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!

They’ve been “terrorists” from day one. Since their arrest for a string of property crimes against corporations they believed were destroying the planet, a group of environmental activists from the Northwest have been relentlessly branded “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in government press conferences, Congressional hearings and in the media. On Tuesday, though, in federal court in Eugene, Ore., the government will try to take the T-word one step further.

It’s not just semantics. If the government successfully argues for “terrorism enhancement” penalties, it could add up to 20 years on the sentences, and in some cases quadruple prison time. It could place defendants in cells next to more traditional “terrorists.” And it could allow harsh restrictions on contact with family and friends.

But Tuesday’s court date is about more than these 10 defendants who never harmed anyone but caused about $40 million worth of property damage. And it’s about more than whether the government can put a notch on its “War on Terrorism” bedpost, which hasn’t seen much action lately, to justify the massive investigation and expense of “Operation Backfire.”

It’s about the meaning of a word that, with every mention, can hit Americans harder and deeper than perhaps any other. The word has come to symbolize planes flying into buildings, family and friends murdered, and lives that will never be the same. The “terrorism enhancement” hearing will test how much political mileage the administration can get out of that pain.

“Terrorism is terrorism”

For over a decade, and especially since the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, activists have fiercely debated whether property destruction is “violence” or “direct action.” Ask activists how they feel about breaking windows, gluing locks and burning bulldozers, and some may tell you it only makes John Q. Public less receptive to the issues. Others may tell you that those actions stop the “real” violence: and besides, can you be violent towards an SUV?

Beyond that, even if you do believe that destroying an empty building is violence, there is an even bigger question: is it terrorism?

The FBI doesn’t see a grey area. A crime is either terrorism or it is not. You are “either with us or against us.”

“Terrorism is terrorism — no matter what the motive,” said FBI director Robert Mueller at a press conference announcing the indictments. “The FBI is committed to protecting Americans from all crime and all terrorism…”

The government hasn’t been committed to labeling all crimes “terrorism,” though. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the Alabama church arson cases. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the case of a firefighter who set 28 fires because she wanted overtime pay. And it hasn’t sought “terrorism enhancement” for the murder of abortion doctors.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the Department of Homeland Security does not even list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats. Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. But animal rights and environmental activists still top the “domestic terrorist” list.

The government has singled out these property crimes for “terrorism enhancement” because of the politics of the crime. Motive matters. The defendants didn’t harm anyone, and they didn’t seek to benefit from the crimes, but they committed an even deadlier sin: targeting corporate profits.

“He closed the door”

The crimes didn’t cause any deaths, any injuries, or any substantial risk of death or injury, but make no mistake: these were very serious crimes nonetheless. They often involved arson, which immediately puts the actions on another level, separate from petty vandalism like graffiti or slashing the tires of SUVs. The defendants have accepted responsibility for their actions, and it’s clear they’re heading to prison.

But it’s critical to note in a debate about “terrorism enhancements” that the defendants went to great lengths to make sure they didn’t harm anyone. That’s a concern not shared by suicide bombers and anthrax mailers.

“A terrorist acts from hate and aims to create fear,” says Kevin Tubbs’ attorney in his sentencing memo. “A terrorist’s goal is to cause death, because is the ultimate tool. Death is the ultimate source of fear.”

The government admits as much. In a 148-page document, prosecutors spell out how some of the defendants set fire to the Vail ski resort and caused $24.5 million in damage. During that action, William “Bill” Rodgers had “opened a door and observed two hunters sleeping. He closed the door and did not set that building on fire.”

Daniel McGowan’s attorneys say in “terrorism enhancement” memo that the many precautions taken to “honor human life” separate these activists from what most reasonable people consider “terrorists.”

It is “perhaps the most compelling reason why none of them should be branded a terrorist, why none of them should bear conditions of confinement that are not only degrading and punitive, but that are affirmatively damaging to their mental health, and why none of them should be permanently catalogued in our nation’s history books alongside the names of Mohammed Atta, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or Eric Rudolph.”

These cases don’t fit most people’s ideas of “terrorism.” They don’t neatly fit the legal definition, either. To qualify for the “terrorism enhancement,” the government must show that an action “involved or was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism.” A “federal crime of terrorism” has a specific definition. It has to be one of a laundry list of specific offenses, including presidential assassination, use of weapons of mass destruction, and arson of property used in interstate commerce. It also has to be “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.”

That last part is the kicker. The actions targeted corporations and aimed to stop environmental destruction, not influence the government.

Anti-corporate rhetoric permeates the communiqués written about the crimes, like the one for arson at Superior Lumber that labels the company a “typical earth raper contributing to the ecological destruction of the Northwest” and calls for tactics against “capitalism and industry.” Another, for arson at Jefferson Poplar tree farm, shows that these crimes weren’t meant to influence government, because the defendants had lost all faith that government could be influenced. Instead, they targeted the bottom line.

The court will decide technical matters like this at the hearing on Tuesday. But the push for “terrorism enhancement” penalties should ultimately pose more questions than it answers.

Since 9/11, the T-word has been stretched and pulled and hemmed and cuffed and torn and mended to fit a growing body of political whims. This hearing is ultimately about how far the government can push its political tailoring. It’s also about the point at which we’ve outgrown the rhetoric, and we decide to stop wearing the past.

Will Potter is an award-winning reporter who focuses on how lawmakers and corporations have labeled animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists.” Will has written for publications including The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News and Legal Affairs, and has testified before the U.S. Congress about his reporting. He is the creator of GreenIsTheNewRed.com, where he blogs about the Green Scare and history repeating itself.

Just received this, about the “terrorism enhancement” hearing for the Operation Backfire cases. Activists are also holding a rally at the same time, outside the courthouse…

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release: May 10, 2007

Contacts:
Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, 541-687-9180
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR, 503-295-6400, 202-491-6204

Defendants Decry Gov’t Attempt to Label Crimes “Terrorism”
Civil liberties groups: provision does not apply to nonviolent actions

Eugene, OR — On May 15 defense attorneys representing environmental activists accused of arson and property destruction will argue to U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken that the “terrorism enhancement” provision of the federal sentencing guidelines – which would add an extra 20 years of prison time to each defendant’s sentence – should not be applied to their clients.

A press conference will be held outside the courthouse at noon. Speakers will include defense attorneys for Daniel McGowan, along with representatives from the Civil Liberties Defense Center and the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. The two organizations have opposed the prosecutors’ attempt to label the actions by the defendants as acts of “terrorism,” because their acts did not cause, nor were intended to cause, any harm to human or animal life. “When everyone is a terrorist, no one is.”

WHAT: Federal Terrorism Enhancement Hearings for all Oregon Green Scare defendants
WHEN: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 – 10 am
WHERE: New Eugene Federal Building (405 East 8th Ave.), Judge Aiken’s courtroom (spillover seating will be available)

Copies of a press packet with current related articles, background information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history of F.B.I. repression of political activism will be available at the event.