On a summer evening in June of 2000 in Eugene, Oregon, 2 environmental activists set fire to three cars at a Chevrolet dealership ‘in an effort to call attention to climate change’, as explained by one of the arsonists – Jeffrey Luers.
Both Luers and his accomplice Craig Marshall began as simple protesters. Before the arson incident, they had partaken in less-severe criminal acts like ‘tree sitting’: they would scale massive trees that were scheduled to be cut down by businesses, and spend days, weeks, or even months living in them to stop the companies from being able to work. Technically trespassing, these acts of protest weren’t resulting in major prison sentences (though the companies would often successfully sue the protestors in civil court for damages related to the loss of business they’d experience).
Luers and his partner Craig Marshall wouldn’t be sentenced until mid-2001… just a few months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. While Marshall accepted a plea deal and received five and a half years in prison, Luers fought the charges… and ended up receiving 22 years and 8 months in prison for a crime where no one was hurt.
Leurs and Marshall actually ended up being pretty lucky with their sentences. That harsh sentence was – in part – due to Marshall and Luers’ affiliation with a group known as the Earth Liberation Front: an environmental activism organization which the FBI classified (and continues to classify) as a terrorist organization in March 2001: just a few months prior to their sentencing hearing. The organization earned their classification since they tended to encourage, support, and take responsibility for acts the FBI classified as eco-terrorism: destructive actions taken to forward environmentally focus political issues.
Following the expansion of anti-terrorism legislation following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the FBI’s classifications of ELF and eco-terrorism contributed to federal prosecutors aggressively increasing the rate at which they charged suspects with committing acts of terrorism, rather than lesser crimes. Though the rate at which eco-terrorist attacks occur has dropped significantly since they peaked between 2000-2010, federal prosecutors continue to leverage the threat of terrorism charges when negotiating plea deals with environmentalist defendants accused of acts that can be classified as eco-terrorism.
————————–
Questions:
1) Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2) Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3) Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4) What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5) What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/07/magazine/from-tree-hugger-to-terrorist.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/01/us/suv-s-golf-and-even-peas-join-growing-hit-list-of-eco-vandals.html
https://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/02/10/open-letter-from-jeffrey-luers/
https://grist.org/article/dicum1/
https://www.registerguard.com/article/20140406/NEWS/304069982
Contributed By: -M. Kamer
