Here’s a rather lengthy post consisting of a report I did for one of my graduate classes about the Animal Liberation Front. I’m posting it because another blog entry I did on the animal rights movement received a number of views and I thought there might be some interest in this subject.
If anyone has any comments, critiques or additional information on the subject, I’d love to hear it!
Enjoy
Oh yeah…and don’t even think about plagiarizing this! It’s bad karma, mojo and juju.
The Animal Liberation Front
In May of 2004, John E. Lewis, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counter Terrorism Division announced that animal and environmental extremist groups were the “highest domestic terrorism investigative priority” for the bureau.[1] Coming less than three years after 9/11 and amid worries of ‘home grown’ Islamic terrorism in the wake of the Madrid bombing, the statement came as a surprise to many. Members of these environmental groups, as well as their sympathizers, argued that the assessment of their groups was derived more from corruption, caving in to industry pressure and an attempt to restrict civil liberties than from any true threat. In the nearly three years since then, the debate between the two groups has only intensified with environmental rights groups claiming to be concerned citizens following the traditions of 19th century abolitionists and civil rights advocates and law enforcement and industry groups predicting an inevitable wave of violence and destruction by these increasingly radical groups. The truth, for better or for worse, is that these groups are both more complicated and more interesting than either simplistic caricature would indicate.
Unlike Al-Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations that have received attention from the intelligence community over the past few years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and other environmental rights groups have rarely been the subject of any serious attempt at analysis. Most assessments are little more than regurgitation of ‘conventional wisdom’ (often incorrect), misreading of ALF literature and actions or unfounded speculation. While the ALF does present some challenges to analysts and researchers trying to understand the movement (which may be a better characterization than identifying it as a group or organization) it also offers a number of opportunities to those wishing to grasp its capabilities and intent:
1. The modern animal rights (hereafter referred to as AR) movement has a lengthy history, stretching back over thirty years. In that time its advocates, who tend to be well educated, have created an impressive body of literature discussing both the ideological and practical aspects of their movement.
2. Their unorganized structure and geographic separation requires that communications on such subjects must generally occur publicly. This allows us not only to study what members are saying but also gauge the reaction to it by the rest of the movement.
3. Finally, the importance of the fact that the radical AR movement is dominated by individuals who were raised and educated in Western traditions and are citizens of the nation in which they operate should not be understated. The analyst studying the AR movement does not have to navigate through the difficulties of language translation or cultural context to nearly the same extent that their contemporaries studying groups that have their roots in different cultures or parts of the world have to.
This paper is will serve an initial step to address this shortfall by examining the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), identified by the FBI as being one of the most dangerous domestic terrorist groups in the United States. The paper is designed to be a threat assessment, examining both the capabilities and the intent of the organization. The format of this assessment will divide the paper into three sections: background which will cover the history and ideology of the ALF, operations which will discuss its tactics, organization and interactions with other organizations and outlook which will discuss predictions about possible future operations.
The ALF is an unusual organization in that it does not neatly fit into the preconceived notion of a terrorist organization. Most discussions of the ALF’s categorization (and, indeed, the categorization of most radical environmental groups) as a terrorist group are based on arguments that presuppose the ALF’s guilt or innocence. The issue is complicated by the fact that no universally recognized definition of terrorism exists. Even within the U.S. government, each agency concerned with terrorism has a slightly varying definition which can cause confusion. The FBI has jurisdiction over terrorism within the United States and their definition[2] clearly places the ALF within the realm of terrorist organizations. Still, the term ‘terrorism’ is so loaded in light of current events that it may interfere with useful study of organizations like the ALF. Therefore, I have generally avoided the term here in favor of the terms ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ organization.
Finally, the ALF is not only active in the United States. It has its origins in the United Kingdom and remains active throughout Europe. ALF activists in the U.K. have a much clearer history of engaging in violent activity than their American counterparts. While many law enforcement and industry analysts in the United States like to link the activities of the two networks in order to amplify the threat posed by the ALF there is very little evidence of operational or logistical support between the two groups[3] and future study may find it valuable to actually consider the ALF to be two separate networks of individuals. This assessment, therefore, only purports to describe the ALF in the United States.
Background
History
In the United States, the ALF traces it origins back to two sources; the social and environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s and the rise of militant animal rights groups in the United Kingdom. With the enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s and the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, politically motivated individuals turned their attention to a new set of issues including a host of environmental causes. Coming on the heels of these successful social movements, Earth Day in 1970 sparked widespread attention regarding environmental and is now seen as an important catalyst to legislation like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. Environmentalists likely had high expectations of further success in the future and a sense of growing momentum within society for their cause.
As the 1970s progressed however, some activists became disillusioned with slow progress being made in the environmental arena. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was seen as the greatest opportunity to make positive change ‘within the system’, yet some activists eventually became convinced that the traditional system of compromise and consensus building was too slow and would never accept the radical changes required to repair the damage done to the environment.[4] Mainstream environmental groups were also seen as co-opted by the existing political system and not sufficiently radical to force through the required political change.
In the United Kingdom at the same time individuals interested in animal rights began to organize and consider taking direct action to further their agenda. Opposition to hunting had a long tradition within the U.K. and had served as a focal point for those interested in animal rights. In 1972, several members of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA), a group dedicated to disrupting hunting activity throughout the British countryside, split off and formed a new group. The Band of Mercy, named after the youth wing of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and created in 1875, began as another hunt saboteur organization. In addition to traditional methods which attempted to disrupt hunts while they were in progress, the Band of Mercy began experimenting with tactics designed to prevent the hunt from beginning such as disabling vehicles.
By 1973 the Band of Mercy had decided to expand the scope of their actions from sports hunting to animal testing facilities and commercial hunting operations. They began a campaign of property destruction through arson and targeted a number of pharmaceutical laboratories and seal hunters. The goal of the group was to make it prohibitively expensive for these businesses to get insurance coverage and thereby shut them down. In August of 1974, two leaders of the Band of Mercy were arrested and sentenced to prison and the organization disbanded. One of the Band of Mercy leaders, Ronnie Lee, began organizing a new animal rights group upon his release from prison and, in 1976, christened it the Animal Liberation Front.[5]
It is unclear how the ALF migrated to the United States but the almost universally accepted account is that sometime in the late 1970s an American activist known only as “Valerie” traveled to the U.K. and received training from Ronnie Lee. Upon return to the U.S., “Valerie” led a group of animal activists on a number of ‘liberations’ where laboratory animals were released. This story is almost certainly apocryphal given the sparseness of details and the accomplishments “Valerie” is credited with. She not only was busy operationally but she provided financial and logistical support to the new movement and traveled around the country establishing other ALF cells.[6] Stories about her seem to stop in the mid to late 1980s and she has since moved on to become part of the AR pantheon. It’s particularly interesting that actions attributed to “Valerie” are limited strictly to ‘liberation’ and there don’t seem to be any accounts of her advocating or engaging in property destruction or violence. One account[7] implies that “Valerie” was no longer part of the ALF when it began to include property destruction and arson among its tactics.
Ideology
According to the ALF, animals, as sentient creatures, are seen to have a number of basic rights including ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.[8] Valuing human life above those of animals is seen as ‘speciesism’ which is no more legitimate than racism or sexism. They view the use of animals for experimentation or entertainment as no different than slavery and often describe the current situation as an ongoing ‘holocaust’. While education and legislative change are helpful, they don’t go far or fast enough to address the seriousness of the issue.
The ALF rejects the idea that they are a terrorist organization, rather they label their targets as ‘real’ terrorists and those that actively oppose them are either collaborators or perpetrators in a massive genocide. The destruction of animals and the environment and harassment of AR activists, they feel, as demonstrates that they are following the same tradition as those who ran the underground railroad of 19th century, fought against the holocaust, protested for women’s suffrage and civil rights. They argue that labeling the ALF ‘terrorists’ makes just as much sense as saying members of those movements were terrorists.
Radical AR advocates see the consequences of failure in their mission as the reinforcement of violence in human behavior, the death of billions of living creatures (each one as morally entitled to life as any human) and complete ecological catastrophe. The stakes are so high, in the view of the ALF, that it is too late for compromise or moderation and direct action is the only way to achieve success. The stated goals of the ALF are “to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.”[9]
The ALF views of the U.S. government run across a narrow spectrum from suspicion to hostility. Events since 9/11 have fueled a widespread belief within the AR community that they are convenient targets to allow the government to impose tight control over society and crush dissent. The focus of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies on AR activities are seen as a new wave of McCarthyism with environmentalists taking on the role of communists. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and Patriot Act are all cited as evidence that the government is attempting to restrict the rights of free speech and protest and make progressive social movements (which many see as being the most important part of) impotent.
Legislation identifying radical environmental groups as terrorists and laws enabling industry to continue to use animals are seen as illegitimate and therefore need not be adhered to. Increasingly, ALF members committing acts of destruction and vandalism have been specifically mentioning in their communiqués that they will continue to defy laws designed to stop their activities. In many cases they specifically state that their actions are in response to specific anti-terrorism legislation or to recently convicted extremists.[10]
Another argument the ALF makes to defend itself from the terrorist label is their assertion that no one has been killed, or targeted for death, by an ALF action. They have created a rather narrow definition of terrorism that doesn’t include either the destruction of physical property or the intentional instilling of fear and anxiety in the minds of others. Property is viewed as worth infinitely less than life and therefore destruction of objects to save life is always justified so long as it doesn’t harm others.[11] Additionally, since definitions of terrorism that the ALF like to use require harm to be intended against persons, they claim that no amount of destruction they commit can ever be interpreted as terrorism.
Regarding the instillation of fear or anxiety in a target population the ALF usually remains silent. The threat of action against a person or corporate entity is a key tactic that the ALF uses yet the fact that it may create the same sort of fear that AR activists protest so vigorously when applied to animals makes it’s justification difficult. The scarcity of philosophic justifications of its use most likely indicates that it is an area that ALF advocates would rather not venture into. When they occasionally do discuss fear and anxiety of their (potential) targets the ALF justifies its actions by relying upon a utilitarian argument that causing a bit of fear and anxiety will reduce the total amount of fear experienced by countless animals. Also, there is often a secondary argument that making their targets afraid is justified because their targets ‘deserve’ it.[12]
The involvement of the ALF in violent activity has been a matter of discussion, both within the movement and among those studying it, for quite some time. One of the ALF’s central tenets is: “To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.”[13] Further, the ALF literature is filled with rejections of violent activity in general terms and distinguish themselves from groups that advocate violent activity such as the Animal Rights Milita, Revolutionary Cells and Justice Department which they describe as “ultra-radical” groups.[14] The ALF also takes the position that since they don’t engage in violent activity as a matter of policy, any act (even if carried out in the name of the ALF) which causes harm can’t, by definition, be attributed to them. The argument is that individuals conducting violent acts either don’t understand the central tenets of the ALF or are intentionally attempting to discredit the organization.
Countering their claims of non-violence, there have been a number of high profile ALF activists and sympathizers who have advocated the need to escalate their activities and engage in physical violence. Those who have recommended violent action include national level spokespeople or activists who have gained attention from the media. A psychological study of these individuals is beyond the scope of this paper but would be helpful in identifying differences (if any) between them and ‘average’ members. ALF members requires secrecy and anonymity in order to be successful and it’s not at all clear if members publicly proclaiming the need to consider using violent tactics are serving the needs of their movement or addressing personal needs of self fulfillment.
Ultimately, the arguments in favor of the ALF committing violent activity don’t seem to resonate with rank and file members. Despite justifications from well known affiliates of the ALF, it does not seem as if calls to commit violent activity, even if by well known ALF advocates, are particularly influential. That may be because ALF activists generally seem to operate locally[15] and may be unwilling to commit violence against people from their own community or who, on some level, they can empathize with. It can also be that the ALF activists, more so than their spokespeople, see value in and adhere to the dictum of non-violence. The central tenets of the ALF, including the one demanding non-violence, have remained unchanged for over ten years[16]
Some calls for violence, especially among ‘anonymous’ authors are suspected by many in the movement of being written by agents provocateurs that are attempting to further the interests of industries that use animals and their government sponsors by trying to make the ALF appear more violent than it is. One frequently cited document is “A Declaration Of War: Killing People To Save Animals And The Environment” written by ‘Screaming Eagle’ in 1991. The manifesto advocates a campaign of animal liberation with no limitations on who should be targeted or what methods are acceptable in furtherance of the cause of animal liberation.
The document has been labeled by AR advocates as fraudulent and written by animal industry supporters in order to discredit the AR movement.[17] Proponents of the industries that the ALF targets point to “A Declaration of War” as evidence of the violent nature of ALF and the need for enhanced state and federal legislation and enforcement activities against radical environmental groups.[18] While the intent of the author of the document will likely remain unknown the fact that this call to arms was written 15 years ago and has still not managed to incite any significant portion of the AR movement to violence in the U.S. is significant in demonstrating a lack of appetite among the ALF members to commit violent activity.
An undated, informal survey[19] posted on the ALF website asked respondents what they think should happen in a case where they had information that a laboratory was killing dogs. While committing violence wasn’t an option among the possible choices, it was noteworthy that only 16% of the 92 respondents advocated committing property damage and only two-thirds advocated trying to rescue the animals. Even in that case, there was an additional caveat that a rescue should only be attempted if the anonymity of the lab technician who reported the abuse could be maintained. Even though this survey was not scientific it’s notable for two reasons:
1) The survey was intended for an audience which was very sympathetic to animal rights. Respondents were described as ‘animal rights activists’ and could be expected to be more inclined to approve of direct action techniques than others, especially in a hypothetical situation where there were no actual risks to the respondent.
2) The fact that this was included in the group’s virtual library of documents alongside others that recommended more radical activity points to the ALF possessing an active philosophical component that has not settled on a dogmatic ideology.
Operations
Group leadership and Organizational Structure
An organization can be defined as “an administrative and functional structure”[20]. Consisting of self identified individuals who may organize into autonomous groups and have no formal leadership or structure, the ALF cannot be said to be an organization in the traditional sense. Drawing on strong anarchistic roots, the ALF is a loose network of like minded individuals who work towards a single goal under broad rules of conduct. In the words of one food industry spokesperson testifying before congress:
The ALF and ELF don’t really exist in the way we think of advocacy groups or even underground criminal movements like the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weather Underground. ALF and ELF are labels of convenience, applied to crimes after the fact by individuals or small groups in order to draw public attention to their actions.[21]
Attempts to describe the ALF as having a more solid structure like “al-Qaeda, the IRA, and many African terrorist regimes”[22] are more a function of inherent assumptions by law enforcement and intelligence agencies of how criminal and terrorist organizations function than any evidence of true organization. Among the best evidence that the ALF rejects organization and structure is the fact that law enforcement has had so much difficulty in its efforts against it.
Membership into the ALF is not something that is awarded or granted but rather, anyone can become a member by adhering to the group’s principals:
- To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur farms, etc., and place them in good homes where they may live out their natural lives, free from suffering.
- To inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals.
- To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.
- To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.
- Must be vegetarian or vegan.
Estimates about the ‘membership’ of ALF activists are understandably difficult to make with any degree of certainty. What limited evidence exists leads some to believe that there are approximately 100 ‘hard core’ members active in the United States at any one time.[23] Activists seem to operate locally and are recruited while college age[24]. There is also some indication that the movement suffers from a high turnover rate due to members burning out and becoming ‘war weary’.[25]
Leadership is also difficult to identify within the ALF since the concept of leadership implies some sort of structure or hierarchy. Even in the most horizontal organization, some people are above others and have some sort of authority over them. The ALF seems to reject that notion at everything above the level of the individual cell and decision making within cells is not well documented.
There are a few individuals who act as spokespersons for the ALF or are well known within the AR community for working to develop moral and ethical philosophies but there is no individual or centrally recognized canon of AR literature whose word is recognized as commanding authority among all ALF members. A review of ALF electronic message boards reveals that the one consistent message that is adhered to by most ALF members is that each member must decide how to best achieve ALF’s goals individually. Messages frequent refer to anarchistic themes either explicitly or implicitly to underscore the highly individual nature of the movement.
Tactics
ALF members see themselves as being one part of a broad spectrum designed to end what they term ‘animal exploitation’. Only through applying a wide variety of tactics against different pressure points throughout society do ALF members believe they can achieve progress in their struggle. Lobbying, protesting, education and other legal forms of activism by legitimate organizations have their role as do property destruction and releasing (‘liberating’ in ALF terminology) captive animals by ALF and similar groups. Even groups which do advocate violent activity are not widely criticized by ALF members, rather they are seen as individuals just taking another path in their drive for animal liberation. Members of radical AR groups, including ALF, embrace that idea of the movement as a spectrum by moving frequently between legal and illegal methods and organizations.
The ALF occupies that part of the animal movement spectrum that includes illegal activities. Generally, most activities can be divided into three general categories: property damage, animal ‘liberation’ and harassment. The aims of property damage (which ranges from graffiti to arson) and animal liberation are to make a company’s operations prohibitively expensive through costs associated with replacing/repairing damaged equipment and animals, increased insurance premiums or enhanced security procedures. Harassment on the other hand, which may include destruction of a target’s personal property, is designed to induce so much anxiety and fear in the target and her family that she decides to sever her relationship with the company engaged in using animals.
A review of ALF communiqués about actions claimed over the past two years include a wide variety of property damage activity with the majority falling into the category of vandalism. Graffiti at fast food restaurants, breaking windows of furriers, and similar acts can be seen as crimes of convenience rather than part of a well planned campaign. There are a number of more serious crimes however that indicates significant amounts of planning and preparation. Breaking into laboratories or other business and destroying property or searching files for information about employees for further targeting demonstrates the potential to engage in highly sophisticated operations.[26]
Animal liberation usually occurs in conjunction with some property damage and involves ALF members either releasing captive animals into the wild or transporting them to other activists willing to provide the animals with care and shelter. Animal liberations get the most sympathy from the general public of all of ALFs activities and it is that tactic that frequently gets endorsed by ‘above ground’ AR groups.
Harassment can range from rather annoying tactics like sending ‘black faxes’, designed to use up all the toner in a facsimile machine by faxing a black piece of paper, to personal threats against people either on via phone/email or in person at work or at their homes. ALF members attempt to disrupt the life of their targets as much as possible through these actions.
As in all cases of terrorism, there are additional audiences beyond the specific targets. Other individuals and companies are expected to see the costs involved with rejecting the ALF demands and either proactively alter their policies or quickly respond when contacted by the ALF. Graffiti is prominently used at the homes of targets both to intimidate the victim and notify the surrounding community that a resident has attracted the attention of the ALF.
Probably the most remarked upon tactic of the AR movement is their use of secondary and tertiary targeting. Instead of only conducting operations against their primary target (animal laboratory, fur farm, restaurant, etc.), ALF members direct their attention to the customers, suppliers and others affiliated with the company in an effort to get them to stop doing business with them. One of the most successful examples of this occurred with a group similar to the ALF called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). In it’s campaign against a Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), SHAC has managed to pressure over 100 companies to sever ties with HLS and inflicting serious economic hardship on the company[27]. While SHAC and ALF are different organizations, the SHAC campaign demonstrates the value of the tactic. Many companies sever relations with the target company after getting their first warning making the tactic a very efficient and effective use of resources.
Apart from the broad principals accepted by ALF members there is no universally accepted tactic or anything expressly prohibited. Each ALF member/cell determines what or who it will target and what methods will be used. There is no component within ALF that could exercise any sort of guidance or control over individual members with regards to tactics, even if it wanted to.[28]
Alliances with other organizations or movements
In keeping with their view that they are one part of a much broader animal rights movement, ALF members express solidarity with virtually all groups with interests in animal rights. Before establishing a North American Press Office, ALF members frequently used the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to release statements and claim responsibility for their actions. PETA has provided funding to ALF members either for their criminal defense or employment with their organization.[29]
The clandestine nature of underground AR movements makes it difficult to determine the amount of cooperation between them, if any. Allegations have been made that radical AR activists use a variety of group names when claiming responsibility for their actions to confuse law enforcement, make their movement seem larger than it is and depending on the type of activity conducted.[30] Violent activity can be claimed by organizations which endorse those tactics thereby keeping the ALF non-violent principal in tact. There’s been no evidence that such a coordinated effort actually exists or if, instead, some members become more or less radical over time, or if there are, in fact, distinct groups which use different methods.
The U.S. has introduced several anti-terrorism laws post 9/11 which directly affects the ALF. Because penalties which can now be imposed and increased law enforcement attention to the subject, above ground animal rights groups have toned down their public support for the ALF. Virtually every group’s website has disclaimers clearly rejecting violence and criminal activity. How deeply those convictions are held is not known but many clearly maintain some sympathy for the radical AR movement either through statements of support for arrested ALF members or by advocating more general principals of animal liberation.
Outlook
The effectiveness of the ALF’s tactics are difficult to measure given the organization’s lack of structure and specific goals, its secretive nature and the inclination to attribute any criminal acts at companies that use animals as AR related but estimates claim that the ALF and related groups may have committed as many as 1,100 criminal acts that resulted in $110 million dollars in damages between 1976 and 2004.[31]
The federal government, in an attempt to become more effective in the fight against groups like the ALF, passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) in November of 2006 which would increase the options available to investigate and prosecute crimes federally and allow for enhanced penalties for those who target a wide range of companies that use animals in their business. The intent of the legislation was to create a significant enough set of disincentives that potential AR radicals would refrain from their criminal activities.
Government attempts at suppressing extremist AR activity are, at least partially, offset by a string of ‘victories’ they’ve experienced over the years. Pressuring companies to cease animal testing, stop doing business with others that continue testing or just avoiding being caught by law enforcement after being declared the most serious domestic terrorism threat in the United States all provide positive reinforcement to continue their activities. Finally, given that the FBI estimates over 1,200 AR incidents have occurred[32] and there have only been two prosecutions for AR crimes under these statutes in the past 15 years it is likely that there is little deterrent effect in such legislation.
Legislation which specifically targets AR groups does have a very profound, although unintended, effect however. Given the AR communitie’s strong ties to anarchist and left leaning political traditions, legislation which seems to target expression is another item on a growing list of ‘proofs’ that the government is attempting to restrict the rights of free speech and protest and make progressive social movements impotent. The focus of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies on AR activities are seen as a new wave of McCarthyism with environmentalists taking on the role of communists. Dubbed the ‘Green Scare’, animal and environmental radicals see the current environment one as one in which they are demonized in order for the government to tighten their control on society.[33]
By labeling the wide range of activities that animal rights extremists engage in as ‘terroristic’, the government is, perhaps intentionally, isolating those individuals from the rest of society. By doing so however they risk tapping into psychological factors that Franco Ferracuti identified as contributing to the extremism and violence of Italian terrorists from 1969-1986:
…belonging to a group and remaining isolated from society at large reinforces the terrorists’ ideology and strengthens their motivations. Deviants tend to group together and to cut their ties with society - which is seen as the alien and hostile enemy - and to engage in a ‘fantasy war’ with it - a war whose reality seems enhanced when that society engages in repressive action. Such actions reinforce the terrorists’ deviance and make it difficult for such people to make an exit from the life of terrorism.[34]
It’s not clear what the long term effect AETA will have on ALF activities. A review of communiqués issued by ALF cells since the act’s passage however revealed that it was mentioned in three out of nine actions.[35] In those cases along with accompanying press releases, ALF members were defiant and claimed that legislation would not cause them to cease their activities. It is certainly possible that ALF members will view AETA as another attempt by government and industry to restrict freedoms and crush dissent. Research has indicated that for extremist groups and gangs “the main sources of gang cohesiveness are external to the gangs, and the police will often perform that function.”[36] If, therefore, law enforcement can not disrupt the ALF sufficiently for it to disintegrate, the group could respond to increased attention by further radicalizing and becoming more violent. In short, legislation and anti-ALF actions by law enforcement might have the unintended consequence of making the ALF more violent and destructive rather than less.
For the dedicated supporters of the AR ideology, the threat of fines or imprisonment is simply not effective. Evidence suggests that incarceration makes most terrorists more connected to their cause and they do not hesitate to restart their activities upon release.[37] Activists within the animal rights community frequently site their arrest and incarceration as badges of honor and are afforded additional respect among their peers. An active prisoner support network as well as ostracizing those who cooperate with authorities further reinforce ideological commitment and reduce the deterrent effects of the use of anti-terrorism legislation against the ALF.
There is another risk of demonizing AR extremists that has not received significant attention. Jerrold Post has hypothesized that some terrorists are not primarily motivated by ideology but rather, they “are drawn to the path of terrorism in order to commit acts of violence”.[38] In this theory, individuals seeking justification for committing acts of terrorism look for some suitable outlet for their desires. Some may gravitate towards right-wing extremism or religious terrorism but the underlying message of the AR movement with its focus on injustice to helpless creatures, social equality and anti-authoritarianism may find greater resonance within a post 9/11 America than alternative choices. The increased attention that AR and ecological extremists have received from local, state and the federal government over the past years has increased the visibility of both movements and may have raised a banner for those looking for justify their destructive tendencies to rally around. Unfortunately, research has not sufficiently examined this question but given the generally poor state of research into terrorist motivation it must be considered.
The successes of the ALF and similar organizations over the past 30 years mean that it is highly unlikely that there will be significant drop off in ALF activity in the near future. ALF’s decentralized network doesn’t provide law enforcement with a leadership structure that can be targeted. Members don’t need to rely on any outside guidance and usually require minimal support making disruption of their activities difficult at best. Radical AR advocates see the consequences of failure in their mission as the reinforcement of violence in human behavior, the death of billions of living creatures (each one as morally entitled to life as any human) and complete ecological catastrophe. The stakes are so high, in the view of these AR activists, that it is too late for compromise or moderation and direct action is the only way to achieve success. Threats of prison terms are likely to do little more than feed their perceptions that there are no effective, legitimate alternative to encourage change within society. Rather than feeding that perception by branding all of their actions with the loaded term ‘terrorist’, there may be utility in exploring alternate means of changing their behaviors.
Bibliography
American Legislative Exchange Council. Animal & Ecological Terrorism in America. (Washington DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 2003). Pg 7. www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/AnimalandEcologicalTerrorisminAmerica.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
Animal Liberation Front Animal Rights Activism FAQ. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/faq.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
Animal Liberation Front Press Office http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques_home.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
Anonymous “A Real-Life ALF Case With Questions.” http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Activist%20Tips/example_mission.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
Best, Steven “Rethinking Revolution: Animal Liberation, Human Liberation, and the Future of the Left” http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/RethinkingRevolution.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front” in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters ed. Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II (New York: Lantern) 2004.
Bjorgo, Tore, “How Gangs Fall Apart: Processes of Transformation and Disintegration of Gangs” Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Toronto, Canada, November 1999. http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Toronto-paper.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
Borum, Randy. “Psychology of Terrorism”. (Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida), 2004
The Caterpillar, “Where Have They Gone?” Arkangel vol. 4 http://www.arkangelweb.org/archives/pdf/4/Ark4pt3.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
Eagan, Sean P., “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-Terrorism” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 19 (1996): 1-18
Monaghan, Rachel “Animal Rights and Violent Protest” Terrorism and Political Violence Vol. 9 No. 4 (Winter 1997) pg. 106-16
Monaghan, Rachel “Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights” The Future of Terrorism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1997) pg. 165
Nephin, Dan “Eco-Terrorists’ elusiveness frustrate law enforcement in PA, ” The Associated Press, http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=427264 (accessed 6 May 2007)
Post, Jerrold, “Terrorist psycho-logic: Terrorist behavior as a product of psychological forces” in Origins of Terrorism ed. Walter Reich (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1990)
Potter, Will “Green is the New Red” Counterpunch, 4 May 2006. http://counterpunch.org/potter05042006.html (accessed 6 May 2007)
Regan, Tom “Who Are Your Animal Rights Activists Anyway?” http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/one.html (accessed 6 May 2007)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Judiciary. “Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality”, 108th Cong. 2004. Testimony of John E. Lewis. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:98179.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. “A Second Hearing on Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)” Hearing 26 Oct 2005. 108th Congress http://www.furcommission.com/resource/SFresources/SHAChearing.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. “Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (”ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (”ALF”)”, Hearing 18 May 2005. 108th Congress. Testimony of David Martosko. http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237826 (accessed 6 May 2007)
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Report to Congress on the Extent and Effects of Domestic and International Terrorism on Animal Enterprises, Oct 1993. pg.28. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1prior/crm21.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[1] Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality, 108
th Cong. 2004. Testimony of John E. Lewis. Retrieved
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:98179.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[2] The FBI defines terrorism as, “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” FBI Counterterrorism Policy and Guidelines.
http://jackson.fbi.gov/cntrterr.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
[3]American Legislative Exchange Council.
Animal & Ecological Terrorism in America. (Washington DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 2003). Pg 7.
www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/AnimalandEcologicalTerrorisminAmerica.pdf (accessed 06 May 2007)
[4] Sean P. Eagan, “From Spikes to Bombs: The Rise of Eco-Terrorism”
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 19 (1996): 1-18
[5] Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front” in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters ed. Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II (New York: Lantern) 2004.
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Steven Best “Rethinking Revolution: Animal Liberation, Human Liberation, and the Future of the Left” http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/RethinkingRevolution.htm (accessed 6 May 07)
[9] Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm (accessed 6 May 07)
[10] North American Animal Liberation Press Office, “Animal Activists Continue Campaign Against Abusers
Recent Amendments to Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Spur Illegal Direct Action” http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/press_releases/pr_07_01_08_aeta.htm (accessed 6 May 07)
[11] Animal Rights Activism FAQ. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/faq.htm (accessed 6 May 07)
[12] Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (”ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (”ALF”), 108th Congress 2005. Testimony of David Martosko. Exhibit 30. From: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237826 (accessed 6 May 07)
[13] Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm (accessed 6 May 07)
[14] Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II, “Behind the Mask: Uncovering the Animal Liberation Front” in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters ed. Best, Steven and Anthony J. Nocella II (New York: Lantern) 2004.
[15] Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (”ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (”ALF”), 108th Congress 2005. Testimony of David Martosko. Exhibit 24. From: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237826 (accessed 6 May 07)
[16] Rachel Monaghan “Animal Rights and Violent Protest” Terrorism and Political Violence Vol. 9 No. 4 (Winter 1997) pg. 106-16
[17] Tom Regan “Who Are Your Animal Rights Activists Anyway?” http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/one.html (accessed 6 May 2007)
[18]American Legislative Exchange Council. Animal & Ecological Terrorism in America. (Washington DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 2003). Pg9. www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/AnimalandEcologicalTerrorisminAmerica.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[19] “A Real-Life ALF Case With Questions.” http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Activist%20Tips/example_mission.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
[20] http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/organization (accessed 6 May 2007)
[21] Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (”ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (”ALF”), 108th Congress 2005. Testimony of David Martosko. From: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237826 (accessed 6 May 2007)
[22] American Legislative Exchange Council. Animal & Ecological Terrorism in America. (Washington DC: American Legislative Exchange Council, 2003). Pg. 9 www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/AnimalandEcologicalTerrorisminAmerica.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[23] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Report to Congress on the Extent and Effects of Domestic and International Terrorism on Animal Enterprises, Oct 1993. pg.28. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1prior/crm21.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[24] Dan Nephin “Eco-Terrorists’ elusiveness frustrate law enforcement in PA, ” The Associated Press, http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=427264 (accessed 6 May 2007)
[25] The Caterpillar, “Where Have They Gone?” Arkangel vol. 4 http://www.arkangelweb.org/archives/pdf/4/Ark4pt3.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[26]North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques_home.htm (accessed 6 May 2007)
[27] United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. “A Second Hearing on Eco-Terrorism Specifically Examining Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)” Hearing 26 Oct 2005. 108th Congress http://www.furcommission.com/resource/SFresources/SHAChearing.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[28] Rachel Monaghan “Terrorism in the Name of Animal Rights” The Future of Terrorism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1997) pg. 165
[29] Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front (”ELF”) and the Animal Liberation Front (”ALF”), 108th Congress 2005. Testimony of David Martosko. From: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237826 (accessed 6 May 2007)
[30] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Report to Congress on the Extent and Effects of Domestic and International Terrorism on Animal Enterprises, Oct 1993. pg.28. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1prior/crm21.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[31] Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality, 108th Cong. 2004. Testimony of John E. Lewis. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:98179.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[32] Frieden, Terry. “FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism.” CNN.com, May 19, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/ (accessed 6 May 2007)
[33] Will Potter, “Green is the New Red” Counterpunch, 4 May 2006. http://counterpunch.org/potter05042006.html (accessed 6 May 2007)
[34] Franco Ferracuti, “Ideology and repentance: Terrorism in Italy” in Origins of Terrorism ed. Walter Reich (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1990),61.
[35] North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques_home.htm (accessed 6 May 2007) Only actions which took place in the United States were considered in the review.
[36] Tore Bjorgo, “How Gangs Fall Apart: Processes of Transformation and Disintegration of Gangs” Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Toronto, Canada, November 1999. http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/Toronto-paper.pdf (accessed 6 May 2007)
[37] Borum, Randy. Psychology of Terrorism. (Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida), 2004. 39
[38] Jerrold Post, “Terrorist psycho-logic: Terrorist behavior as a product of psychological forces” in Origins of Terrorism ed. Walter Reich (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1990),25.
