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

The mainstream press and even Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have joined the government attacks on Wikileaks, but that hasn’t been enough to protect major media outlets from the hysteria. Senator Joe Lieberman has called for Congressional investigations into the New York Times over its reporting on Wikileaks sources.

If this is a surprise to anyone, that political hacks would extend their authoritarian attacks from new media projects to venerable news institutions, it shouldn’t. This is the logical, lumbering progression of state power, whittling away at freedom of the press step by step, tirade by tirade. It’s a reflection of the urgency of this situation, and the need for anyone who cares about freedom of the press to militantly defend the freedoms of the new, digital press.

And yet: Silence. Silence from the bulk of the press corps. And outright condemnations of Wikileaks from the rest. There have been few voices of reason in this hysteria. Among them have been Glenn Greenwald and Jack Shafer.

It may be that the most damning revelations from Wikileaks are not diplomatic cables or military videos, but a clear picture of the state of the American media. As I wrote yesterday, this is why Wikileaks is being labeled a terrorist organization, and the mainstream press is not. Wikileaks has illuminated the failures of the mainstream press, and the backlash by top-tier journalists reflects their sycophanting and delusional relationships with government power.

The attacks on Wikileaks are attacks on the future of journalism. Media outlets who sit quietly while this happens deserve everything the Liebermans and Feinsteins of the world send their way.

Wikileaks is a threat. We’ve heard it incessantly, from Democrats and Republicans, the State Department and Paypal.  Some have gone so far as to call the open-publishing project a “terrorist organization.”

It’s true. Wikileaks is a threat. But it is not for any of the flimsy reasons we’ve been hearing.

The true threat of Wikileaks, and the reason it is being labeled a terrorist organization by both politicians and, disturbingly, some journalists, is not the content of its documents but the premise of its work.

Wikileaks is a “threat” because it challenges the secrecy, control and power upon which all mainstream media outlets and authoritarian regimes depend.

To understand the threat of Wikileaks, we need to step back and look at the changing media landscape. There has much hyperbolic talk about the “internet revolution” and blogs. Turn on CNN or go to any major media outlet, and they are frantically trying to find out what “The Bloggers” are doing. There is truth to some of this buzz—blogs represent a democratization of publishing, and although the most popular are about funny kittens and celebrities, there is potential here.

A limitation to this potential, though, is the fact that bloggers primarily rely on other people’s reporting. Bloggers may skewer mainstream media, but they are bound to it. They hyperlink to it. For the few that are able to blog fulltime, they (mostly) still lack the time, resources, or training to break national stories. The vast majority are not calling sources, following leads, or tracking down documents: they are talking about what traditional media outlets are doing.

Meanwhile, newspapers are dwindling. Papers are downsizing. Bureaus are closing. News outlets are relying more heavily on wire content and fluff. Even top-tier dinosaur publications are struggling to create a news business model for a digital age. And as they are focused on staying alive, they are not focusing on investigative reporting.

Enter Wikileaks.

What’s truly radical about Wikileaks is that it is a completely new model of journalism. It uses the web not to distribute content, but to distribute sources.

It’s to say: Here are documents. Read them. Link to them. Write whatever you want. You don’t have to be a White House correspondent. You don’t have to have a “Deep Throat” or other high profile source. You don’t have to be a so-called “real” journalist. You can be a blogger, an activist, a student, they are all equal.

To the mainstream press, this is a threat to a career which has increasingly become more about cozying up to politicians than speaking truth to power.

To the government, this is a threat to secrecy and control.

Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has threatened to release a “poison pill” of documents if he is arrested or assassinated.

In many ways, the government and even some journalists have already swallowed that pill before he had the chance; politicians labeling Wikileaks a “terrorist organization,” and reporters sickeningly labeling Wikileaks “subversion,” are crystal clear indications of the power of this journalism model, and the potential it holds for holding both government and the fourth estate accountable.

UPDATE: Today the State Department proudly announced in a press release, “U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011.” Not even The Onion could have written a more Orwellian, perfectly-timed press release.

Now I understand why the group that fought the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act in Missouri had the backing of the Tea Party: They’re both out of their minds.

The Daily show had a great segment with Anita Andrew of the Alliance for Truth.

Among the gems of wisdom from Andrews:

“Proposition B is very similar to Obamacare. They’re expecting all the breeders to sit there and pay exorbitant amounts of care that are not needed. Like adequate food, adequate water, adequate space…”

Andrews responding to the ASPCA: “When people get free puppies they don’t value their puppies as much as they should.”

“Proposition B is one more step to making us a communist socialist society.”

This is the same group that called the Humane Society “radical” and “extremist.”

I posted this because it’s a great example of how industry groups take any meme that has been proven to work, and apply it to their own special interests. This is how “eco-terrorist” rhetoric became so popular; corporations and industry groups saw how effective “terrorism” language can in demonizing and persecuting entire groups of people. This is the same strategy, taken to even more absurd lengths. “Obamacare” misinformation helped derail modest health care reforms in Congress, and Andrews is applying the same buzzwords to groups like the Humane Society.

Of course, none of this makes any sense. But it doesn’t need to. I think it’s a great example of how, in the eyes of these people, facts matter much less than the latest guilt-by-association buzzword.

Thanks to Erik Marcus for the tip.

A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.

James Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is a one-man campaign against the Discovery Channel, which airs programs such as Whale Wars… programs that the Japanese have attacked as supporting “eco-terrorists.” Lee spent thousands of dollars out of his own pockets advertising his protests, and paid homeless people to attend. His “manifesto,” as some are beginning to call it, rails against “parasitic human infants,” including “immigration pollution and anchor baby filth.”

I have been covering the radical environmental movements for over 10 years, and I’m flat-out confused by all of this. Here’s why. Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is directed at a company that is not the ire of any other animal rights and environmental activists. The Discovery Channel has actually been attacked as promoting radical environmentalism. Lee seems to have had no involvement with any environmental groups (aboveground or underground) except his one-man show. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the environmental movement. None of it adds up. Yet the mainstream press has been clamoring to say this was a “radical environmentalist” or “eco-terrorist.”

Is “radical environmentalist” a more acceptable rush judgment than saying someone was insane? Because that’s the first, and only, thing that has come to mind in this case.

James Lee has written:

“The Discovery Channel is a big part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of showing successful solutions, their broadcast programs seem to be doing the opposite. Shows like ‘Cash Cab’ and ‘Dirty Jobs’ serve as diversions to keep the focus off what is really important, which is Global Warming and Animal Extinction. Why do they broadcast a show like “Future Weapons” that only promise to destroy the planet even more? And their new lineup “Planet Green” is all about more products and other substandard solutions.”

I’ve read countless communiques and justifications by radical groups about their actions, and whether or not you agree with them, you can at least follow some string of reasoning. The target has some connection to the radical beliefs they espouse. In this case? It seems to be the result of personal obsession divorced from reality.

Even with far-right extremists murdering abortion-providers, shooting up mosques, bombing black churches, there is some line of reasoning, however thin, that can be threaded between them and their targets. When a white supremacist stormed the Holocaust museum, one can connect the actions to a long line of holocaust denialism in those groups. When an anti-abortion bomber murders doctors, the link is much more direct. When Joe Stack flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, there was a network of people supporting his actions and decrying the tyranny of taxation. Some call him a hero.

So could some of the right-wingers and mainstream reporters covering this please make the same connection in this case? Is there a movement against the Discovery Channel I am unaware of? Are there other eco-terrorists outraged by “Dirty Jobs” and “Future Weapons”? I do not intend to make light of this situation or the fear instilled in those hostages. However, as this issues spirals out of control, could one of these talking heads please stop and help me connect Lee to something, ANYTHING, except the local homeless shelter?

[Update: For more, see "James Lee, the Unabomber, and Mental Illness vs. Terrorism"]

Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy.

A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.

He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job.

“We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said.

The targets of this new profiling technology?

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists.

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk.

“It’s one of the most evil books ever,” said Glenn Beck, holding up a copy of The Coming Insurrection. (The video starts at 2:30). He then held up a copy of We Are an Image From the Future as he went on a nonsensical tirade against the threat of “communists” who want to destroy families.

For the most part, I think it’s a waste of time to get wrapped up in Glenn Beck’s nonsense. Being absurd and bombastic is this guy’s shtick. He has made millions doing it. When people start calling books “evil,” though, I think that’s reason to pay attention.

We should be concerned when people like Glenn Beck call books “evil” because people like Glenn Beck don’t read. For instance, the books he railed against were not written by communists, but by anarchists, a point which AK Press addressed in a very well-crafted response.

Or, perhaps Beck and his producers have read the books, know what they say, and they just don’t care. I really have no idea.

It’s hard to tell if people like Beck are stupid, or evil, or both. And that’s why, when I watched the clip above, I felt like I was watching a skit.

Give Glenn Beck a British accent, and is he not the spitting image of Lewis Prothero in “V is for Vendetta,” the scare-mongering talking head keeping an Orwellian country in perpetual fear?

The over-the-top hysteria; the scare-mongering against immigrants, unions, and anyone who is an “other”; the warnings that American values and families are under attack… it just doesn’t seem real. It is too much. Too far. It doesn’t seem real because we’ve seen this before, in films and literature whenever an artist wants to create an exaggerated, larger-than-life symbol of freedom sacrificed in the name of fear.

More and more, it feels like we are living fiction.

By Matt Bors. Just change Bush to Obama.

The proposal to chip away at Miranda rights is yet another attempt in recent weeks to carve out exceptions to fundamental legal protections for people the government has labeled terrorists, or “suspected terrorists.”

Attorney General Eric Holder said the recent Times Square bombing attempt reflects the need for “modifying the rules” in the case of suspected terrorists. The administration argues that reading someone their rights interrupts the flow of interruption and could prevent investigators from learning critical information.

This is a solution in search of a problem. There is already a law on the books allowing a delayed reading of Miranda rights if there is an immediate threat to public safety. According to The New York Times:

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.

Plus, even after Shahzad was read his rights, he waived them and kept talking.

In supporting this legislation, Obama is lock-step with far-right politicians who say that when it comes to “terrorism” cases, the rule of law is too inconvenient.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the Times Square bomber: “I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning…I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant…”

This proposal comes at the same time there is a bipartisan bill to strip “suspected terrorists” of their citizenship, and Arizona has outlawed ethnic studies programs and classes that are “subversive.” In addition to all of this, in Obama’s home state there is a secretive political prison that could be made permanent.

Supporters of all of these unconstitutional policies claim that if you aren’t a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. These laws, we’re told, are merely tools to keep us safe.

My question at this point is: Is there anything off the table? Is there any part of the Constitution that Obama and others are not willing to hack? Any point at which they say, “No, now that would just be going too far”?

What was it again the terrorists hate?

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.

Remember when someone set fire to so-called “green” mansions in a Seattle suburb? The builders of the Street of Dreams rushed to label it “eco-terrorism” by the Earth Liberation Front, and so did the FBI. They pointed to a banner left at the scene that said, “Built green? Nope Black!” At the time I wrote that the crime seemed out of place with other ELF crimes, and questioned why developers and law enforcement were rushing to label it “terrorism.” [For an in-depth look at the case: "Before the Smoke Even Clears in Seattle, Bringing Out the T-Word."]

Recently one of the builders, Grey Lundberg, was charged with sales tax fraud, and more than a dozen counts of first-degree theft. From The Herald:

An arsonist on March 3, 2008, destroyed many of the Street of Dreams homes near Echo Lake, including one built by Lundberg. The fires occurred two months after state officials opened their investigation of Lundberg.

The theft charges filed Thursday do not implicate Lundberg in the Street of Dreams arsons.

Lundberg, then owner of CMI Homes Inc., was widely quoted at the time of the arsons talking about the loss of his company’s $2 million property, a home called the Urban Lodge.

Lundberg hasn’t been convicted of these charges, and even if he is, being convicted of tax fraud doesn’t mean he is guilty of insurance fraud. But it does raise some serious questions about the alleged ELF arson.

More importantly, it is yet another reminder (much like the recent case of Michele Basso) of why the press, law enforcement and politicians shouldn’t be so willing to buy the soundbites of people who have vested interests in labeling activists as terrorists.