Governmental Response and Linguistic Repercussions
The legislative response to ELF ecotage, as it will hence forth be called rather than employing the terrorist label, has largely been predictable and lacking in a unique focus. It is the linguistic response to ecotage, however, that takes place first and, since language has played such a central role thus far in our discussion, is arguably the most interesting. Not surprising, due to the history of ELF actions’ success at ecotage, causing damage in excess of $110 million by 2005 (Inhofe 2005: n.p.) without a single casualty (Amster 2006: 288), is the Patriot Act’s reworked definition of terrorism: “the unlawful use of force and violence against people or property to intimidate or coerce government or civilian population in furtherance of a political or social objective,” (Inhofe 2005: n.p.). The FBI’s definitions of ‘domestic terrorism’ and ‘ecoterrorism’ read similarly, the former specifying “unlawful . . . or threatened . . . violence by a group or individual . . . operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction,” and the latter being terrorism “by an environmentally-oriented, sub national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature, (quoted in Amster 2006: 289). Randall Amster, professor of Peace Studies at Prescott College, reflects upon the shared characteristics of these definitions:
“Of particular note in this calculus is the inclusion of acts solely against ‘property’ for political, social, or environmental purposes—removing the notion that an act should harm ‘persons’ in order to be considered terrorism. This contradicts a leading internationally accepted definition advanced by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, which states that ‘the targets of terrorism are civilians’ and stresses that terrorism ‘is an act purposely directed against civilians’ (Gristmill, 2005)1.” (Amster 2006: 289)
The inclusion of all (illegal) destructive force as terroristic serves a distinct purpose, for it allows ELF ecotage to be labeled with the same signifier as other groups previously revealed to be markedly different in character and practice. Consequently, as far as one’s cognition is concerned, the ELF is “[j]ust like Al Qaeda,” in behavior, as Senator Inhofe describes them, and warrants the same response (2005: n.p.). Without the distinction between people and property, actions against either are considered morally the same, and since ELF ecotage has been successful at “hampering development and free commerce,” they earn the title of “#1 domestic terror concern over the likes of white supremacists, militias, and anti-abortion groups,” (Inhofe 2005: n.p.). In Senator Inhofe’s eyes, as well as in the eyes of the American government, hampered development is more concerning—more terrifying, if one may be so bold as to include terrorism’s root in its definition—than the actions of organized murderers. This conceptual framework presented by the state, what with its haphazard efforts to encompass sabotage within terrorism and the subsequent prioritizing of economic damage over human life, is so absurd it would be hilarious, if not for its tragic implications upon governmental response and the curtailing of civil liberties.
There is growing concern, presented within both academic and ecological activist communities, that the growing ambiguity of terrorism allows greater monitoring and intervention on the part of the state in previously accepted forms of direct action and civil disobedience (Amster 2006: 290; Thomas 2008: 5). Greenpeace, PETA, Earth First!, and other such public activist organizations (Amster 2006: 290; Thomas 2008: 5; Inhofe 2005: n.p.) face increased monitoring due to allegations that they are part of “a growing network of support for extremists like ELF” (Inhofe 2005: n.p.). The allegations of ties between Elves and these organizations are not groundless, but to call it a ‘network of support’ is dubious at best. One long-standing maxim of social activism is support for a diversity of tactics, but since an above ground organization cannot engage in certain tactics that are considered criminal without reprisal, those members who advocate such action do so outside of the organization. Thus, there are undoubtedly individuals who both participate in ELF actions and are involved within other efforts at addressing environmental concerns; based upon ethnographic research done in the UK, this is likely true of the vast majority of eco-saboteurs, and is pervasive enough for such illegal, individual actions pursued outside of an activist organization to have its own slang term: pixieing (Plows et al 2004: 208-209). To confuse individual actions with group membership, however, is fallacious, and to confuse individual actions with a specific group membership (for one has many such social ties) is selective to the point of absurdity.
There is another allegation that goes beyond shared membership, however, and it would be irresponsible and tendentious of me not to address it. According to Senator Inhofe, PETA has allegedly given money to the ELF (2005: n.p.). I say ‘allegedly’, because the reference included with the statement on the United States Senate’s website, “Chart #5,” is a dead link, making the allegation more difficult to verify. In the interest of giving Senator Inhofe the benefit of the doubt, let us assume that the dead link is accidental rather than the product of a lack of concern for transparency; let us assume that PETA gave money to some aspect of the ELF and that it was evident on a tax return for the organization. What do these descriptive assumptions mean, given what we know about the ELF? First, the ELF is more of an ideology than an organization, so it isn’t like PETA could give money to the leaders; the ELF is an anarchical institution and, therefore, has no official leaders. A successful direct action group, if a proponent of illegal actions, must stay under the radar by following the basic tenants of security culture, summarized by the axiom “loose lips sink ships” (Shiftshapers 2005: n.p.). Beyond the concerns of blabbing, another concern that security culture addresses is visibility; “[d]on’t make it too easy for your enemies to figure out what you’re up to,” reads one security culture article that is fairly typical in content to others (Shiftshapers 2005: n.p.), which accepting money from a non-profit would likely be considered as doing, since an organization’s non-profit status is dependent upon total financial transparency. The FBI’s continued difficulty at stopping ELF actions requires us to give Elves some credit; they aren’t stupid. One can say the same about PETA, the organization that allegedly gave money, for they are not going to endanger their entire organization by funding an act that is labeled as terrorism, whether they sympathize or not.
So where could this donation have gone? The most likely candidate is the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office (NAELFPO), which does not participate in ecotage. NAELFPO is, as the name suggests, an above ground press office that explains the actions and ideology of the ELF banner. Like a partisan media outlet, they allow the society in which Elves exist but (due to security culture) cannot freely interact within, to interview, interact, and understand the ideology behind ELF ecotage. While claims exist that this is not their sole purpose, and that it serves as a recruitment center and position of leadership, my research was unable to identify a single piece of evidence to legitimate such claims. For such a claim to be true, the anarchist elements of the ideology would have to be fictitious—a considerable ruse when one recognizes over a decade of activity without a single imprisoned eco-saboteur providing testimony to that effect for leniency. Claims of NAELFPO or some other group being the masterminds behind the ELF may be the product of wishful thinking on the part of the state—it would no doubt make prevention easier if they could follow the old ‘cut off the head’ line of reasoning—or perhaps the state cannot fathom the success of the ELF without a central authority—expecting organization from anarchists would not only require a correct definition of anarchism, but also the concession that non-authoritative means of organization are possible. Most bothersome, however, is a third possible reason for such baseless allegations: it allows the state to monitor non-profit NGOs that, before the FBI’s investigative powers were expanded after 9/11, would have otherwise been far more difficult to justify (Amster 2006: 290). The implications of such suspicion directed against these organizations and their participating members “threatens to criminalize dissent altogether;” even participating in completely legal actions can make one a suspect (Amster 2006: 293).
As already discussed in part, the post-linguistic responsive effort to ecotage has been one of espionage. In addition to domestic spying upon NGOs, the United States is also attempting to infiltrate ELF cells in the hopes of building evidence to arrest individuals preemptively rather than investigating after ecotage has already taken place. Due to the difficulty of agents successfully embedding themselves in networks, espionage efforts are increasingly moving toward the use of informants. One recent instance of this is a particularly valuable source of information, for, after the conviction of Eric McDavid, the informant discussed her “heroic” story in Elle (Todd 2007: 267). “Anna,” her alias used throughout her time as an FBI informant, received no training from the FBI and, according to Mark Reichel, McDavid’s attorney, entrapped McDavid and his two non-FBI informant friends (who made a deal with the prosecution for leniency); despite FBI guidelines which prohibit an agent from any actions that “lead, push, cajole, or manufacture,” Anna reportedly demanded that the group “stick to a fucking plan!” and was the provider of their bomb recipe, which was provided to her by the FBI (Todd 2007: 324).
Exceedingly legitimate concern has been raised over Anna’s behavior, for regardless of whether it was the product of a lack of training or “a heightened sense of retribution [after 9/11],” it appears to have compromised the investigation and trial (Todd 2007: 324). A quick tour of blogs and indymedia sites that discuss the article raises some excellent points regarding Anna and her credibility, such as Anna’s parents allegedly giving permission for their daughter to be a spy for the FBI, and thus couldn’t have “thought [their daughter] was dealing drugs,” because of the money she was mysteriously getting, as she claims her parents suspected in Elle (Anonymous 2007: n.p.; Todd 2007: 267). It seems that Andrea Todd, the Elle story’s author, was more right than she knew when she spoke of how Anna’s story “unfolds with cinematic flourish,” for it reads like a hero narrative (2007: 267). Why shouldn’t it read as such? Argues one anonymous poster:
“These [anarchists and environmentalists] are the very people who call into question the foundation of all that the ‘heroes’ lives are built upon – Capitalism, oppression, racism, the destruction of the environment, and a system of governance that values the lives of a certain people over the lives of everyone else – indeed over the life of the planet.” (Anonymous 2007: n.p.)
If anarchists and environmentalists were truly as dangerous as Anna claims in her story, it wouldn’t seem wise to have one’s picture distributed in a particularly well-known magazine; its difficult to trust, therefore, that Anna even believes her own story. Furthermore, if this particular instance is at all similar to other such cases involving informants (which, sadly, is hard to know, since most of them aren’t standing in line to be interviewed) the method of information gathering and prosecution is suspect, particularly for a crime that had not yet been committed2. One would hope that an investigation of a ‘terrorist’ cell would not result in members of the jury arguing that the FBI’s conduct “was an embarrassment” (Todd 2007: 325).
1Amster’s reference citation of Gristmill: Gristmill. (2005). Behind the eco-terrorism hype. Grist Magazine Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060
2This was written before Brandon Darby admitted his guilt in acting as an FBI informant during the 2008 Republican National Convention. With his recent interview on This American Life, it would be worthwhile to return to this question. This will not be done here, however.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.