Who Exactly Are We Fighting Now?
The Stranger and Alternet each have particularly chilling articles about one underreported front in the War on Terror: local prosecutions of acts that are in no way consistent with the traditional definition of terrorism. On January 20th, FBI Director Robert Mueller announced the arrest of 11 so-called "eco-terrorists." The individuals were members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). They were indicted on 17 crimes all relating to the destruction of property and none including the loss of life or acts that resulted in personal injury. The most recent offense took place over four years ago, on October 15, 2001, and acts cited in the indictments date back to 1996. Nonetheless, prosecutors are seeking life sentences for many of the defendents, with Mueller declaring that the penalties will have a "dramatic impact on persons who contemplate these crimes."
These indictments were planned to coincide with public relations efforts to renew the Patriot Act, and sought to emphasize the Administration's commitment to combating terrorism at home and abroad. They underscore two particularly corrosive features of the current war. First, they show how incredibly malleable fighting "terror" has become. The simple fact is that the U.S. is not facing a coherent ideological enemy in Al Qaeda with foot soldiers on every corner. Keeping up the fight against an opponent that doesn't really exist easily reduces to attacking any form of violence considered illegitimate. If one can't find actual terrorists, perhaps property destruction will do. Such malleability means that business interests can pressure the government to relabel their more extreme environmental opponents as terrorists, because the term itself has no meaningful substance. Since the government is ultimately fighting insecurity rather than a movement with clear principles, the war is infinitely adaptable.
The indictments also illustrate a central crisis facing government. The contemporary state, armed with great powers of surveillance and intrusion, is remarkable for the sense that it actually doesn't do very much (or that it does a lot but not very well). Unlike during the New Deal or even the Great Society, we now experience the state as a massive bureaucracy that seems both disconnected from everyday life and incapable of materially improving conditions. The general criticism of government incompetence expresses precisely this sentiment. One thing we can all count on is that government will bungle something of national importance. Mueller, in proudly reading off "eco-terrorist" indictments and calling for life sentences, is struggling to validate the state as an entity capable of actually fulfilling objectives. Even if these aren't real terrorists and their acts aren't discernible as terrorism, at least government is seen as energetic. One gets the creeping sense that the War on Terror is increasingly an effort to justify the apparatus itself -- to validate government action to an indifferent and demobilized public. But without ideas or any links to a popular grounding, we're left with bureaucratic officials twisting the state into a blunt and violent instrument. Such energy is at best empty, and for those like Daniel McGowan and Chelsea Gerlach far worse.
These indictments were planned to coincide with public relations efforts to renew the Patriot Act, and sought to emphasize the Administration's commitment to combating terrorism at home and abroad. They underscore two particularly corrosive features of the current war. First, they show how incredibly malleable fighting "terror" has become. The simple fact is that the U.S. is not facing a coherent ideological enemy in Al Qaeda with foot soldiers on every corner. Keeping up the fight against an opponent that doesn't really exist easily reduces to attacking any form of violence considered illegitimate. If one can't find actual terrorists, perhaps property destruction will do. Such malleability means that business interests can pressure the government to relabel their more extreme environmental opponents as terrorists, because the term itself has no meaningful substance. Since the government is ultimately fighting insecurity rather than a movement with clear principles, the war is infinitely adaptable.
The indictments also illustrate a central crisis facing government. The contemporary state, armed with great powers of surveillance and intrusion, is remarkable for the sense that it actually doesn't do very much (or that it does a lot but not very well). Unlike during the New Deal or even the Great Society, we now experience the state as a massive bureaucracy that seems both disconnected from everyday life and incapable of materially improving conditions. The general criticism of government incompetence expresses precisely this sentiment. One thing we can all count on is that government will bungle something of national importance. Mueller, in proudly reading off "eco-terrorist" indictments and calling for life sentences, is struggling to validate the state as an entity capable of actually fulfilling objectives. Even if these aren't real terrorists and their acts aren't discernible as terrorism, at least government is seen as energetic. One gets the creeping sense that the War on Terror is increasingly an effort to justify the apparatus itself -- to validate government action to an indifferent and demobilized public. But without ideas or any links to a popular grounding, we're left with bureaucratic officials twisting the state into a blunt and violent instrument. Such energy is at best empty, and for those like Daniel McGowan and Chelsea Gerlach far worse.
1 Comments:
The label of eco-terrorism is a branding that the corporations have been trying to make stick for many years even prior to 9/11. It allows for more serious penalties to be applied to what generally amounts to vandalism (admittedly sometimes major vandalism). 9/11 gives more cover to these efforts, but the government is following the corporations' lead on this effort. There is too much at risk to allow public sympathies to move towards conservation and pollution reduction. I take a slightly different position on this than you do (or at least my interpretation of your post). It is not that eco-terrorists are feeling the pressure because the war on terror doesn't have enough targets, it is that the war on terror gives cover to a corporate agenda that predated the GWOT.
Post a Comment
<< Home