NPR's piece on ecoterrorism

All Things Considered had a piece this afternoon that basically vindicated what I wrote a couple months ago about the FBI's double-barrelled pursuit of environmentalist arsonists.

Excuse me for being arrogant and quoting myself, but just for the refresher (and because the original post wandered too far into the definition of terrorism), here's the crux of the post:

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 tried to hurt a human being. And just as problematic, it might distract law enforcement resources from going to investigations of groups that actually want to kill many people.

I say that I was "vindicated" because NPR, a news source I trust, seemed to suggest the same skepticism about the feds' tough talk. (And don't try to tell me NPR reporters don't express their opinions, or at least frame the discussion as they seem fit. They're human beings.)