ELF and ALF as "terrorist" groups

The FBI was throwing around the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" pretty loosely when they announced they indicted a dozen or so members of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

It is of course old news. A week old. That's an eternity in the news cycle, but it's still on my mind. Mostly because I've been posting about it on a local message board.

Anyway, a few issues I have with the situation:

1. The groups are barely - just barely - terrorist organizations. It's a stretch.

2. The "t" designation matters, because a.) Americans associate the term with 3,000 people dead in an instant, and b.) the executive branch cites the term as the justification for unusual and arguably illegal law enforcement techniques.

On the first point, what is terrorism? It's tough to define. The United Nations has never agreed on a definition. In general, though, this is my basic understanding:

The use or threat of use of violence - by an individual or entity other than a state - to achieve social or political change.

That is very basic. I think the distinction regarding states is important, though. I always take issue with definitions that say states can be terrorists. I've always thought that if a state does it, it is an act of war; It is not terrorism.

I understand the politics behind it, that people want the actions of Israel (and now the United States) to fit the definition of terrorism. They certainly do fit some definitions. But I prefer my definition to not include states, thank you very much.

Here is a non-basic definition, from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. The definition is described as the (proposed) Academic Consensus Definition

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

That is far too complicated. However, I think it works, except for the "state actor" bit. They always stick that in there.

A funny, but essentially accurate definition, on the same U.N. web site, has this title: Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

Ha! True enough.

But back to the environmentalists. They've apparently broken many laws, including burning down buildings and damaging infrastructure - sometimes using explosives in the process. And they do this to achieve social and/or political change. Terror!

I suppose. Arson isn't exactly violence, especially when the guilty parties took great pains to make sure no humans were in the buildings. (Did they make sure no squirrels were in the roof? I sure hope so! What about the mice? And think of all the pollution caused by burning buildings!) Anyway, I think terrorism should involve actual violence. It's been brought up that firefighters could get hurt fighting the fires. Sure. But that's pretty indirect.

So they're "kinda sorta" terrorists. Congrats. I think they're more organized crime or serial felony vandals, but I guess they do fit into an edge of the terrorist spectrum. OK.

Why does it matter?

Well, I've pretty much mentioned it above. It's one of those slippery-slope things. Terrorism is a serious word, and it got a lot more serious in this country on Sept. 11, 2001. We know this. So it seems to perhaps trivialize the tragedies of that day to call acts "terrorism" that don't even attempt to hurt a human being. It waters down the whole thing.

I bet in Israel, where real terrorist attacks happen regularly, they might be hesitant to apply the term in this situation.

Furthermore, let's think about what has been excused in the name of terrorism: Two wars. Non-judicial detainment at Guantanamo Bay. American citizens held as prisoners of war. Warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Were/are the aforementioned acts justified? In the name of fighting terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, it is certainly arguable. No doubt.

But can the Patriot Act and the John Yoo legal approach in general be applied to hippies who burn down unoccupied buildings?

In conclusion: Of course these are crimes, and the guilty parties should be punished. We seem to have serial violent offenses intended to have social or political effects. So they're pretty much terrorist acts. The main sticking point is "violent," but arson is pretty violent - it can harm folks. It's just quite different from what al Qaeda pulled off in 2001.

I just hope the line between the two types of terrorists isn't blurred, which would essentially mean martial-law tactics imposed in the pursuit of suspects who haven't even tried to hurt a human being. And just as problematic, it might distract law enforcement resources from investigating groups that actually want to kill many people.