Not as if the security of our continent isn't under enough duress from our flailing economies and from Religious fanatics but these domesticated terrorists are even more damaging fallout to add to the dilemma and tie up valuable law enforcement needlessly..



Must read: DHS report on ecoterror‏

Sent: February 8, 2009 7:17:01 PM


On Feb. 8, WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.org/) released
to the public a 40-page report by the Dept. of Homeland Security,
"Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights Militants in the
United States", dated May 7, 2008. The introduction follows. To view
the full report, visit
http://wikileaks.org/leak/dhs-ecoterrorism-in-us-2008.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

07 May 2008

UNIVERSAL ADVERSARY DYNAMIC THREAT ASSESSMENT

Ecoterrorism: Environmental and Animal-Rights Militants in the United States

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The term ecological terrorists,1 or ecoterrorists, refers to those
individuals who independently and/or in concert with others engage in
acts of violence and employ tactics commonly associated with
terrorism to further their sociopolitical agenda aimed at animal
and/or environmental protection. The ecoterrorist movement is a
highly decentralized transnational network bound and driven by common
ideological constructs that provide philosophical and moral
justification for acts of violence against what it perceives to be
the destructive encroachment of modern society on the planet's
habitat and its living organisms.2 The ecoterrorist movement
represents the fringe element of the broader ecological and
animalrights community that argues that the traditional methods of
conserving and preserving the Earth are insufficient, and is willing
to use violence as the principal method of the planet's defense
against anyone "guilty" of exploiting and destroying the Earth.

The overall strength of the movement is impossible to determine given
that individuals who take part in ecoterrorist activities generally
lack a common profile and exercise a high level of operational
security. Nonetheless, ecoterrorists are known to have a global
presence and are particularly active in the industrialized West
(North America and Western Europe). In the continental United States
(CONUS), militant ecological and animal-rights activists are
geographically dispersed and operate in both urban and rural
settings. The movement has demonstrated a great deal of tactical and
strategic sophistication. Ecoterrorists have shown a high level of
ingenuity through their ability to "weaponize" common objects and use
them to perpetrate acts of economic sabotage and terror with virtual
impunity. Ecoterrorists have also proven to be particularly adept at
using media and the Internet, for both propaganda purposes and to
disseminate vital training, technical, and targeting materials.

From a security standpoint, the activities of the ecoterrorist
movement are significant for several reasons and should be of
interest to domestic security and law enforcement officials. First,
Ecoterrorists have perpetrated more illegal acts commonly associated
with terrorism on U.S. soil than any other known group, including
al-Qaeda and radical Islamic militants. At present, the economic cost
of these acts exceeds $100 million and is likely to grow in the
future. In addition, while ecoterrorists thus far have generally
refrained from harming individuals, there are indications that some
within the movement are advocating more drastic measures to further
their sociopolitical agendas. Finally, if ecoterrorists choose to
target nuclear or chemical facilities in the United States, as some
reports suggest, the ramifications of such attacks could have
devastating consequences for the general public and U.S. national
security.

COMPOSITION

The ecoterrorist movement in the United States is an elusive and
highly decentralized collection of individuals and groups operating
on the fringes of the mainstream environmental and animal-rights
community. It is comprised of like-minded individuals committed to
environmental and animal protection by any means necessary, including
tactics commonly associated with terrorism. Although they all believe
that the planet is facing impending environmental catastrophe, the
principal force uniting heterogeneous and geographically dispersed
radical environmental and animal-rights activists is a willingness to
engage in illegal, and often violent, activities in what they
perceive to be a defensive struggle against the destructive and
exploitative nature of profit-driven society.

A number of extreme environmental and animal-rights organizations
operate in the United States. Among those, the following are known to
be or suspected of being involved in activities commonly associated
with ecoterrorism:

* Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
* Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
* Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
* Arissa3
* Animal Rights Militia
* Band of Mercy
* Animal Liberation Brigade
* Vegan Dumpster Militia
* Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
* Direct Action Front

ALF and its sister organization ELF are considered to be the most
active, the most dangerous, and the largest domestic terrorist groups
in the United States.4 Therefore, this Dynamic Threat Assessment
(DTA) largely focuses on what is known about these two organizations
and addresses all other individuals and/or groups involved in
ecoterrorism only when pertinent. Moreover, this DTA focuses
primarily on ecoterrorist activities in the United States.

Close, but no cigar.

How about UNDER American soil.

that would contaminate soil though so...6 feet under chinas soil. they wont care

Nature Magazine
Editorial
Against vicious activism
The US authorities need to strengthen their position on the use of
animals in experiments.
(5 February 2009)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7230/full/457636a.html

Seven activists convicted of carrying out a campaign of intimidation
against the animal-testing firm Huntingdon Life Sciences in
Huntingdon, UK, were last month sentenced to between 4 and 11 years in
prison. Hopefully, these sentences will stop future UK activists from
using similar tactics, which included threats, hoax bombs, character
assassination and property destruction.

Unfortunately, such tactics are increasingly being used by activists
attacking scientists in California, where researchers who use animals
are facing threats that include doorstep firebombs. The authorities
trying to deal with this problem can find much in the UK authorities'
approach to emulate.

First, activists who break the law must be vigorously pursued and
prosecuted. At the same time, university leaders should set up
protection plans for labs and researchers; coordinate with local and
federal police before any attacks happen; and articulate a clear
policy for students that legal protests are acceptable but acts of
vandalism will be punished harshly.

Second, US federal, state and university authorities need to go beyond
enforcement and take an unequivocal, public stand that emphasizes the
importance of animal research for drug testing and basic science — as
did former UK prime minister Tony Blair. It would be especially
helpful if President Barack Obama were to make such a statement.

Such a level of open support might make individual researchers more
apt to speak up about their own work. Britain again provides a good
model in the form of Pro-Test, an activist group for those supporting
animal research. Its efforts in Oxford have given a public face to
supporters of animal testing.

Finally, scientists should remember that adherence to the law cuts
both ways. Researchers who use animals should embrace appropriate
regulations on their activities and run their labs as if members of
the public could walk in at any time to take a look. If they are seen
to be committed to high-quality animal care, it can only improve their
credibility among the public.

Indeed, the US regulatory framework on animal research needs
streamlining and strengthening. The Department of Agriculture
regulates the laboratory use of cats, dogs, primates, guinea pigs and
rabbits under the Animal Welfare Act, but not the ubiquitous mice and
rats. It can levy fines, but tends to do so very conservatively. The
Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare oversees all non-human-vertebrate
research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as
by other agencies under the purview of the NIH's parent body, the US
Public Health Service. But all it can do is stop grant monies from
being awarded if the institutions involved do not win its approval.
Many labs also get themselves accredited by the independent
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Care
International. Its big punishment option is simply to withdraw
accreditation.

The federal government should conduct a thorough review of the
regulations concerning animal research to eliminate gaps, ensure
compliance and strengthen penalties. Ideally, the oversight powers
would be consolidated within a single organization. But, in any case,
such measures might boost public confidence in animal research.

Over the long term, this multipronged approach should not only protect
the safety of researchers, but should open up space for a constructive
dialogue about issues in animal research — especially the pursuit of
reduction, replacement and refinement of such experiments — that
concern both public and researchers alike.