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.