses or defendants will be eligible for a downward departure because their conduct is outside the ‘heartland’ of terrorism offenses.”

Property crimes like this are outside of that “heartland.” To most people, the “heartland” of terrorism crimes are attacks against government like the Oklahoma City bombing, not actions calculated to destroy property but not human beings. The PR campaigns and War on Terrorism rhetoric are meant to expand that heartland, though, and envelop more and more illegal activity as “terrorism.”

In this With Us Or Against Us War on Terrorism, it seems these activists were clearly in the “against us” camp, according to Aiken. They didn’t play by the books. Their hearts were in the right place, the prosecutorial cliché goes, but they choose the wrong path.

Aiken even took the opportunity to admonish Meyerhoff for hurting the environmental movement. From Jeff Banard of AP:

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Stanislas Meyerhoff for having the courage to “do the right thing” by informing on his fellow arsonists after his arrest, but declared that his efforts to save the earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.”

Environmentalists, rejoice! It’s all for your own good! Labeling activists as “terrorists” is certainly not about protecting corporate profits and scaring the mainstream environmental movement. Far from it. It’s about protecting your reputation!

This film was put out a while back, but recently uploaded to YouTube (with the consent of the filmmakers, it looks like). It’s five parts, and worth watching. It was produced before Luers’ sentence was reduced, but is an interesting look at the case from the perspective of him and his supporters.

Here’s the blurb on the film, and information on getting a hard copy:

This film, made by the Cascadia Media Collective in March 2005 and finalized in early 2006 features the background of Jeff’s case and the motives for his actions from his perspective. It attempts to explain how the state has attempted to portray Jeff as an eco-terrorist leader, and the effects this has had on both the length of the sentence and his life behind bars. The DVD is 40 minutes long and is available from http://www.freefreenow.org or http://www.akpress.org

This is just the first part, you can view the rest on YouTube.

In a move environmental activists are, cautiously, calling a victory in the Green Scare, the Oregon Court of Appeals recently overturned the massive sentence handed down to an environmental activist who admittedly torched three SUVs. Jeff “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years in prison for his role in arson at the Romania truck lot in Eugene. The fire caused about $50,000 in damage, no one was injured and it took 20 minutes to contain.

In the appeals court ruling, which you can read here, the court upheld all 10 of his felonies but said that the trial court had made a mistake sentencing him back-to-back for 266 months. To put things in perspective, the bulk of Luers’ sentence is for first-degree arson. The sentence for that is a mandatory 7 1/2 years (about a third of the sentence Luers received).

According to The Register Guard:

The ruling leaves Luers, who already has served six years, facing a total sentence of between 11 years, four months and 13 years, two months, Chief Deputy Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner said Wednesday. Luers or the state attorney general may appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. If neither side appeals, then the sentence may be settled through negotiations with
Luers, Gardner said.

There are a few interesting points in the ruling that have been left out of most of the news coverage of this, and I think they’re worth noting:

*Luers also challenged a decision by the trial court that the incendiary device– a milk jug with a stick of incense stuck in a sponge– used in an attempted arson at Tyree Oil was a “weapon.” The trial court also found that the “defendant’s placement of the device near a petroleum storage depot could have resulted, although it did not actually result, in ‘very significant’ harm or loss.” The appeals court declined to make a decision on this.

That’s unfortunate, because in many ways that cuts to the heart of a lot of this “eco-terrorist” rhetoric. Luers has been forthright about his role in these actions, his political motivations, and his intentions to damage property while taking precautions against harming life. So is it fair to call the milk jug and stick of incense a weapon, even though it was not used to hurt anyone, and it was not intended to be used to hurt anyone, in order to increase his sentence? And will doing so– using a word like “weapon”– make it even easier to continue using this “War on Terrorism” to target politically-motivated property crimes (in this case, one that caused relatively little economic damage)?

*Luers also made a motion to separate two sets of charges related to the SUV fires and the attempted fires at Tyree Oil. He says the evidence collected in one case wouldn’t be admissible in the other. And, more importantly, that he “wished to be tried to a jury and to testify in the Tyree Oil matter–which, according to defendant, involved only circumstantial evidence and for which he had an alibi–while waiving his right to jury trial and testifying only as to limited matters regarding the Romania fire counts.” In plain English, that means he thought he had a better chance of a fair trial with only a judge for the Romania SUV fires and with a jury (and testifying) at the other.

Sounds like legal inside baseball, right? But here’s the thing. The SUV fires had gotten so much media coverage and relentless use of the T-word that Luers thought it would be impossible to get an impartial jury (Kent Mortimore, a prosecutor in the case, had even told the media: “The bottom line is Luers was a terrorist who set fires and detonated explosive devices trying to make a political point.”) But Luers also adamantly maintained his innocence in the Tyree Oil case.

According to the ruling:

In the hearing on his motion, defendant reiterated those assertions and also contended that he would be prejudiced by “publicity that continues practically every single day about eco-terrorists” who, after his arrest in this case, allegedly committed crimes similar to the Romania fire.

On the push to separate the SUV and Tyree Oil actions, the court ruled against Luers, saying, “Nor were defendant’s rights to jury trial and to remain silent impaired more significantly than in any case involving multiple charges, the evidence for some of which is weaker than that for others.”

Kind of misses the point, doesn’t it?

The court should have gone further in its ruling, but the reduction in Luers’ astronomical sentence is still a victory, and a hard-fought one: it’s a procedural win, but also a symbolic victory against the courts handing down disproportionately high sentences for crimes driven by politics rather than greed. It may also reflect another step towards rulings against the “eco-terrorist” media blitzes and misplaced government priorities.