backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by GaryJohnson.. on Aug 23 at 6:09 AM


The site of an ELF arson attack in Seattle
Congress looks away as attacks on medical and biological researchers continue to rise.

Earlier this month, the car of a UCSC researcher was firebombed in Santa Cruz. A few minutes later, an explosive device was used to burn down the home of another researcher. The family inside -- including two small children -- narrowly escaped through an upstairs window. One injury was reported. Later that day, yet another researcher in Santa Cruz received a phone call, threatening a third attack.

Just a few days earlier, an animal rights group left threatening pamphlets in a local cafe, calling the scientists who were attacked "murderers and torturers".

In June, a van belonging to a UCLA lab was burned. Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members claimed credit. They also claimed credit for an April attack on two Staples delivery trucks, in retaliation for the trucks delivering supplies to an animal research lab. Pictures of the attacks appeared on their website, with threats of more violence.

In February, again in Santa Cruz, six masked ALF members tried to break into the home of a cancer researcher who uses lab animals. The scientist was injured after being struck by an "unidentified object". This occurred just days after an LA judge issued restraining orders against three animal rights groups for a string of attacks on local scientists. An ALF spokesman said he "laughed" at the order. "Our [members] are risking 30-year sentences for arson, and they're going to be threatened by a restraining order?"

These are just the attacks this year. In the US. Throughout Europe, Canada, and Mexico, the total is much higher. Medical researchers around the world regularly receive threatening emails and phone calls, are stalked at their homes and offices, and have their family's safety threatened. While other forms of domestic terrorism have been sharply curtailed, animal rights and eco-terrorism are on the rise.

The damages aren't always small. In 2003, a single eco-terrorist arson attack in San Diego destroyed a $50 million apartment complex. In 1998, a similar attack in Vail caused $12 million in damages. 

Medical researchers bear an ever-increasing risk. I applaud those scientists who are willing to work under such conditions. But I wonder how long they'll continue to do so. Most are motivated by their love of science, expanding human knowledge, and helping the human race. But how many will risk the lives of their children for that goal?

The stakes are high. Researchers are, quite rightly, barred from experimenting on humans. Without animal experimentation, progress in many fields of medicine and biological science is essentially impossible. While protecting the safety of U.S. citizens is always important, safeguarding scientists from terrorism is doubly so.

A PETA spokesman once said that, "Even if a cure for AIDS came from animal experimentation, we'd be against it".   PETA publicly claims to be against violence, but the group has long been accused of channeling funds and information to groups like the ALF.

Last week, a bail bondsman jokingly told colleagues he'd like to shoot Barack Obama and George Bush. Within days, he was arrested, charged, and held without bond. Yet the FBI and local authorities seem powerless to halt the organized terrorism being waged by animal rights fanatics. Why? Are these activists truly so well-organized and secretive as to withstand the full attention of professional law enforcement? These terrorists aren't hiding in the hills of Pakistan, after all; they're walking the streets of U.S. cities. Their attacks are planned in U.S. homes. How do these groups continue to operate?

Is it because their attacks -- popular in states such as California -- aren't given the full attention they deserve? Three years ago, when the FBI testified to Congress about the growing danger of animal rights and eco-terrorist groups, several members expressed outrage. Senator Frank Lautenberg, who describes himself as a "tree hugger", scoffed at attempts to label the ALF and other such groups as terrorists. Senator James Jeffords called the incidents minor as they only threaten "dozens of people", whereas an attack on a chemical or nuclear site might threaten thousands.

I don't agree. Such attacks are nothing less than an attack on science itself. And it's time they were stopped.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: If the FBI can't do their job then...
By CascadingDarkness on 8/13/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously having a handgun wouldn't help you in all situations. Neither of us was foolishly suggesting there'd be a certain way to stop them.

I have no deillusions that someone wouldn't be able to murder me at any given moment of my life. The two main things society depends on for this is morals (not ok to kill people), and deterance (if you do you get in trouble).

Given these people aren't following either of those I would likely sleep better knowing that a few rounds center mass from a simple .38 revolver is going stop them.

Sure they could have body armor, but really, how far are you going to take a hypothetical scenario? Plus the higher it gets escalated the more attention they would draw, and increase likelyhood that athorities intervene.


RE: If the FBI can't do their job then...
By GaryJohnson on 8/14/2008 11:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
If they're outside your house planting explosives or setting fires while you're sleeping, when do you expect to have an opportunity to shoot them?


RE: If the FBI can't do their job then...
By CascadingDarkness on 8/15/2008 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss
quote:
Obviously having a handgun wouldn't help you in all situations.


What would you have them do? Give in? Resign and move to another state, let the terrorists win?

That's the best solution if all you are worried about is your own skin, and you don't mind reinforcing the terrorist views that what they are doing works.

In that situation with a family I would have to think hard if I would risk them. I don't have a family though, so I'd be picking up a .38, going to gun range regularly, and informing the police of anything suspicious I see. Do you have any better ideas? Maybe just live in fear and practice crying in fetal position?

It's not a perfect plan, but better than nothing.


RE: If the FBI can't do their job then...
By GaryJohnson on 8/15/2008 11:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously having a handgun wouldn't help you in all situations.


It won't help you in all situations... it won't help you in ANY of the situations as presented by the article.

It's not a plan at all, it is nothing. It's like trying to protect yourself from drunk drivers by wearing a parachute.


RE: If the FBI can't do their job then...
By mindless1 on 8/18/2008 3:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
If you're effectively stalking someone and you knew they had a gun, I think that would be a bit of a deterrant if you were the kind of bleeding heart terrorist that is doing this for animal rights or whatever nonsense they believe justifies it.

A handgun is a lot better than nothing when someone is being aggressive trying to cause you or your family harm. Maybe we read about the times people didn't have the gun because the other times the gun had the intended effect. Not that it's the only solution, being at least physically fit and having a decent security system wouldn't hurt either, but if you have a terrorist walking onto your property with a fire bomb, is an alarm or a phone call to the police going to be as effective as putting that person in your gun sights? Hopefully you'll never find out.


By GaryJohnson on 8/23/2008 6:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
If you're asleep and they're outside your house in the dark all of those things would be equally effective at preventing that person form planting and setting off their device. You can't shoot them or call the police because you’re asleep, and the average burglar alarm isn't going to go off because they haven't tried to enter your home.
quote:
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The best way I can think of to survive an an attack (as described in the article) is to make sure you have working smoke detectors with good batteries, fire extinguisher(s), and a fire escape plan for yourself and your family.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki