The Justice Department warned as early as 2003 that the FBI’s obsessive focus on animal rights and environmental activists, the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” would leave more dangerous threats unchecked.

The Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General audited the FBI and provided recommendations for improving its terrorism investigations. [You can read Audit Report 04-10 here.] The audit raised multiple concerns with the bureau’s treatment of animal rights and environmental activists as terrorists, concerns that take on a new urgency in light of the recent shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others.

Are there institutional, systemic flaws within law enforcement that allowed this to occur?

The inspector general’s report focused on communications problems within the FBI, and the quality of terrorism intelligence sent by the bureau to state and local law enforcement. The audit revealed the FBI’s weekly Intelligence Bulletins and Quarterly Terrorist Threat Assessments often focused on political activists. The inspector general recommended that the FBI’s intelligence updates focus on “domestic terrorist activities aimed at creating mass casualties or destroying critical infrastructure, rather than information on social protests and domestic radicals’ criminal activities.”

More importantly, the audit warned that the FBI’s focus on animal rights and environmental activists placed public safety at risk. In one of its six recommendations, the inspector general’s office advised the FBI to stop investigating animal rights and environmental activists as terrorists and to shift these cases to the FBI’s criminal division.

The FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism has become too broad, the report said: “. . . a more focused definition may allow the FBI to more effectively target its counterterrorism resources.”

The FBI refused.

Steven C. McGraw of the FBI’s inspection division responded in a letter to the inspector general that these groups have “caused considerable damage to the U.S. economy,” and that the Joint Terrorism Task Forces are the best way to investigate them.

Although the inspector general’s office does not have the power to override such refusals, the office wrote back and reiterated its concerns:

“We believe that the FBI’s priority mission to prevent high-consequence terrorist acts would be enhanced if the Counterterrorism Division did not have to spend time and resources on lower-threat activities by social protestors.”

Pennyslvania’s Department of Homeland Security is in hot water after an intelligence bulletin shows the agency has been monitoring non-violent activists, including a film screening of Gasland, and labeling them “environmental extremists.”

Governor Ed Rendell has said he is “appalled.” But he has said he will not fire the state director of homeland security, James Powers.

As I discussed on the Alyona Show recently, this intelligence memo represents a national problem. Local, state and federal “domestic terrorism” priorities are completely out of line with what most reasonable people would agree are true threats. They are completely detached from any rational definition of terrorism. Perhaps the best example of that is James Powers himself.

As director of homeland security, Powers is responsible for the controversial intelligence bulletins. James Powers wrote in an email that he intended for pro-drilling industry groups, “We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies.” The department chose to focus its resources on non-violent environmental groups such as Climate Ground Zero. But do you know who James Powers does NOT think is a “terrorist”?

Timothy McVeigh.

As I reported here previously, Powers does not think McVeigh is a terrorist, “just a person very angry with the U.S. government.” McVeigh is responsible for the most destructive act of terrorism on U.S. soil prior to 9/11.

Unfortunately, James Powers is indicative of a broader problem. For instance, check out what the head of New Jersey’s homeland security office, Charles McKenna, had to say about his priorities:

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system…”

No one with such a transparent political agenda and absurd priorities should head such a powerful office. It’s time for James Powers to either resign from his position, or for Governor Ed Rendell to force him out. And if reports by the Patriot-News are accurate, and the governor’s staff knew of these operations long ago, they need to be forced out as well.

Such skewed terrorism priorities place all Americans at risks. When people like James Powers and Charles McKenna are focused on environmental and animal rights activists, pandering to their corporate supporters, it means they are not doing their jobs and focusing on more serious threats. It’s time we stop tolerating their political games.

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.

It’s always a challenge to explain the “Green Scare” and this website quickly and succinctly. I was playing around with YouTube’s new “SearchStories” channel, and gave it a shot by focusing on misplaced government priorities. And it’s 35 seconds! Let me know what you think.

Oh, and there are plenty of links on the YouTube page, explaining each line of the video.

Tea Party poster.

By contrast, the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI, is the animal rights and environmental movements.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of three recent right-wing cases which have not been labeled terrorism, and how they compare to activist cases that have.

• Militia member incites brick attacks on lawmakers’ offices. Mike Vanderboegh, former militia member from Alabama, urged readers of his blog to throw bricks through Democratic offices in response to health care legislation. “So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows,” Vanderboegh wrote. “Break them NOW…” The call to action worked: in the week that followed at least 10 lawmakers had offices vandalized or received death threats.

  Six animal rights activists were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for doing much less. They were part of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, and ran a website that posted personal information about executives tied to the controversial lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They posted both news reports of both legal and illegal actions, and supported all of it. They also published essays about why they support non-violent direct action and sabotage. They were sentenced to between 1 and 6 years in prison. And the former militia member? He hasn’t even been arrested.

• Plotting to attack Muslims and police, and use a weapon of mass destruction. The Christian militia group called Hutaree is shown in one of their promo videos here. According to The New York Times, the defendants were “part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.”

  The New York Times doesn’t call this racist, political violence “terrorism.” Yet a group of environmentalists who sabotaged property as part of the Earth Liberation Front, without harming or intending to harm a single person, were smeared as terrorists immediately upon arrest. The Times used the word in the headline, throughout the story, and in all subsequent coverage.

• Urging Tea Partiers to “reload.” Sarah Palin told a rally of 8,000 tea-partiers: “It’s not a time to retreat. It’s a time to reload.”

  Animal rights activists have been charged with terrorism for much less fiery speech. The AETA 4, for example, are not accused of property destruction or threats of violent. They are being charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting and chalking slogans on the streets using children’s sidewalk chalk.

  To be clear, I am not arguing that Palin’s comments should be labeled terrorism. But what do you think would happen if an animal rights activists or environmentalist made the same comment, but about animal researchers?

The word terrorism is inherently malleable. There is not one true meaning of the word, no universal criteria for its application. However, these dramatic disparities extend far, far beyond any natural difficulties in using the term fairly.

People are being singled out for selective prosecution because of their politics and their threat to corporate profits. Once convicted, they are then being singled out again; Daniel McGowan, one of the Earth Liberation Front defendants, is in a secretive experimental prison called a Communications Management Unit.

Meanwhile, groups that pose a much more serious threat to human life, and have a demonstrated history of violence, go untouched. If the word terrorism is rhetorically and legally applied to non-violent animal and environmental activists, it must also be applied to much more dangerous groups.

That being said, it is not enough for us to respond by saying “They’re terrorists too!” or “We’re not terrorists, they are!”

Clamoring to label others as terrorists misses the point, which is that the word, the most dangerous and powerful term in the media and in our legal system, is nothing more than a fluid brand to attack the enemy of the hour.

A man intentionally flew his airplane into an IRS office in Austin as a part of suicide attack yesterday, and left behind a manifesto outlining his anti-government grievances, but politicians and the press are somehow unsure about whether it should be labeled terrorism. Meanwhile, a bill was introduced in Washington State this session labeling civil disobedience and First Amendment activity as “eco-terrorism.”

It’s not an isolated instance. Across the country, at the state and federal level, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, corporations and the politicians who represent them have campaigned to label animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Even the most radical underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have never harmed a human being.

Yet those who have murdered abortion providers and flown planes into building escape the label.

Let’s take a closer look at the systemic disparities.

These have all been labeled terrorism in the press, state houses or the courts:

• Washington “Eco-terrorist” Bill Includes Civil Disobedience and First Amendment Activity
• Utah Bill Would Make Environmentalists Like Tim DeChristopher “Eco-Terrorists”
• Animal Rights Activists Charged As Terrorists for Chalking Slogans on Public Sidewalks and Wearing Masks at Protests
  
• Canadian Politician Says PETA Throwing a Pie is Terrorism
• ELF Activist Receives Longer Prison Sentence Than Racists Who Attempted to Assassinate Obama
• Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists
• Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience is Not Protected Speech

According to the FBI, none of these recent crimes are terrorism:

• Threatening to kill or injure police officers at a public tax protest assembly called a “Tea Party”
• Louisiana Man Convicted of Civil Rights Violation in Connection with Cross-Burning
• E-Mailing Threatening Communications to Judges
• Threatening Employees of Latino Civil Rights Organizations
• Man Held Hostages at Gun Point inside Post Office
• Homeland Security Says Timothy McVeigh Isn’t a Terrorist, But Peace Activists Are
  

Focusing scarce anti-terrorism resources on animal rights and environmental activists, while there are clearly domestic groups who have, and will continue, to carry out physical violence, puts all Americans at risk. Perhaps if the government spent less time preparing for attacks by environmentalists, events like this could be prevented.

In honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., here are a few stories we’ve published in the past about King’s legacy, and how his actions might be viewed in today’s political climate:

• Remembering MLK the “Terrorist”
  
• MLK Speech on Civil Disobedience, I mean, “Terrorism”
• Terrorism Law Passed as Lawmakers Honor MLK

Image CC licensed from pictoscribe.

New video shows Japanese whalers changing course to intentionally ram the Sea Shepherd’s Ady Gil as the high-tech ship sat idly in freezing waters.

The ship was destroyed and a Sea Shepherd crew member suffered cracked ribs, according to news reports. What’s even more disturbing is the Japanese ship, which was many times the size of the Ady Gil, refused to acknowledge a distress call from the environmental activists.

According to the Japan Times:

Watson, speaking from aboard the ship Steve Irwin, also said Sea Shepherd put out a mayday distress signal “but the Japanese fleet refused to acknowledge that and just kept going. It was a hit and run.”

The Japanese whalers have long been attempting to label the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as an “eco-terrorist” organization because of its campaigns to directly intervene in the illegal slaughter of whales. They have gone so far as to call Animal Planet a terrorist organization, for airing a TV program about the group called “Whale Wars.” And even when they shot Captain Paul Watson, they still maintained that it was the environmentalists, not the whalers, who were the “eco-terrorists.”

This is perhaps the most disturbing incident to date of the reckless violence of the whalers, not only against the whales but against anyone who tries to halt them. They directly threatened the lives of non-violent activists, destroyed their ship, then left them in freezing waters and ignored a distress call.

Which is the terrorist organization, again?

A White Supremacist and Holocaust denier, James W Von Brunn, opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. this afternoon, wounding at least one person before being shot in the head. That makes the second violent attack by right-wing extremists in about three weeks.

Meanwhile, the “radical” animal rights and environmental movements have not harmed a single human being in their 30-plus years of existence. Yet they are the FBI’s “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

On top of this, the Holocaust Museum–one of D.C.’s most popular tourist destinations–was full of school children. And it’s not the first time Brunn armed himself in the nation’s capital:

In 1981, von Brunn entered the Federal Reserve in Washington with a shotgun to make a citizens arrest, he later said, to protest about high interest rates. He was sentenced to 11 years in jail.

Will the government and the press respond the same way they did in the murder of Dr. Tiller, and not label it “terrorism”?

How do you think the government and the press will respond?

We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.

The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.

Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:

1. Plotting to assassinate the president.
2. Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
3. Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
4. Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
5. Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
6. Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
7. Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
8. Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
9. Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
10. Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
11. Making bomb threats on an airplane.
12. Impersonating an armed federal agent.
13. Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
14. Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
15. Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
16. Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
17. Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
18. Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
19. Kidnapping 3 children.
20. Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
21. Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
22. Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
23. Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
24. Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
25. A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
26. Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
27. Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
28. Stealing cattle for personal profit.
29. Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
30. Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”

Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?