If anyone is looking for work in this failing economy, you might consider sending your resume to the FBI. Times are getting tight for everyone, but it seems the bureau has enough resources lying around to investigate a box left near the highway four years ago. ["The FBI and the Box of Secrets"... wasn't that a rejected Harry Potter novel? Ok, that's a terrible joke, but Harry Potter did top the detainee reading lists at Guantanamo.]

Sigh. It looks like the box of secrets didn’t have any magical creatures inside. Or bombs, for that matter. It was a metal box with “ELF” written on the side, left near the Schuylkill Expressway. The FBI still thinks it might mean “Earth Liberation Front,” part of the bureau’s “number one domestic terrorism threat.” It caused a four-hour delay. Inside, police found a block of wood.

Something like this probably appeared to be a very serious issue at the time. The metal box had a car antenna welded to the top, and it was attached to an electrical tower. It was completely appropriate to treat this as a dangerous situation.

But four years later and the FBI is STILL investigating this hoax?

And agents are continuing to put out requests for “leads,” simply because environmentalists might have caused the traffic jam?

And all this while there are terrorist groups not carrying out stupid pranks, but planning real attacks?

Address application cover letters to:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535

I was going through some of the old hearings on “eco-terrorism” in the Senate, and found this brief statement from Senator Barack Obama to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The committee was holding a hearing on “Oversight on Eco-terrorism” on May 18, 2005.

Obama, who as you all know is one of the front-runners among Democrats for the presidential bid, raised some good questions about the government’s priorities. Here’s an excerpt from his statement:

However, in our quest to apprehend these criminals, I hope we are not headed down the path of infringing on the ability of legitimate advocacy organizations to express their opinions and to raise funds in order to do so. I do not want Americans to equate groups that advocate violence with mainstream environmental organizations.

We also need to put these violent acts into context. The FBI has indicated a downward trend in the number of crimes committed by these groups – approximately 60 in 2004. While I want these crimes stopped, I do not want people to think that the threat from these organizations is equivalent to other crimes faced by Americans every day. According to the FBI, there were over 7,400 hate crimes committed in 2003 – half of which racially motivated. More directly relevant to this committee, the FBI reports 450 pending environmental crimes cases involving worker endangerment or threats to public health or the environment.

So, while I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Committee’s time would be better spent learning why EPA has not promulgated regulations to deal with lead paint in remodeled homes. Such an oversight hearing could have a significant impact on improving the lives of children all over the country.

Great example of how many people may not be sympathetic to people who commit crimes in the name of the environment or animals, but they do see the danger of this ever-expanding “War on Terrorism.” From James Jay Carafano at the Heritage Foundation (click through for his ridiculously-long Heritage style title):

Domestic radicalization is a domestic problem. The initial strategy emphasized that the purpose of homeland security was to combat transnational terrorism. The new strategy places emphasis on the threat of domestic radicalization. Dealing with all forms of domestic terrorism—from eco-terrorism to an al-Qaeda wannabe—is certainly a national responsibility. However, it is less certain that conflating all threats (whether they have an international affiliation or not) under the umbrella of a homeland security strategy is a good idea. Like the emphasis on natural disasters, this change in the homeland security strategy could eventually turn purely domestic public safety and criminal issues into national security concerns, leading to an overly intrusive federal role in domestic affairs.

Mention the name Rod Coronado in the presence of fur farmers, animal research supporters, or law enforcement agents and blood will boil. He’s a “terrorist.” A “violent criminal.” A “national security threat.”

Coronado was just convicted yet again for illegal actions defending the environment. So what was this “eco-terrorist” up to this time? Conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, a felony, and two misdemeanor charges of destroying government property and of interfering with a U.S. Forest Service officer.

Those charges sound like heavy stuff, maybe even worthy of the T-word. But take a look at what he did: Coronado and another individual entered the Sabino Canyon National Recreation Area in March 2004 to disrupt the government’s killing of mountain lions. He allegedly busted snare traps, pulled up sensors, and spread mountain lion urine to confuse tracking dogs.

That’s it. Really. They’re not charged with anything else: no attempted suicide bombings, no firearms, no weapons of mass destruction, nothing. Interfering with a hunt would typically merit a ticket or a fine, but Coronado was sentenced to eight months in prison and three years supervised probation.

But wait! Rod really is a national security threat. He’s facing other charges as well… for possessing eagle feathers. (In case you were wondering if this environmental activist hunts endangered species in his other life, he’s of Pasqua Yaqui heritage). When that news broke, the Tucson Citizen proclaimed “Convicted ecoterrorist faces new charges.” He’s facing a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Coronado has a hell of a rap sheet, to be clear. He served five years in prison for an arson attack on research facilities at Michigan State University as part of the Animal Liberation Front’s “Operation Bite Back.” He also freed mink from nearby fur farms. No human or non-human animal was injured in any of his crimes.

On top of the charges I mentioned earlier, he’s facing 20 years under a little-used law prohibiting the distribution of information about assembling explosives. In February, Coronado gave a speech to activists in San Diego: afterwards, someone in the audience asked how he destroyed the laboratories. He grabbed a plastic juice bottle from a table and said he used a bottle like that one, filled with gasoline and attached to a timer, then went to the next question. It wasn’t exactly an “eco-terrorism” how-to session, but that’s what the feds are calling it.

Do you think Coronado would be feeling all this heat for civil disobedience and possessing eagle feathers if he didn’t have this “eco-terrorist” label? Doubtful. But corporations, right-wing politicians and groups like the Anti-Defamation League have ratcheted up the Green Scare tactics. The Anti-Defamation League calls Coronado an “eco-terrorist” and sends out press releases about his case: it may win them cheap political points with the Bush administration, but I don’t think even Coronado’s opponents would put him in the same camp as the Nazis the group claims to focus on.

For every hour and every dollar spent harassing activists like Coronado, and pursuing trumped-up charges, that’s an hour and a dollar that could be spent prosecuting real terrorists and violent criminals. This Green Scare is wasting valuable anti-terrorism resources to blatantly push a political agenda: and one that does nothing to protect national security or keep Americans safe.

And activists will undoubtedly have to think twice about engaging in any non-violent civil disobedience to protest government violence, because they too might get labeled “eco-terrorists.” Even if it’s just for pulling up sensors and spreading some lion pee. On the message board of The Arizona Daily Star, a few readers questioned the hefty sentence for non-violent crimes. “Don’t forget,” one reader responded, “these animal rights people are terrorists! He got off light.”

Remember Osama bin Laden? You know, September 11, planes into buildings, thousands of people murdered? The one President Bush called the architect of 9/11, the symbol of international terrorism, who will be brought to justice “dead or alive”? Well, the CIA has shut down the unit tracking him.

The CIA says times have changed. The New York Times reports CIA officials say the move “reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.”

So let’s get this straight: Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated what is arguably the most significant attack ever on U.S. soil, killing thousands of people, is no longer a priority. Meanwhile, the government is spending valuable anti-terrorism resources going after individuals responsible for property crimes in the name of the environment– that have never killed anyone– and smearing anyone that is in any way ideologically associated with them.

It’s the politics of the T-word taken to a sickening extreme.

Lawmakers and the Bush administration constantly invoke imagery of 9/11 and its victims, but I wonder how those victims feel about closing the case on bin Laden while wasting law enforcement resources on non-violent “eco-terrorists.” They’re probably furious, but at the end of the day they don’t have the political clout to do anything about it.

Corporations, on the other hand, do. That’s why property crimes and civil disobedience are labeled “terrorism,” and the feds are sinking so much cash into rounding up activists. And that’s why lawmakers keep pushing this absurd “eco-terrorism” legislation.” Corporations have invested a lot in these politicians, and they want results.

The Department of Homeland Security distributed a bulletin on Thursday to help corporations fight “eco-terrorism” like “flyer distribution,” “graffiti,” and “tying up company phone lines.”

Go ahead and laugh, but it gets worse. There are two things in this bulletin that are dead serious:

1. DHS admits it has “no specific, credible information at this time suggesting animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are planning to target known corporations.”

2. In addition to “organizing protests” and “inundating computers with e-mails,” DHS later notes other tactics like verbal harassment and vandalism. But NOWHERE in the bulletin is the word “violence” used.

So why waste taxpayer money, and valuable homeland security resources, preparing and distributing this bulletin when there is no “credible information,” and no fear of violence? Money.

Animal rights activists and environmentalists are succeeding where so many consumer boycotts, petitions and other status quo acts of protest have miserably failed: they’re hurting corporate profits.

Corporations are scared, and they’re pressuring the administration and law enforcement to step in. This bulletin is one part of the government’s corporate aid.

DHS admits as much. The very first line of the bulletin reads:

“Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.”

That’s what all this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric is about — using fears of terrorism to justify cracking down on pesky activists that hurt corporate profits. It’s time we call a spade a spade, and force lawmakers to stop wasting money fighting “flyer distribution.”

P.S. Congrats to Justin Rood for getting his hands on this bulletin first.

Today’s news search pulled up a great spin on the “eco-terror” buzz. The Philippine Daily Inquirer published a glowing piece about a former armed forces chief of staff turned secretary of the environment, Angelo Reyes.

He created the country’s Environmental Protection Commission to go after eco-terrorists like “poachers, illegal loggers and other violators of the country’s environment laws.”

Cracking down on eco-terrorism was a logical step, The Inquirer reports, because Reyes “has always been involved in fighting terrorism and crime.”

Our pal Reyes stole the show with this one:

“Degradation and destruction of the environment inflicts more harm and damage than any criminal or terrorist can hope to achieve.”

Now that’s what I call a War on Terrorism.