Statement
of John E. Lewis
Deputy Assistant Director
Counterterrorism Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
May
18, 2004
Good morning Chairman Hatch, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed
by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists in this country, as well
as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners
to address this threat, and some of the difficulties faced by law enforcement
in addressing this crime problem.
As you know, the FBI divides the terrorist threat facing the United States
into two broad categories, international and domestic. International terrorism
involves violent acts that occur beyond our national boundaries and are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or similar acts of violence committed
by individuals or groups under some form of foreign direction occurring within
the jurisdiction of the United States.
Domestic terrorism involves acts of violence that are a violation of the criminal
laws of the United States or any state, committed by individuals or groups
without any foreign direction, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce
a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the
nature of the domestic terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing
extremism overtook
left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the
United States. During the past several years, however, special interest extremism,
as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation
Front (ELF), and related extremists, has emerged as a serious domestic terrorist
threat. Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and
left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve
specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Such extremists
conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society,
including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important
to the extremists’ causes. Generally, extremist groups engage in much
activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and
assembly. Law enforcement only becomes involved when the volatile talk of these
groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF
and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United
States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately
$110 million.
The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely
organized extremist movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation
of animals.
The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals
become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply
by engaging in "direct action" against companies or individuals who,
in their view, utilize animals for research or economic gain, or do some manner
of business with those companies or individuals. "Direct action" generally
occurs in the form of criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or
to destroy the victims' company operations or property. The extremists’ efforts
have broadened to include a multi-national campaign of harassment, intimidation
and coercion against animal testing companies and any companies or individuals
doing business with those targeted companies. Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS)
is one such company. The “secondary” or “tertiary” targeting
of companies which have business or financial relationships with the target
company typically takes the form of fanatical harassment of employees and interference
with normal business operations, under the threat of escalating tactics or
even violence. The harassment is designed to inflict increasing economic damage
until the company is forced to cancel its contracts or business relationship
with the original target. Internationally, the best example of this trend involves
Great Britain’s Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) organization, a
more organized sub-group within the extremist animal rights movement. SHAC
has targeted the animal testing company HLS and any companies with which HLS
conducts business. While the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself as
an information service or even a media outlet, it is closely aligned with the
ALF and its pattern of criminal activities – many of which are taken
against companies and individuals selected as targets by SHAC and posted on
SHAC’s Internet website.
Investigation of SHAC-related criminal activity has revealed a pattern
of vandalism, arsons, animal releases, harassing telephone calls,
threats and attempts to
disrupt business activities of not only HLS, but of all companies doing business
with HLS. Among others, these companies include Bank of America, Marsh USA,
Deloitte and Touche, and HLS investors, such as Stephens, Inc., which completely
terminated their business relationships with HLS as a result of SHAC activities.
Examples of SHAC activities include publishing on its website as a regular
feature "Targets of the Week" for followers to target with harassing
telephone calls and e-mails in order to discourage that company or individual
from doing business with HLS.
In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation
Front have become the most active criminal extremist elements in
the United States.
Despite the destructive aspects of ALF and ELF's operations, their stated operational
philosophy discourages acts that harm "any animal, human and nonhuman." In
general, the animal rights and environmental extremist movements have adhered
to this mandate. Beginning in 2002, however, this operational philosophy has
been overshadowed by an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics, particularly
within the animal rights movement. Individuals within the movement have discussed
actively targeting food producers, biomedical researchers, and even law enforcement
with physical harm. But even more disturbing is the recent employment of improvised
explosive devices against consumer product testing companies, accompanied by
threats of more, larger bombings and even potential assassinations of researchers,
corporate officers and employees.
The escalation in violent rhetoric is best demonstrated by language
that was included in the communiqués claiming responsibility for the detonation
of improvised explosive devices in 2003 at two separate northern California
companies, which were targeted as a result of their business links to HLS.
Following two pipe bomb blasts at the Chiron Life Sciences Center in Emeryville,
California on August 28, 2003, an anonymous claim of responsibility was issued
which included the statement: “This is the endgame for the animal killers
and if you choose to stand with them you will be dealt with accordingly. There
will be no quarter given, no half measures taken. You might be able to protect
your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?” Just
four weeks later, following the explosion of another improvised explosive device
wrapped in nails at the headquarters of Shaklee, Incorporated in Pleasanton,
California on September 26, 2003, another sinister claim of responsibility
was issued via anonymous communiqué by the previously unknown “Revolutionary
Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade.” This claim was even more explicit
in its threats: “We gave all of the customers the chance, the choice,
to withdraw their business from HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences). Now you will
all reap what you have sown. All customers and their families are considered
legitimate targets… You never know when your house, your car even, might
go boom… Or maybe it will be a shot in the dark… We will now be
doubling the size of every device we make. Today it is 10 pounds, tomorrow
20… until your buildings are nothing more than rubble. It is time for
this war to truly have two sides. No more will all the killing be done by the
oppressors, now the oppressed will strike back.” It should be noted that
the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Francisco has identified and charged
known activist Daniel Andreas San Diego, who is currently a fugitive from justice,
in connection with these bombings. While no deaths or injuries have resulted
from this threat or the blasts at Chiron and Shaklee, it demonstrates a new
willingness on the part of some in the movement to abandon the traditional
and publicly stated code of nonviolence in favor of more confrontational and
aggressive tactics designed to threaten and intimidate legitimate companies
into abandoning entire projects or contracts.
Despite these ominous trends, by far the most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF
to date is arson. The ALF/ELF extremists consistently use improvised incendiary
devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary
devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF
websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance
and well-planned operations. Activists are believed to engage in significant
intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade
publications and other open source information, photographic/video surveillance
of potential targets, obtaining proprietary or confidential information about
intended victim companies through theft or from sympathetic insiders, and posting
details about potential targets on the Internet for other extremists to use
as they see fit.
In addition to the upswing in violent rhetoric and tactics observed
from animal rights extremists in recent years, new trends have emerged
in the eco-terrorist
movement. These trends include a greater frequency of attacks in more populated
areas, as seen in Southern California, Michigan and elsewhere, and the increased
targeting of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and new construction of homes or
commercial properties in previously undeveloped areas by extremists combating
what they describe as “urban sprawl.” Eco-terrorists have adopted
these new targets due to their perceived negative environmental impact. Recent
examples of this targeting include the August 1, 2003 arson of a large condominium
complex under construction near La Jolla, California, which resulted in an
estimated $50 million in property damages; the August 22, 2003 arson and vandalism
of over 120 SUVs in West Covina, California; and the arson of two new homes
under construction near Ann Arbor, Michigan in March 2003. It is believed these
trends will persist, as extremists within the environmental movement continue
to fight what they perceive as greater encroachment of human society on the
natural world.
The FBI has developed a strong response to the threats posed by domestic and
international terrorism. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2003, the number of
special agents dedicated to the FBI's counterterrorism programs more than doubled.
In recent years, the FBI has strengthened its counterterrorism program to enhance
its abilities to carry out these objectives.
Cooperation among law enforcement agencies at all levels represents an important
component of a comprehensive response to terrorism. This cooperation assumes
its most tangible operational form in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)
that are established in FBI field divisions across the nation. These task forces
are particularly well-suited to respond to terrorism because they combine the
national and international investigative resources of the FBI with the expertise
of other federal law enforcement and local law enforcement agencies. The FBI
currently has 84 JTTFs nationwide, one in each of the 56 Field Offices, and
28 additional annexes. By integrating the investigative abilities of the FBI,
other federal law enforcement and local law enforcement agencies, these task
forces represent an effective response to the threats posed to U.S. communities
by domestic and international terrorists.
The FBI and our law enforcement partners have made a number of arrests
of individuals alleged to have perpetrated acts of animal rights
extremism or eco-terrorism.
Some recent arrests include eco-terror fugitive Michael James Scarpitti and
accused ELF arsonist William Cottrell. Scarpitti, commonly known by his “forest
name” of Tre’ Arrow, was arrested by Canadian law enforcement authorities
on March 13, 2004 in British Columbia. Scarpitti had been a fugitive since
August 2002, when he was indicted for his role in two separate ELF-related
arsons that occurred in the Portland, Oregon area in 2001. William Cottrell
was arrested by the FBI’s Los Angeles Division on March 9, 2004, and
indicted by a federal grand jury on March 16, 2004 for the role he played in
a series of arsons and vandalisms of more than 120 sport utility vehicles that
occurred on August 22, 2003 in West Covina, California. Those crimes resulted
in more than $2.5 million in damages.
Between December 8, 2003 and January 12, 2004, three members of an ELF cell
in Richmond, Virginia entered guilty pleas to federal arson and conspiracy
charges, following their arrests by the FBI Richmond Division and local authorities.
Adam Blackwell, Aaron Linas and John Wade admitted to conducting a series of
arson and property destruction attacks in 2002 and 2003 against sport utility
vehicles, fast food restaurants, construction vehicles and construction sites
in the Richmond area, which they later claimed were committed on behalf of
the ELF. In addition, the FBI Richmond Division, working in concert with the
Henrico County Police Department, successfully identified, disrupted and prevented
another arson plot targeting SUVs by a second, independent ELF cell in February
2004. The four members of this alleged cell, all juveniles, are currently awaiting
trial on federal and state charges.
In February 2001, teenagers Jared McIntyre, Matthew Rammelkamp, and George
Mashkow all pleaded guilty, as adults, to Title 18 U.S.C. 844(i), arson, and
844(n), arson conspiracy. These charges pertained to a series of arsons and
attempted arsons of new home construction sites in Long Island, NY, which according
to McIntyre were committed in sympathy of the ELF movement. An adult, Connor
Cash, was also arrested on February 15, 2001, and charged under federal statutes
for his role in these crimes. Cash is currently on trial in federal court for
charges of providing material support to terrorism. The New York Joint Terrorism
Task Force played a significant role in the arrest and prosecution of these
individuals.
Despite these recent successes, however, FBI investigative efforts to target
these movements for identification, prevention and disruption have been hampered
by a lack of applicable federal criminal statutes, particularly when attempting
to address an organized, multi-state campaign of intimidation, property damage,
threats and coercion designed to interfere with legitimate interstate commerce,
as exhibited by the SHAC organization. While it is a relatively simple matter
to prosecute extremists who are identified as responsible for committing arsons
or utilizing explosive devices, using existing federal statutes, it is often
difficult if not impossible to address a campaign of low-level (but nevertheless
organized and multi-national) criminal activity like that of SHAC in federal
court.
In order to address the overall problem presented by SHAC, and to prevent it
from engaging in actions intending to shut down a legitimate business enterprise,
the FBI initiated a coordinated investigative approach beginning in 2001. Investigative
and prosecutive strategies were explored among the many FBI offices that had
experienced SHAC activity, the corresponding United States Attorneys= Offices,
FBIHQ, and the Department of Justice. Of course, the use of the existing Animal
Enterprise Terrorism (AET) statute was explored. This statute, set forth in
Title 18 U.S.C., Section 43, provides a framework for the prosecution of individuals
involved in animal rights extremism. In practice, however, the statute does
not reach many of the criminal activities engaged in by SHAC in furtherance
of its overall objective of shutting down HLS.
As
written, the AET statute prohibits traveling in commerce
for the purpose of causing physical disruption to an
animal enterprise, or causing physical disruption by
intentionally stealing, damaging or causing the loss
of property used by an animal enterprise, and as a result,
causing economic loss exceeding $10,000. An animal enterprise
includes commercial or academic entities that use animals
for food or fiber production, research, or testing, as
well as zoos, circuses and other lawful animal competitive
events. Violators can be fined or imprisoned for not
more than three years, with enhanced penalties if death
or serious bodily injury result.
While
some ALF activities have involved direct actions covered
by this statute, such as animal releases at mink farms,
the activities of SHAC generally fall outside the scope
of the AET statute. In fact, SHAC members are typically
quite conversant in the elements of the federal statute
and appear to engage in conduct that, while criminal
(such as trespassing, vandalism or other property damage),
would not result in a significant, particularly federal,
prosecution. However, given SHAC's pattern of harassing
and oftentimes criminal conduct, and its stated goal
of shutting down a company engaged in interstate as well
as foreign commerce, other statutory options were explored
at the federal level in order to address this conduct.
Ultimately, prosecution under the Hobbs Act (Title 18
U.S.C., Section 1951) was the agreed upon strategy.
The
theory advanced to support a Hobbs Act prosecution was
that the subjects were (and continue to be) engaged in
an international extortion scheme against companies engaged
in, or doing business with companies engaged in, animal-based
research. In furtherance of this scheme of extortion,
the victims are subjected to criminal acts such as vandalism,
arson, property damage, harassment and physical attacks,
or the fear of such attacks, until they discontinue their
animal-based research or their association with or investment
in companies such as HLS, engaged in animal-based research.
However,
as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision
in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women , the
use of the Hobbs Act in prosecuting SHAC was removed
as an option. In the Scheidler decision, the Supreme
Court held that, while activists may be found to illegally
interfere with, disrupt or even deprive victims of the
free exercise of their property rights or their right
to conduct business, this activity does not constitute
extortion as defined under the Hobbs Act unless the activists
seek to obtain or convert the victims’ property
for their own use.
Currently,
more than 34 FBI field offices have over 190 pending
investigations associated with ALF/ELF activities. Extremist
movements such as the ALF and the ELF present unique
challenges. There is little, if any, known hierarchal
structure to such entities. The animal rights extremist
and eco-terrorism movements are unlike traditional criminal
enterprises that are often structured and organized.
They exhibit remarkable levels of security awareness
when engaged in criminal activity, and are typically
very knowledgeable of law enforcement techniques and
the limitations imposed on law enforcement.
The
FBI’s commitment to address the threat can be seen
in the proactive approach that we have taken regarding
the dissemination of information. Intelligence Information
Reports (IIRs) are used as a vehicle for delivering FBI
intelligence information to members of the Intelligence,
Policy and Law Enforcement Communities. Since its establishment
in March 2003, the Domestic Collection, Evaluation and
Dissemination Unit has issued 20 IIRs to the field relating
specifically to animal rights/eco-terrorism activity.
The
commitment to addressing the threat posed by animal rights
extremists and eco-terrorism movements can also be demonstrated
by the FBI’s proactive information campaign. This
campaign has included ongoing liaison with federal, state,
and local law enforcement and prosecutors, relevant trade
associations and targeted companies and industries. The
FBI has established a National Task Force and Intelligence
Center at FBIHQ to coordinate this information campaign,
and develop and implement a nationwide, strategic investigative
approach to addressing the animal rights/eco-terrorism
threat in the United States. The FBI has also conducted
liaison and cooperated in investigations with foreign
law enforcement agencies regarding animal rights extremist/eco-terrorism
matters.
In conclusion, the FBI has made the prevention and investigation of animal
rights extremists/eco-terrorism matters a domestic terrorism investigative
priority. The FBI and all of our federal, state and local law enforcement partners
will continue to strive to address the difficult and unique challenges posed
by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists. Despite the continued focus
on international terrorism, we in the FBI remain fully cognizant of the full
range of threats that confront the United States.
Chairman Hatch and members of the committee, this concludes my prepared remarks.
I would like to express appreciation for your concentration on these important
issues and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
|
|