If you missed the link from the story, you really ought to check out the item about the guy who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of eco-terrorism and why. Scary stuff.

If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.

Maybe things have improved in this country and people are doing better but I don't think that conditions have ever been worse for the poor in the 'third world' countries.

The same thing goes for the environment. I don't think that anyone can claim that things have been getting better for the worldwide environment in the last couple of decades... If anything is going to get better for the long term we need to get rid of capitalism, the government, and authority over other people. This change or 'revolution' is not going to be achieved through a massive protest. It's going to be a long drawn out and bloody conflict. The government NEVER gives in without a fight and it certainly won't do so this time...

A just solution, I think, would be to keep him confined, in a university, with free access to everything and everybody, for a brief period, say, no more than five years.

As I said, he is clearly brilliant, and civilization needs to learn from him.

But the resort to violence is obviously difficult.

The interview was very well conducted; the interviewer asked good questions, and got good answers.  But I am afraid the interview did not get to the heart of why Jeff thought (thinks still?) that destruction is an effective tactic.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    People resort to violence when they no longer believe that there is an alternative towards achieving their goal (or if they believe violence is the best method).

    Certainly acts of what the right calls "eco-terror" are not effective.  The military industrial machine merely shrugs them off.  What is destroyed is usually insured.  And the police are capable of far greater violence than any single individual.

    Jeff's sentence is a form of institutional violence.  It is designed not to punish him, but to send a signal about the permissable limits of dissent.

    As such, he is a political prisoner in the classic sense, being punished not for what he did, but for what he thought.  (A just punishment would be restitution and a shorter sentence, perhaps even community service).

    I wish him the best.

patrick

Luers seems no diferent to me than any garden variety psychopath - his venue to self glorification just happens to be the environment. People like him lack a conscience and the ability to feel any empathy or sympathy for those they harm in pursuit of sensation. They never really do inspire many others because they and their methods are so alien to those who act out of concern and caring. Luers and his kin do more harm than good and I'm happy to see him behind bars.  

You seem to forget that Luers harmed no one, unless you count the insurance company.

How does it make you feel to know that the very government that claims the right to imprison him for being an "extremist" has by its own admission murdered (at least) 30,000 Iraqi civilians, for reasons that have all been completely discredited?

Or that this same government tortures prisoners (Abu Graib), trains assassins (School of the Americas), and spies on its own citizens without warrants or oversight, for merely opposing its heinous policies?

Many people are quick to point how that Luers' methods were "ineffective".  These same people do not seem capable of offering more effective methods, however.  If these other methods are so much more effective, how did we get in the situation we're in?

      Since I was one who said Luer's methods were ineffective, and since you challenge me to give you an effective method.  I will.

      Organize.  Dress like young Republicans and go door to door talking to people.  Form neighborhood groups and hold house parties, meetings (less of these) and picnics.  Include music and poetry in your gatherings.  Do this enough and when you have the numbers, march and demand.  When the streets are full, government and corporations will respond or fall.

     In short (which the above certainly was!) act in a mass manner.  

     Individual acts look pretty in the movies, but they don't change anything.

     Look at history, change comes when people in large numbers want it.

     It takes time, isn't glamorous, sometimes is boring, but it is the surest path, maybe the only path to effective change.

     Why isn't this method pursued?  Because most people don't like to do this kind of dirty work in which we are all just people, not heroes.  

     Because the environmental "movement" mostly isn't.  It is mostly just a bunch of individuals, many of whom are disconnected from the masses of people.

     Why isn't this method pursued?  Will you do it?  Why not?  The reasons people don't do this seem to be many.  

     If anyone has a more effective way, I would love to hear it.  

patrick

And just to be clear, I agree with you 100% on the value of face to face, honest communication between people, to bring about positive change.

However, I feel that you as well as many other people are caught in the trap of believing that the way that feels most comfortable to them (nonthreatening, low-risk) is also the only effective way, for all people.

Many people are unaware that Jeff Luers spent his fair share of time canvassing door to door for a mainstream enviro organization, as well as calling  and meeting with his representatives, writing letters, and doing civil disobedience.  He didn't arrive at the decision to do what he did on a lark, he did it out of frustration.  Because, you make a fatal assumption in your plan:  "do this enough, and when you have the numbers", march on washington or whatever.

Environmentalists have been doing as you say for about forty years.  We still don't have the numbers.  THAT is why Jeff chose to take such a risk, and because he did, mainstream environmental publications like Grist are now talking about him, and the issue of "how far should we go" in defense of the environment is that much closer to the public consciousness.  

So before you say "individual acts don't change anything", please tell me: what would you do if you desperately needed to get a message into the front page of the newspapers, and you didn't have three hundred years with which to go door to door and talk to everybody in the country about it?

Jeff did what he did, and now he's in the newspapers.  He's also in prison.  You can disagree with his tactics all you want, but he made an honorable choice, given the information at his disposal, and he deserves respect for it.

     Did I indicate a lack of respect for Jeff Luers?  That was not my intent.  In fact, I understand his frustration.  But, look at what happened.  He burned some vehicles, got a brief spash in the media and went to jail for an extremely long time.  In jail, he is unable to actively pursure environmental work.

    So, was his protest effective?  I would say no.

    As to your comments that the environmental movement has been knocking on doors for forty years, I would argue that it has not.  Most of the time, it meets in small mostly white male enclaves  (here I mean the mainstream environmental movement, not the EJ folks) and plots it's lobbying assaults on Washington.

    I don't recall the last mass demonstrations organized.  

    And I am talking about building the kind of grassroots neighborhood based, education centered groups that can promote and make real, radical change.  Not just lobby members of congress.

    It's not just a question of what we are comfortable with, I come from the era when anti-war activists debated these very issues, violence vs. non-violence, how to stop a terrible war machine.  It's a tough call.  There are good people on both sides of the discussion.

    But while violence is "romantic" in the movies, in real life, I don't see any evidence that it works.

    Nor do I see any evidence that the environmental "movement" (mostly a bunch of committees, and yeah, I sat on my share) has ever seriously put a focus on building a mass movement that DEMANDS action.

    The EJ movement does, and is often more effective, despite smaller numbers.

patrick

No, unlike many of those who disagree with him, you did not indicate disrespect for Jeff.  My apologies.

And just so we're clear, let me say again that I agree with you on the pressing need for the sort of work you describe.  I do think there may be a greater chance of success now than there ever has been for popular mobilization on environmental issues, given the recent hurricane seasons and the clear connection (for most, anyway) between the unpopular war in Iraq and America's dependence on oil.

Ironically, the result of Jeff's imprisonment has been not to leave him unable to actively pursue environmental work, but rather to leave him somewhat uniquely positioned to do exactly the kind of work you are talking about, except of course for his limited outreach abilities.  He can't go door to door (obviously), but he has been quite effective at writing and speaking.  And as a matter of fact, his media splash is far from over; instead it seems to be continuously growing.  

(Even more ironic is the fact that it wasn't his crime that gives him this media attention, but rather his sentence.  Talk about mixed blessings!)

Currently there is another, similar case in the works that will dwarf Jeff's by an order of magnitude -- look up "green scare" online if you haven't heard of it; Portland Indymedia would be a good place to start.  Thirteen defendants are currently facing life sentences or more, (if you can figure that out) for crimes similar to Jeff's.

There is much room for debate on the effectiveness of various tactics, but this is a frightening time to be on the radical side of that debate, and it is a time in which strong solidarity on the left is critical.  I hope you and others who read this can agree with that much.  These people pushed the envelope, but they did NOT commit violence (in the sense of bodily harm) and they do not deserve to be classified as terrorists, which is exactly what the government is trying to do to them.  

Thanks again for your comments, keep up the fight!

And, BTW, Portland Indymedia is a bunch of hooligans preaching to their own choir. They ruthlessly censor all opposing viewpoints (including my own middle-of-the-road "Freddie" perspective) and, isn't fascism what they're supposed to be fighting against?!? No wonder their style of activism is losing the minds and hearts of Americans (and lawmakers) nationwide.

Now, THIS place is sooooo very different. The people here are more like "realists" who care a great deal for the environment AND for their fellow man, however misguided some of those folks on both sides are.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Another "garden variety" arsonist, as you call it, in the very same urban area, burned down houses for fun, with people in them.  The people luckily escaped through their own efforts.  This arsonist got about five years.  Another one burned THOUSANDS of acres of wildlands, and endangered the lives of hundres of firefighters, for the noble purpose of getting overtime pay.  She got about two years, if I remember right.  Certainly no more.

Jeff Luers got twenty-two years, because he did it trying to save the world.  That's not "doing the time", that's doing collective time inflicted with a blatant intent to intimidate and punish all others who would dare resist this system.  By your "middle of the road" complacency, you are giving your tacit approval to this sentence and the goals behind it.  

Are things in the world going the way you wish they were?  Are you changing them?  How?
If you're not, please spare Jeff and others like him your judgements on the methods they chose to use.

As I've said a million times on this blog, the powers that be want to force us into a choice: do we approve of terrorism or not? But this involves a premise I don't accept. It's entirely possible to say that Luers is a criminal and deserves a reasonable sentence while also deploring the gross politicization of this issue, and the clear intent to punish a group of people based on their political beliefs.

grist.org

"Regular arsonists" really SHOULD get more than you stated but, the gal who started the Hayman Fire in Colorado really WAS a loonie. She didn't start it to get overtime. She started it because her life was in a shambles and she couldn't deal with it. ALL arsonists should at least get counseling and some kind of internment, as most arsonists have a sexual deviancy that is temporarily satisfied through arson. Jeff seems like he was a "cold-blooded" arsonist and knew exactly what he was doing in protest. He sure as hell wasn't "saving the world"!!! In fact, he merely added to the toxic gasses spewing into our atmosphere and added junk cars to the junkyard. They certainly will make MORE Hummer gas hogs.

And this leads us to a bigger question. As in all terrorism or noble causes, do the ends justify the means? I sure don't want to come to work one day and find that an activist has blown up my office, like what happened in Carson City and on the Willamette. This is a deterrent, albeit a grossly overblown one, in some cases. We'll see how many new "direct actions" follow Jeff's template, now.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Secondly, the question of the state response to violence when committed as a political crime.

   Whether violence is justifiable or not is a difficult question that people have debated for thousands of years (and hopefully will continue to debate).  

   For me, I do not believe that for the environmental movement at this time it is an effective tactic.  I don't believe (and have seen no evidence) that it acchieves its goal.

   In terms of Jeff and the other folks mentioned.   What is relevant to me is not whether I agree with their individual crimes, their attitudes or what they are doing with their lives.  The question I am concerned with is the state response to those activities.

    Every government every where at all times, has treated crimes against the state more seriously than crimes in other categories.  Anyone considering an act of violence from an environmental perspective should consider this as they contemplate their actions.

    So, no one should be suprised at such harsh sentences being handed down.  From the state point of view, they serve as much as deterrents to others as punishment for the actual crimes.

    But what should our attitude be?  Even if we dislike/disagree with/deplore the tactics, do we want to accept the government judgement that those who act on behalf of the environment belong in the same category as people seeking to destroy Western civilization(this said without considering the virtues of such a desire, or supporting/condemning any particular expression of that desire (tongue in cheek)).

    I would argue that allowing the government to put what THEY call "eco-terrorists" into the same categorie as "international-terrorists" is a mistake on our part.

    Just as all believers in Islam are damaged by the labelling attached to a few, so are all environmentalists damaged by allowing the term "eco" to be attached to terrorism.

    We have a vested interest (and I personally believe that justice is also served) in seeking to have such crimes seen in a less serious light.  We should defend folks, whether we agree with them or not, to the extent that their being demonized reflects on us.

    Keep in mind that all definitions of crime are essentially political.  Look at the different descriptions of people who sell the drug cocaine for a living.  In Hollywood (frequently demonized), they are agents selling a harmless "recreational drugs", in Harlem (also frquently demonized), they are portrayed as as evil violent devils who are destroying civilization (crack dealers).  They are sentenced differently and thought of accordingly.

    Yet, effectively, they do the same thing.

    The labels and perceptions we accept and use matter a great deal.

    Once we allow "eco-terrorism" to become an accepted label for violence done by those who have a concern for the environment, we will find ourselves pushed closer to that line.  We will be subject to attack and suspected at every turn.

    Instead of talking about what is happending to the earth, we end up discussing burning cars.

    Notice, that when a corporation dumps poison into a stream to save money, it is not labelled "eco-terrorism".  Do we really think this is an accident?

    Notice that said corporation is NOT given a heavier fine for it's "violence" against the environment, but a light punishment.  

    We need to be careful of the labelling and definitions we accept.  Losing the battle of the labels leaves us in a defensive position.

    So, defending Jeff and others who are given these disproportionate sentences is critical towards defining the terms of the discussion.  IE, are their "crimes" deserving of such greater punishment than the "crimes" of a company that dumps waste into a harbor?

    Why does the state punish individuals so harshly and corporations so lightly?

    After all, corporations argue that they are just like people in terms of free speech and political donations, so shouldn't they be treated like people in terms of violations of the laws?

    I want to call for us to look at the state response to so-called "eco-terrorism" and criticize it without supporting the tactics.  

    Further, we should raise the issue of why the state does not include corporate actions against the environment in the class of "eco-terrorism" if there is to be such a class of crimes.

    And we should try to do this without being distracted from the real issues, which are how to live in a sustainable manner in harmony with nature and our fellow world citizens.

patrick

Says Patrick,  
"I would argue that allowing the government to put what THEY call 'eco-terrorists' into the same categorie as 'international-terrorists' is a mistake on our part.

    "Just as all believers in Islam are damaged by the labelling attached to a few, so are all environmentalists damaged by allowing the term 'eco' to be attached to terrorism."

Leaving aside that Islam is a false and cruel religion, to be distinguished utterly from those practices of traditionally Muslim people which are most humane, that is well put, and deserves attention.

Scribit Patricius:
"Keep in mind that all definitions of crime are essentially political."

That is absurd.  I am unwilling to call to mind images of the murdered love ones of countless bereaved people around the world.  Wait on kind-hearted Patrick to console you, all you bereaved.  He will tell you those murders are not crimes, unless the powers that be say they are.

Yes, we are very stupid.  We need people like Patrick to tell us what is what.

Nevertheless, though way off the point in that regard, Patrick is quite right to condemn the political force requiring so unjust a sentence of Jeff Luers.

Time to start a "Free Jeff Luers" movement, if one has not already begun.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

     At various times, murder has indeed been legal.  The Germans murdered Jews under their "legal" system.  The Catholic church murdered many people legally using the inquisition.  Protestant churches murdrered witches legally.  Wars murder people legally even today.

     Oh, this isn't/wasn't murder?  It is merely "killing"? Murder is a political definition of a type of killing.  In some societies, it is legal to kill a woman who has had a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

     If by murder, you mean only the murder of individuals by individuals, there are many times when we consider it legal.  For self defense.  In  some states, there is a debate that one should be allowed to kill if one "feels" threatened.  This is clearly a political issue.

     What is theft?  When can property be confiscated?  If I take your wallet by force, this is considered theft.  If a landlord takes your possessions and destroys them for non-payment of rent, this is not considered theft. (I am not arguing whether it should be or not, merely pointing out that in both cases, "you" have lost your possessions.)  Our choice to protect property and the circumstances under which we protect are political issues.

     This means they have changed over time.  And continue to do so.

     At one time, horse thiefs were subject to hanging.  We don't do that today.

     At one time, the drugs that have imprisoned millions were legal.  The penalties for drug possession and use vary from state to state, this is political.

     I am certainly not suggesting that we should not consider some acts criminal, nor am I suggesting that we should not punish them.  But we should keep in mind that our inclinations to do so are often political in nature.  

patrick

   Dear Caniscandida,

       Why do you consider Islam to be a "cruel and false" religion?  But that I take it you are not a believer?

       A case could be made that every religion is "cruel and false".  Another case can be made that every religion has elements of love and compassion, and that all contain elements of truth.

       Setting both cases aside, let me say that I have personally known many kind and wonderful Islamic people, and count a number among my good friends.

       We should respect religious and spiritual practices of all religions.

patrick

   Dear Backcut,

       Thanks for you kind words!  Please be careful.

       Who do you think is putting bombs in Forest Service Gates and what do they intend to accomplish?

       This is scary indeed.  Again, be careful.

patrick

in fact I agree with pretty much everything you have just written.  Earlier, I found "political" to be misleading.  If we consider "crime" to be a technical term, and to do so would not be unreasonable, then it may be correct to say that all definitions of what are crimes and what are not are, strictly speaking, the decisions of law-makers.  Since law-making is a function of governmental authorities, in that sense the definition of crime can be said to be political.

I was using "crime" in a looser sense, to include other cases of injustice.  I entirely agree with your distinction between crime, truly so-called, and injustices that are not designated as crimes.  And your description of how history is full of examples of the legalizing and condoning of injustices is well done and indeed important.

On Islam, this is not the place to get into that.  As I said, many of the secular cultural traditions of the great majority of Muslims are humane and admirable.  And like you, I have had the privilege of knowing many Muslims who were clearly excellent people, many of them far better than I.  On the cruelty of the religion, I could direct you to a friend of mine in England who works with immigrants from Muslim countries, refugees who were persecuted in the name of Islam.  He is quite an expert on what Islamic law means now, and what it will mean as Muslims seek more and more assertively to impose their law on European societies.  On its falsity, yes it is possible to say everything is relative, and I appreciate that a Muslim thinks the reverse, that my religion is false.  And I certainly appreciate that many Christians have done many cruel things over the centuries in the name of their religion.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I've seen on the Portland Indymedia site the frustration and potential desperation of those anarchist types. Eco's in many places are debating the wisdom of violence in their causes. Most seem to be solid in their disapproval of bodily harm and physical violence. Some do not see the problem in impacting people's economic survival, though, denying that to be a form of "economic violence" and actual harm. For example, extensively blocking a person's right to do legal work in the woods. A few others rely solely on organized non-violent protest and resistance through proper channels like appeals and court proceedings. Those debates still continue in secret meetings and forums.

  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/327777.shtml

I fully support the people's right to protest, short of impacting other people's legal rights and pursuits of happiness. I continue to respect those who peacefully pursue their beliefs and am open to learning new things from such people. I just hope they also keep an open mind to learning from my extensive woods experience, as well. I've been on both sides of the fence.    

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

He writes this:

"The legal doctrine of necessity, which traces its roots in the Western tradition at least as far back as the thirteenth century, makes it lawful for someone in extreme need to disregard the law in order to satisfy that need, as long as in doing so they do not inflict an even greater harm than the one they seek to avoid.  Discussing the crime of theft, Thomas Aquinas said that 'it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly.'  Although the doctrine has more recently been hemmed in by miserly judicial interpretation, its moral force remains compelling.  After all, when the need motivating unlawful activity is sufficiently strong, it is unlikely that official repression will be able to stop it completely.  And, as the Catholic moral tradition has long recognized, when the needs that push people to resort to illegal conduct are so great that they make lawbreaking justified or excusable, official repression itself becomes an act of lawless violence."

In the case of Jeff Luers, possibly it can be argued that he was "in extreme need," if that be defined to include considerations of conscience; and so the people who are truly guilty of lawless violence are those who have chucked him into prison and thrown away the key.  A bit of a stretch, perhaps, but the argument can be made.

Mind you, dear Backcut, injuring you with a pipebomb would be clearly too great a harm than what could ever be justified for an act done out of extreme need from urgency of conscience.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    They may call themselves anarchists, but they are acting more like nihilists.  If it is indeed happening, and being done by them.  The idea of planting a bomb to keep someone from working in the forest is a prime example of foolish ineffectiveness.

    It hasn't worked, it has only created a level of fear among workers, and it serves their enemies by making it easier to demonize and discredit them.  (Which is why it is tempting to see the hand of their opponents in such actions.)

    During the anti-war movement, there were always those who showed up advocating violence from "somewhere else", or whom were unknown to anyone present.  The general assumption was that they may have been deluded, but also may have been government agents.

    The government does have a history of promoting and encouraging violence by dissenters in the hopes of discrediting them.  The FBI is notorious for such acts.

    Thanks for the link, it does seem the main argument they are having is "confrontation" vs. "passive resistance", which is not always the same as violence.  

    There is a lesson for all of us, though.  We are largely failing as an American movement to 1) Really protect the environment 2) Do anything effective to slow down global warming, 3) Make any serious steps towards developing a sustainable lifestyle (as a nation).

    So, I can certainly understand their frustration.  How can we, all of us, direct our frustration and anger towards making real substantial change?

patrick

    I guess it didn't matter if they were harmed (not being recognized as citizens of the United States).  We should be careful about calling the invaders "Anglo", since they weren't all Anglos.

    The Berrigans and others (The Berrigran brothers were former (?, I think at that point) Catholic priests who as anti-war activists frequently ended up in jail.  They and others often used the "doctrine of neccessity" to try to justify their actions.  It didn't work.

    Neither the government nor the public at large show any sign of accepting such arguments (nor does the Catholic Church accept them except when it suits its purposes).  Anti-abortion protesters have also tried to argue this as justification for their actions.

    It could also be used by the "Wise Use" movement to justify their "taking" of government lands and resources.

    Any such claims are always in the eyes of the beholder, and then the eyes of the courts (and public opinion).  Neither the courts or the public are likely to react favorably to such claims made by those with opinions that oppose the current state of affairs.

     If you break a window to save a baby from a fire, it is forgiven.  If you break into a lab to save a monkey from experimentation, it is not.

     "Extreme need of conscience" is useful only as a form of self-justification.  It is not a useful legal idea generally, nor useful in solving environmental problems.

     patrick

in fact I do not commit myself at this point to the argument for justifying Jeff Luers' actions based on the doctrine of necessity.  And I agree perfectly with your closing paragraph.  I had the same misgivings even as I wrote what I did.  But it occurred to me that others who have written to this thread in support of Luers might find it useful in one way or another.

It is well known that "Anglo" is a misnomer in just about every context, save possibly the linguistic one, to refer to people whose first language is English, regardless of their ethnic ancestry.  And even that does not fit the pioneers/invaders of the 19th century, many of whom were from e.g. Germany and Scandinavia.  But "Anglo" has been used as a sloppy shorthand, God knows why, for anyone of white European ancestry, so that even I am nowadays "Anglo," to my horror.

And no, let us not overlook those settlers in the West of African ancestry.

You will have to ask Mr. Pen~alver about what federal territory he has in mind.  I am sure he knows about federal land given by treaty to Native peoples; I would be surprised if he does not deplore the invasion of those lands by pioneers (though in the Black Hills in SD, the invaders who provoked the hostility between the US and the Lakota, aided by their Northern Cheyenne friends, were prospecters for gold, a distinct group from the farmers and their families that he seems to have in mind); in fact I suspect he would be appalled at the suggestion that the undocumented immigrants today are guilty of anything nearly as destructive as what European invaders and their descendants did to the Native Americans.  His point in this brief essay is only to say that people who broke the law in the past, in the course of migration motivated by poverty, were before long accommodated by the law, and are today remembered as heroes in Western states and elsewhere.

Neither Pen~alver, nor the editors of Commonweal, nor the Berrigans, speak or have spoken for the Catholic Church.  But they are Catholics, and so in a more important sense they are all of them the Catholic Church, never mind what the Pope etc. think.  That is why I much prefer the term "Catholic thought," which suggests a broad array of related but not necessarily concordant opinions, to the more often used term "Catholic teaching," much more narrow and hierarchical.  For their part, the hierarchs (i.e. the Pope, the Vatican, the bishops) say glimmeringly good things every now and then, e.g. Mahoney of LA recently on taking care of undocumented immigrants; but in general they have been mightily disappointing, sometimes preaching even positive wickedness, such as the prohibition against condom distribution to prevent HIV, and resistance to adoption by same-sex couples.

The Berrigans were a bit before I reached the age of reason, so I do not know much about them.  I think Daniel always remained a priest.  They and their companions, presumably mostly Catholic layfolk, did a fair amount of destroying of draft records back in the Vietnam days, and of spilling blood at sites associated with nuclear weapons; did they actually hammer the head of a missile once?  I have no knowledge whatsoever if they ever appealed to the doctrine of necessity.

What exactly did not work?  Inasmuch as they protested the war in Vietnam, they were on the side that came to prevail in popular opinion.  How much their own activity affected that is not easy to say.  Inasmuch as they worked toward the dismantling of the US nuclear arsenal, they had no effect.  So on balance they were failures, right?  And Jeff Luers too?

Well, I can think of three kinds of answers to that question.

1. (Utilitarian answer A:) Yes.  They envisioned a happiness for many people, a vision that many people would approve of, but they failed to make that happiness a reality.

2. (Utilitarian answer B:) Maybe; we do not know yet.  Their imprisonment may in fact inspire others to rise up, go forth and realize the vision of happiness.  We shall see.

3. The value of an action does not depend on the result.  Its value depends on the sincerity and integrity of the actor, in trying to do what is good.  Suffering, such as imprisonment, is testimony to the sincerity and integrity of the actor.

I much admire, dear Patrick, the Darwinian ruthlessness with which you try to weed out the less fit tactics of certain environmentalists.  By all means, carry on.  But please always remember to applaud their good intentions.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Dear Caniscandida,

        You are correct.  I should of course admire the good intentions of those who are on, essentially, the same side.

        About the western migration.  It was not done completely in response to poverty.  Those who went in Wagon trains were often fairly well off (the real poor never got that far).

        The problem with regarding them as heros, is that their direct descendents (ideologically) are not environmentalists, but rather the so called "wise use" folks who go and demand their right to use land that the federal government is trying to protect (as little as that is these days!).

        There is a disturbing thought-line in America which admires "outlaws" and rugged individualists without considering their actions in a broader social context.

        While those pioneers may be regarded as heros today by society at large, it is a regard without consideration of their actions in any kind of context.  The farmers and their families often took land that local native peoples considered theirs.  

        As far as the effectiveness of the Berrigans (and others like them) goes.  At the time, I greatly admired them.  But looking back, their actions were "dead-end" actions.  Which means they were personal statements that led to no greater movement towards peace and justice.

        In that sense, they (and I) failed to create any kind of lasting consensus about war and peace in America.  This made the continuing adventures of Buckoo-Ronnie and his various followers possible as they invaded and plundered the world.  

        (Frankly our justification for Iraq is as weak as Saddam Hussein's justification for Kuwait was).

         I am afraid that I disagree when you say that the value of an action does not depend on the result.  If we think that way, we focus more on the "intent of the individual" than on solving our problems.  This is fine if the problems are not serious, but ours are.

         Many years ago, I was involved in a political campaign.  I was in a leadership position.  Many people admired me.  I felt great, I did everything in the most moral "revolutionary" way possible.

         One day, someone I admired pulled me aside.  He asked me if I wanted the campaign to succeed.  Of course I did!!  Then, why, he asked, was I so intent on "posturing" without considering the effect of that posturing on the campaign.  In effect, I was so busy being "cool" that I wasn't thinking about how to win.

          He further went on to tell me that I had a responsibility to the people who looked to me for leadership, that folks were risking their jobs and careers to follow me, and I was not taking that risk seriously.

          He was of course, right.  It was a sobering moment.  I went home and thought a lot.

          The point of this antecdote is that while personal sacrifice might be cool, it rarely leads to the desired results.  The Berrigans, the Jeffs (and yes, me at one point) and others have good hearts.  But their tactics are not designed to build a movement that changes the world.

          If we cannot change the world, we risk losing it.  Individual heroics will not save us, no matter how admirable they may seem.  We need to "move the mountain", not just scale it and wave a flag.

patrick

This was a stupid crime that hurt the environmental movement, the toxic smoke alone that this act released will tell you that.  If he hadn't committed it, agent provacateurs in the service of the dark forces of lord cheney of halliburton probably would have.

Protests by environmentalists over his sentence are the among the last things we need at this political stage of our continuing losses to the vast disinformation and bribery campaign staged by lobbyists (in and out of government)for the energy staus quo.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

But what is now to be done, in the case of this unfair sentence?  Speaking up in protest can indeed antagonize those who are convinced, against us, that the sentence is quite fair.  But not to protest an unfair sentence seems unjust, and a failure in our civic duty.  In the case of that LA gang leader, whose name I do not recall, who pretty indisputably committed some horrendous murders around 25 years ago, but in the course of his imprisonment showed repentance and remorse and even turned to writing some morally edifying stuff, it seems it was reasonable for opponents of the death penalty to engage in quiet, prayerful demonstrations, and request Gov. Schwarzenegger to stay the execution (which he did not).

The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, charged with killing a PA policeman in 1982, and falsely so charged according to his supporters, is rather trickier.  This is a very divisive issue in Philadelphia; and it does not help his cause that his support has become international.  It is clear the law-and-order crowd in this country, those who love to punish, are never so encouraged to carry out an execution as when an appeal comes from abroad, e.g. from the Pope.  Mumia's friends seem to think he was falsely charged to begin with, and so not only should he be spared the death penalty, he should be released from prison altogether.  That is a tough task that they have set for themselves, then.  Still, if they sincerely believe an innocent man's life is at stake, they cannot do nothing.

In another matter entirely, we who support gay rights were overjoyed when, for a few weeks in early 2004, the idealistic young mayor of SF authorized the marrying of same-sex couples in his city.  But Barney Frank at once cautioned that this was the wrong way to proceed.  He was right; and we saw what happened as a result on November 2 of that year.  Not only do many states now prohibit same-sex marriage in formal terms, but the right-wing backlash brought out the GOP voters.  Obviously same-sex marriage, and equal rights for gays and lesbians in general, remain causes that we must continue to struggle for.  But the tactics for doing so effectively are very subtle indeed.

There are always going to be set-backs.  But time goes on, and none of these stories is over, really.  What you and the Berrigans did, Patrick, during the Vietnam War may look futile to you; but in fact your actions have not played out yet.  Perhaps you did not persuade as many people as you thought you needed to.  But you did favorably impress a lot of people with the rightness of your cause, and many of them are still around, and in their own circles say and do things that demonstrate the vision is alive.

Please do not misunderstand me to be suggesting that in order to evaluate an action the end-result is a matter of indifference.  No, not at all.  It indeed must be taken into account, but so must also the agent's abilities, values, motives, intentions, circumstances, etc.  One of the difficulties with utilitarianism for many people is that it only takes into account the end-result, and all the other things do not matter.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   And I absolutely agree that long term consequences and benefits of our actions matter, but may not always be visible.

   But even so, we must consider the end goals.  One problem with global warming, is that many of us feel it is urgent for all of the species on this planet.  That urgency means that slowly trying to get the American public to take baby steps (you CAN climb on the bus ONCE a year) feels futile.

   At some point, they may turn on us all, and say "Why didn't you tell us thie was URGENT in an effective manner (glub glub)?"  (Drowning noises provided by Oscar the whale).

   And of course, the folks worried about the last old growth forests in North America feel the same way.  What happens when the public decides to save them, but it is too late.

   Scientiest call this a period of a "great extinction", the first one made by humans.  And we yawn and watch "Distended Housewives" on tv.

   I appreciate the good posture (did it myself, some would say I still do), but always feel like I am hearing Madonna sing "Strike a pose" and watching everyone stop moving while we admire their looks. (In other words, nothing happens.)

   Dear AmazingDrX, I understand your feeling.  But here is why I disagree.  Look at the crimes committed by Chuck Colson.  Did conservatives ever stop defending him?  Are they turning their backs on Tom DeLay even now?  Or Rush Limbaugh (drug addict and criminal extraordinaire)?  No.

   We need to stop being afraid of what the right wing will say.  We should stand proudly for what we believe is true.  It is our fears of alienating people (who will NEVER SUPPORT US ANYWAY) that harm us.

   Conservatives who say "I would be an environmentalist, but I saw a gay couple holding hands and wearing "Free Mumia" buttons at a save the spotted owl rally." are gaming us.  They would never be environmentalist, they are merely trying to weaken the movenent by promoting disunity among different groups that are vaguely progressive.

   Anyone who thinks that the environment is not a "progressive" issue needs to look carefully at who supports what.  Trying to suck up to people who aren't going to support us is a waste of time.

    Instead, we need to be building new coalitions with our natural allies, and educating people who have not made up their minds.

    I've done political door to door work for over 40 years, and a standard tactic of the right is to try to get us to argue with them by pretending they might be convinced.  People argue and argue for ours, and get nowhere (though they often think they "almost" persuaded the person).  They go home without contacting and organzing their existing supporters, and the opponet closes the door and laughs, they just got someone to fail to organize anyone.

    Don't support Jeff's actions, but oppose his unjust sentence (compare it to Rush's sentence or Oliver North's sentence if you need to).  

    We should stand up and state our beliefs openly and honestly, not be afraid of our enemies.

patrick

When someone chooses to commit a crime in the name of the environment that involves the release of toxic chemical into the environment and toxic publicity to the cause, then he ought to face the consequences with his lawyers, instead of the public support of environmentalists.

It can only magnify the negative effect of his original act to publicize it.  Aren't there other cases where non-violent jailed enviromental activists need help?

" It is our fears of alienating people (who will NEVER SUPPORT US ANYWAY) that harm us."

No, we fear alienating the swing voters in the middle.  And that will happen if we fall into this trap.  If not for this guy's idiocy, the dark forces of lord cheney of halliburton would have embedded him in the movement, in fact they do this routinely.  

Place agent provacauteurs, usually petty criminal informants, in protest groups who are there to impell or commit violence in order to alienate the moderate middle from our side.

My policy is to counterattack those advocating violence of any kind as agents.  Whether they are or not, their actions play into the hands of the opposition.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

First, I would please ask "amazingdrx" to remember that Jeff Luers is not an abstract issue to be trashed at will, he is a real human being with friends and family.  He is extremely intelligent and caring, and he is highly conscious of the sort of issues being brought up by all parties in this discussion.  In short, he is not an idiot, nor is he a psychopath as was hinted at earlier by somebody else.  The fact that he chose to take a more extreme path than other people have does not make him either of those things, and while his friends might wish he had done differently for selfish reasons, only history will tell whether he did the right thing for the planet.  He definitely does not deserve to sit in prison for the entire length of his extraordinary sentence, inflicted on him as collective punishment for the entire radical movement, just because you disagree with his tactics -- and by the way, fuck you very much for thinking he does.

Which brings me to my main point.  I fully understand the urge to appeal to the "swing voters", but neither you (amazingdrx) nor anybody else KNOWS that this is the right path, so I would kindly ask you to stop speaking as if you do.  I don't know you but I sincerely doubt that you know that much more than I do about the environment, the American body politic, or the available timeline in which to solve these problems.  I've put in a number of years in academic as well as front-line roles, and have yet to see any concrete evidence that the point of view you are expressing is inherently "more effective" than radical activism.  What  I hear you talking about what you think is right, and what you think is wrong.  

Personally, I think all kinds of action up to and including what Jeff did are at least potentially right and necessary.  I draw my theoretical line at the same point Jeff did and practically all other radical environmental activists do:  no injury to humans or animals.  Private property is not the same kind of inherent right that bodily safety is, and in certain extreme times it may become necessary to infringe on property rights.  It doesn't take a very extensive analysis of civil rights & labor history to figure this much out.

Certainly education and communication are necessary to solve the problems permanently, but when people aren't even discussing the problem, when it's entirely below the radar, it may well be argued that actions like rioting in the streets of Seattle or burning a couple of SUVs at night are what it takes to draw attention.  (And yes, a little smoke was released from both of these events -- how do you think that compares to the unchallenged flow of millions of cars and trucks all across the country?)  Clearly, it's not an ideal situation when things like this have to happen, but is there anything about our current state of affairs that could be described as ideal?

I understand that you may think promoting alternative energy is enough, but there are a lot of people doing that.  How fast is it moving us?  Fast enough?  People are dying every day because of our failure to solve major environmental and social issues, and they have been sickening and dying for years and years.  Are you THAT sure that the methods you are pursuing personally are the very fastest way to make changes?  Are you really so entirely confident that it's possible to stir up the system and make the dramatic changes necessary without offending some people sitting on the fence?  The swing voters aren't gonna be of much use to us anyway, if they had any commitment they would have taken sides by now.  What we're going to need in order to win is not just votes but extraordinary commitment and zeal, and that is what Jeff Luers demonstrates.  Whether or not you agree, I know I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the self-righteousness at home.

The government can only get away with this kind of extreme reaction when the liberals stand there saying "let their lawyers deal with it, I disagree with their tactics so I don't care what happens to them."  

When they're done with us, they'll be coming for you next, make no mistake about that.

My one quibble:

I draw my theoretical line at the same point Jeff did and practically all other radical environmental activists do:  no injury to humans or animals.

You're certainly right that we could all do with a little humility in the face of enormous, intractable problems.

grist.org

Also, while I don't support anyone using actual, bodily violence for political purposes, if I was Palestinian or Iraqi, had my whole family blown up, etc. I might have a different perspective.   I think Jeff's comments acknowledge that, which is why he won't say it was entirely wrong.  For people who live in countries that are on the receiving end US foreign and economic policies, the events of 9/11 might look a little less cut and dried than they do to most Americans.

    One problem of 9/11 is that it changed the nature of political discourse in America.  It made national security the main issue in politics, pushing issues like justice and the environment down towards the bottom.

    The fact that we even think of 9/11 and Jeff Luers and the "green scare" victims in the same breath is disturbing.

    Applying the same word "terrorism" to all of these situations is absurd.  But we do it (or the vast majority of us do it).  Having labeled what Jeff and the others did with the same label as we use for the 9/11 attacks, we lose some of our ability to distinguish between them.

    This is dangerous.  Dangerous for them, and for all of us.

    As long as we let the events of 9/11 be used to stifle discourse, we are in trouble.  Any form of dissent now can be refuted not by logic, but only by the use of the terms associated with 9/11, such as "National Security."

    Unless we can find a way to remove this knee jerk reaction from public discourse, then anyone who advocates change is in trouble.

    We see it in the absurd sentences proposed (or in Jeff's case, given) for so-called "eco-terrorists".  We see it in the willingness of people to allow government spying through the NSA, we see it in the debate over immigration, we see it in the debate over "foreign oil".

    The fear engendered by the events of 9/11 is the elephant in the room of American political discourse.

    Here is a link to an article in the Guardian about a collection of 11 short films about 9/11.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,858648,00.html

    If you haven't seen these, I highly reccomend them to get a world perspective.

patrick