At some basic level, most of us probably feel a good measure of compassion when it comes to animals. We're not talking about die-hard animal liberation; we just mean most of us aspire to live without causing other lives to suffer disproportionately.
But some people can go too far. When animal advocacy ferments into extremism, it's called eco-terrorism. It's not new.
Recently the house of a University of California biomedical researcher was firebombed. The scientist's crime: he conducted experiments on mice and fruit flies. His entire family paid the price when adults and small children alike had to jump from a second story window as flames engulfed the house.
While animals deserve to be free from undue suffering at human hands, we're pretty sure that firebombing a building is a morally suboptimal approach to getting that message out.
What's interesting is that the perpetrators aren't exactly hiding. A fairly prominent eco-terrorism group, the Animal Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for the bombing. Following the attack, ALF posted the story on its Web site with links to stories of dozens of other violent crimes the group has committed over the years. A spokesperson for the group called the attacks "necessary" and compared the bombers to those who fought against civil rights injustices.
ALF and related groups have claimed responsibility for more than 600 crimes including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, according to the FBI. In 2003, the Earth Liberation Front set one of the costliest fires in the history of San Diego. On the scene of a three-alarm fire that caused $50 million in damage to an unfinished condominium complex, a sign was found that could have come from a dystopic "Field of Dreams." It read: "If you build it - we will burn it - the ELF's [sic] are mad." We doubt anyone would dispute their madness.
As activists put down their picket signs, stop their mass mailings and pick up firebombs (no more "save the animals" address labels; free Molotov cocktail included!), the distinction between animal activism and eco-terrorism becomes blurry. But two questions are clear.
Does eco-terrorism even work? And if so, do the ends justify the means?
We're saddened by such acts of wonton destruction, but they don't exactly puzzle us. Renowned terrorism scholar Alan Dershowitz points out that terrorists commit acts of terror because, frankly, terrorism works. Although there's more to say on this, let's assume for the sake of argument that bombing a building is extraordinarily effective in generating publicity. We still have to ask: does eco-terrorism accomplish more good than harm?
To answer this, we suggest balancing the benefit to the animals that eco-terrorists seek to protect with the overall harm to society. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to speak one's mind; it doesn't allow the firebombing of houses and the burning of condominiums. You don't need an AU degree to understand that you can exercise your rights without trampling over the rights of others.
As law students, we (predictably) support a peaceful approach to advocacy, no matter what your cause may be. It's cliché, but if you write a letter to your congressman or congresswoman, you can influence policy in the aggregate and lead to the redress of injustice. Besides, AU students are uniquely positioned to participate in lobbying efforts and to attend demonstrations with no more inconvenience than a 15-minute Metro ride. As Nov. 4 approaches, we would be remiss if we didn't wax just slightly political: whatever cause puts fire in your heart, your vote - especially by absentee ballot - can make a huge difference.
Ben Moss and Brittany Meyer are students in the Washington College of Law and columnists for The Eagle. You can reach them at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
