.jpg){kind=link}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t CFACT – Bonner Cohen (CFACT) writing for The Hill notes that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are responding vigorously to threats from eco-terrorists – so vigorously the eco-terrorists are complaining.
Eco-terrorist attacks on energy infrastructure on tap for 2018
December 29, 2017 by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.
Determined to disrupt the interstate transport of oil and natural gas throughout the United States, a network of environmental activists is openly threatening to resort to sabotage to achieve their ends. And having let their intentions be known, they are crying foul now that law enforcement officials are taking their threats seriously.
Indeed, the recent past foreshadows what is to come. In October 2016, a group of five demonstrators cut through padlocks and chains to enter the flow stations of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Dubbed Valve Turners, they shut off the pipeline’s valves, temporarily stopping the flow of oil through the pipeline. Local law enforcement officials in North Dakota apprehended the group. A court found two of the protestors guilty of felony charges, two more are awaiting trial, and a fifth was found guilty of second-degree burglary.
The Valve Turners were hardly the only protestors to turn to sabotage in the name of combating climate change. Anti-pipeline activists set fires and caused $2 million in damages near Standing Rock in North Dakota. Elsewhere, two women from a social justice charity proudly told the Des Moines Register how they had used oxyacetylene cutting torches to attack another stretch of the pipeline in Iowa’s Mahaska County. In another incident, damages to pipeline construction equipment in Iowa reached $2 million.
…
Alarmed that acts of vandalism against public and private installations will not go unpunished, groups that can best be described as “Green Antifa” are conjuring up visions of noble activists facing police-state tactics.
“This crackdown is happening, because activists have been successful, and because industry realizes that protest is a threat,” Kelsey Skaggs, executive director of the Climate Defense Project, recently told ThinkProgress.
On the contrary, officials and lawmakers are rightly concerned that acts of sabotage pose a threat to public safety. Anti-pipeline protesters have the right to free speech and free assembly; they do not have the right commit acts of sabotage, arson or trespassing.
…
Think Progress sees the legal crackdown differently. From 20th December;
The criminalization of environmental protest in Trump’s America
Environmental protesters had a successful 2016. Then came the crackdown.
NATASHA GEILING
DEC 20, 2017, 10:29 AM
In October of 2016, a group of five climate activists across four states cut through padlocks and chains to enter flow stations for the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which runs from Canada to the United States. In an orchestrated action, the activists shut off the valves for the pipeline, effectively bringing the transport of millions of barrels of tar sands oil to a halt in an attempt to shine a light on the global climate crisis.
Legal retribution against the group, dubbed “Valve Turners,” was swift and severe. The activists were charged with a litany of crimes, including, most notably, criminal sabotage and criminal mischief — both felonies that can carry sentences of 10 years in prison. Two of those activists have already been found guilty of felony charges, while two others are still awaiting trial. The fifth activist’s case initially ended in a mistrial, with a jury finding him guilty of just one charge, second-degree burglary, during the second trial.
…
“This crackdown is happening because activists have been successful, and because industry realizes that protest is a threat,” Kelsey Skaggs, executive director of the Climate Defense Project, told ThinkProgress. “We’ve seen it begin, and now we’ve seen it worsen.”
…
“The conditions now are perfect for an increased crackdown, because the Trump administration is so friendly in terms of pro-policing, pro-business attitudes, and because a lot of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans,” Skagg said.
…
“This suit is part of a rising tendency on the part of government and industry to demonize activists and to criminalize free speech activity,” Ted Hamilton, co-founder of the Climate Defense Project, told ThinkProgress in August when Energy Transfer Partners first filed their lawsuit. “Fossil fuel companies know that they’re losing public support for their poisonous activities — and so label their opponents ‘terrorists’ and seek gag orders in court.”
…
Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/criminalization-of-environmental-protest-f3a4c5eb29c3/
What did you expect Ted? A mass uprising of people demanding liberty for your followers, an end to fossil fuel heating for their homes, and an end to fuel for their vehicles?
The US constitution protects free speech. It does not protect “free speech activity”, which you seem to define as dangerous interference with or destruction of property owned by other people.
I and I’m sure many other people would love to be able to live without fossil fuels. I would love to buy an affordable car which never needs gasoline, yet still offers me the convenience of rapid long distance travel. I would love to go off grid, without the inconvenience of having to gather and burn large quantities of firewood, or truck in and burn large quantities of fossil fuel to power my home.
Sadly nobody wants to sell me a couple of miniaturised nuclear reactors.
Eco-terrorists who commit crimes against property or people are being treated as they deserve; as dangerous criminals pursuing a pointless vendetta against the lifeblood of our society.
If these activists are dissatisfied with modern life they can all go and live in a cave in the woods and be without heat, food and clean water. Thinking is not their forte.
North Korea would be especially nice for them this time of year.
” because a lot of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans,” Skagg said.”
The way to change the control of those legislatures is through he ballot box. But as per usual, left wingers only acknowledge election outcomes when they go their way.
From the article: “And having let their intentions be known, they are crying foul now that law enforcement officials are taking their threats seriously.”
That’s funny.
It’s as if these people leapt from the pages of “Animal Farm”.
The more romantic a view of Nature a person has, the more likely they are to live in a town or a city,….
Exactly. Urban folk get all or most of their ‘experience’ with nature on TV. This is well understood by the Eco-Crisis Industry and explains why TV nature ‘documentaries’ are now all propaganda.
The real problem is that there are huge numbers of them and they get to vote on things outside of cities.
“This crackdown is happening because activists have been successful, and because industry realizes that protest is a threat.”
The crackdown is happening for two simple reasons: lawless Obama is no longer president and lawful Trump is.
Reckless endangerment. Felony. Not that many years ago, it would be considered treason and dealt with accordingly. And anyone who encourages others to engage in such activity should be dealt with harshly.
Throw them in jail and throw away the keys!
These clowns are just a green-ized version of ANTIFA. What a bunch of losers.
I think my email was wrong, if not double posted…..
Lock these guys up just the way any other criminals that damage property are dealt with because I don’t need my heating/electricity supplies cut off during long periods of below-freezing temperatures What needs to happen a few times is that a gas/oil pipeline needs to blow up in their faces as they attempt to damage it. No doubt after a few are killed or maimed, their buddies will try to bring changes against the owners for not securing their possessions properly.
This is beyond civil disobedience. Or everyday garden variety victimless crime. It is Domestic Terrorism. There should be a classification of such, similar to Terrorism, and if you cross that line from free speech to Domestic Terrorism, then the law comes down on you like a million tons of bricks. And you are going to Jail with no chance of bail, until dealt with in a judicial court of law where sentencing is known in advance, so that those who commit these acts of Domestic Terrorism know why they are going to jail for a very long time.
If the Gov’t clearly identified what was considered Domestic Terrorism, including those who fund, organize and aid/abet, there wouldn’t be many people who would participate in such activities within a few weeks.
Can’t find my copies actually executive summaries. There is annual national threat assessment all administrations are required to present to Congress each year. Prior to 9-11-2001 at the top of the list were not right wing militias or Islamic terrorists but ecoterrorists. At the time they had committed more acts of terror than either militias or Islamists. Even after 9-11-2001 the ecoterrorists were in the top two as overall groups that were a danger to the American people. Under Obama even though ecoterrorists were still on the list, though moved down, the federal government did little to combat them. Just like PETA was diverting funds to radical animal rights terrorists, some environmental organization divert funds to radical activist groups. We have the expertise to track such money today. The techniques were developed during George H W Bush’s administration while fighting drug lords and then used again against al Qaeda. Not used as we have found out with Hezbollah by Obama. Cut off their funding and at least investigating and make public the names of those funding them and I will bet it would cut down dramatically on their activities. I had several wealthy friends that once wrote checks to Green Peace until I reminded them how and why Green Peace started way back when.
As a former pipeline worker i can honestly say that as these Eco-terrorists ramp up their actions so do the pipelines in their surveillance and prosecutions of the perpetrators. One of our offices was fire bombed by an Eco-terrorist to protesting the construction of an LNG plant we were supporting. The dummies could not even get the use of a [Molotov] cocktail right. Too much Hollywood I guess. These brain trusts took a bottle of gasoline inserted the rag, lit the rag and found out how fast it burns almost instantaneously. “OH MY GAWD. Throw it the one said”. When the idiot threw it at the plate glass of our field office it bounced off and smashed on the sidewalk causing the flames to spread and a small explosion of fire. Two of the “HERO’s” ended up going to hospital for burns and were arrested later. A camera inside the office caught all the action and as it was the suspects were known to police as demonstrators. Not too bright and the irony of it was the use of fossil fuels to fuel the bomb.
Molotov cocktail. Named after a Russian if I’m not mistaken.
See, if they’d watched Beakman’s World like I did as a kid and not Bill Nye, they might’ve learned how an internal-combustion-engine works and realized that it’s the gasoline vapor that ignites, not the liquid. Liquid gasoline at perfect rest will put out a lit match just like water, because there’s not enough oxygen mixed in to start a reaction (needless to say, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME).
Slosh it around in a beer bottle and you have gasoline vapor hanging in the air all around it. Instead of the rag slow-burning like expected, you get a flash ignition and a fireball, as these fellows ineptly demonstrated. This is why you don’t prepare molotovs on site. You make them in advance and let them sit a few days to stabilize (needless to say, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME).
Got a question…did the convicted raise the necessity defence? They had to do it to save the planet and humanity, right? If so, did the judge disallow it or what? Will they appeal on that issue?
Necessity defense has been correctly disallowed in all past climate vandalism trials. It will be admitted in the one upcoming in Minnesota (of course). When one works through that legal history, one immediately realizes it will fail as a matter of law (common). If not at stupid trial judge level, then surely on appeal. Is BS.
I believe a not guilty verdict can’t be appealed.
“… did the judge disallow it or what?”
No.
They failed to produce either a crystal ball or a time machine, in order to prove they are not just making that nonsense up.
By that logic, infanticide might as well be defended as “necessary to “save the planet”.
Oh, wait…”In a statement sent to HuffPost, Steve Kent, a spokesman for Climate Direct Action, explained that Higgins had hoped to present a “necessity defense,” which would have allowed him to argue before the jury that “his action was necessary in order to prevent climate harms much more severe than the consequences of trespassing and turning the pipeline emergency valve.”
However, Judge Daniel Boucher denied this motion without a hearing, saying that “the energy policy of the United States is not on trial.” That meant Higgins could not discuss or provide evidence of climate change in court. “
Another clear example of The Rule of Law ‘winning’ through uniform enforcement!
Warms the very cockles of my heart, it does!
So, we don’t like it when others call us “deniers” and denialists,” but it’s OK for our friends to sling the word “ecoterorists” with impunity?
That’s a good one Michael.
Why am I pretty sure you do not have many friends in the “den!er” camp?
Impunity?
Do you know what that word means?
“exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action”
So, you are of the opinion that, when people are engaging in terrorism, to call them what they are, terrorists, ought to be punished, that those naming them for what they are should suffer some injurious consequence for using the term?
Your choice of language is all one needs to see where your heart lies.
People are “called” “den!ers”, and some people “don’t like it”.
But the word “ecoterrorism” is “slung”, and ought to have grave consequences for anyone who uses the word to describe the criminal actions of these maniacs?
Michael A. Lewis, you have a valid point, except for the fact that “deniers” don’t go out and destroy infrastructure to make a point.
Wikipedia says this about the label:
Eco-terrorism refers to acts of violence committed in support of ecological or environmental causes, against persons or their property.
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation defines eco-terrorism as “…the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” The FBI credited eco-terrorists with US$200 million in property damage between 2003 and 2008. A majority of states in the US have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism
Absolutely…EcoTerrorism is an action taken against property while Denier is used as a negative label similar to N….. or Q…. by an equally bigoted person
Michael A. Lewis as Anthony has pointed out there is a legal definition
https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eco-terrorism/
Sigh … blockquote fail
Why do you object to accurate labeling?
Like I’ve said for a long time, they need to shut down these treehugger eco terrorists outfits, and the big foundations that launder money for big donors, and then use it to fund the eco terrorist outfits.
Pol Pot and his henchmen (who killed each other to rise to the top under Pot) then killed ‘neighbours’ with glee.
Left wing psychopathy now detectable in USA liberal on the fringe.
Unchecked left wing politicians and activists would, in a more sinister society, have no compunction about killing for their ideology.
Left-wing politicians in many countries in recent decades have used ‘hit men’ to rid themselves of perceived mortal threats. We have examples in Australia; unfortunately none prosecuted.
One public example you may know about (due to the amateurish execution) is Nelson Mandela and his wife Winnie who murdered many an opponent (good people; many saints indeed ) for Nelson and her own agenda.
These eco-crims are just bellwhethers of a dark left-wing underbelly emerging in the USA.
Good luck there . . . perhaps Trump can help but if he doesn’t then there’ll be a hard-line right-wing President elected inside a decade IMHO.
” Elsewhere, two women from a social justice charity proudly told the Des Moines Register how they had used oxyacetylene cutting torches to attack another stretch of the pipeline in Iowa’s Mahaska County.”
Clearly these two were at the back of the queue when brains were being handed out. These people are extremely dangerous taking a gas axe to an oil pipeline? They must have not got the gas mixture correct to cut through the steel as they are still alive.
Crude oil makes a big mess but for the most part it’s chemically stable and not easy to ignite. Even if ignited it would only burn at the breach, because that’s where the oxygen is. Refined hydrocarbons mixed with oxygen like oxyacetylene on the other hand…
True, but also depends what the pipeline was/is carrying. I don’t know if that pipeline was transporting crude or not.
Seems a recent attack;
http://www.oskaloosa.com/news/local_news/oil-pipeline-sabotaged-in-mahaska-county/article_524982d0-102c-11e7-9812-0b761305dfb5.html
Fortunately was not carrying oil at the time.
Someone equated Elon Musk to an Al Gore. I must disagree. Al Gore couldn’t run a canteen stand and make a profit. Elon Musk is putting us into electric cars and will fly us to the moon and Mars.
And who says there is no comedy here at WUWT?
Now I just have to check to see if Al and Elon have ever been seen together ( if you know what I mean).
Why not? The progressives ignore drug laws, anti-discrimination laws, and immigration laws. The govt engages in all manner of illegal behavior and nobody goes to jail. What is the big difference? Having to obey laws you and your friends and your professors don’t like is racist. And, if you are saving the world, you are above the law anyway.
It’s too bad that these eco-thugs will end up in the clink with three hots and a cot (+ heat, AC, hot water, etc). A much more fitting punishment (and one that might actually teach them something) would be to exile them to some far away place where they would have to live out their sentences in a pre-industrial lifestyle. The only technology they would be permitted would be that which was available before the industrial revolution. Then perhaps they might see how horrible the world would be without the very things they hate so much.
Touché.