Are So-Called ‘Eco-Terrorists’ Falsely Prosecuted?
January 7th, 2011

Share This Post

The Pennsylvania homeland security office is in the news this week, and receiving a heavy dose of well deserved scrutiny. It seems the office has been distributing anti-terrorism bulletins to state police and other public officials. The “terrorist activities” targeted by the bulletins have included such dire threats to public safety as anti-BP candlelight vigils, peaceful demonstrations by anti-war groups, gay and lesbian festivals, a screening of the documentary “Gasland,” and an animal rights protest at a Montgomery County rodeo.

Governor Ed Rendell has apologized, but continues to support James Powers, his homeland security director. Powers, who authorized spending $125,000 of the state’s money for the information contained in the bulletins, said his office is charged with preventing damage to critical infrastructure in the state. He did not explain exactly how protests against a local rodeo amounted to threats against critical infrastructure.

What is Powers’ justification? What is he thinking? Could he be more concerned with monitoring political activities which he says “foment dissent” than with finding actual potential terrorists?

If so, he’s not alone. More than a few public officials have been labeling as “terrorists” people whose beliefs and activities threaten the status quo. If Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mahatma Gandhi were alive today, would they find themselves prosecuted as terrorists?

Increasingly, corporations and politicians alike are labeling activists “eco-terrorists” and national security threats. It’s like red- baiting, with a new green twist.

Consider, for example, the case of Eric McDavid. Barely 30- years-old, he is currently serving a nearly 20-year sentence as a convicted “terrorist.”

Eric McDavid grew up in Orangevale, California, a middle class suburb northeast of Sacramento. An easy-going young man, he worked as a carpenter in order to attend Sierra College, where he studied philosophy and conflict resolution. He opposed the Iraq war, and as an expression of his commitment to be kind to animals, became a vegan.

His parents, who both stem from Midwestern farming families, raised Eric to respect the earth. They were bewildered when FBI agents showed up at the family home looking for their son. Eric, they told the agents, was not a troublemaker. Far from it, he was an affable peacemaker. When his younger sisters would fight, he would mediate.

When spiders were found in the house, he would take them, by hand, back to the garden. But Eric was in trouble. He had fallen in love with a young woman who said her name was Anna. He didn’t know she was lying about her name, nor that she was only pretending to be an environmental activist. He didn’t know that she was being paid by the FBI to be an informant.

Believing Anna was his soul mate and desperate for her affection, Eric followed her lead. When he talked about his grief and anger at the deterioration of the environment, Anna challenged him to act on his convictions. At the behest of the FBI, Anna presented Eric and his friends with bomb-making recipes. Funded by the FBI, she financed their transportation, food and housing.

At one point Erik sent her an email pouring out his feelings for her. In an interview with Elle magazine, Anna later described how the FBI responded when she showed the email to her handlers at the agency. “They said if he makes another advance, what you need to say to him in order to calm him, to mollify him, is that we need to put the mission first. There’s time for romance later.” As Anna continued to string Eric along, she encouraged him and the others to develop a plan and stick to it. According to the Sacramento News & Review, “Documents from the investigation show that whenever the group started to lose focus, or to have second thoughts, Anna badgered them about being all talk.”

Trying to impress her, Eric went along. He did not know that her actions were, in the words of Will Potter, a leading authority on civil liberties post 9/11, “part of a deliberate, calculated and coordinated effort to infiltrate activist groups and land ‘terrorism’ convictions, even if it means breaking the rules and provoking criminal activity.”

Anna spent a year and a half working with the FBI to entrap a man who had fallen in love with her. Finally, Eric and two others were arrested and charged with a single count of “conspiracy to damage and destroy property by fire and an explosive.” Though no actual fire had ever been started, no explosive detonated, and no property damaged or destroyed, Eric was treated as a malevolent and dangerous terrorist. He was denied bail, despite having no prior criminal record and no history of violence. He spent almost two years pre-trial in solitary confinement.

How seriously the government took the case can be seen by who they brought in as lead prosecutor. R. Steven Lapham was no stranger to high profile terrorism cases. He had previously prosecuted the Unabomber, Ted Kacynski, and also members of a militia group who had conspired to blow up two large propane tanks in Elk Grove, California, in order to start the second American Revolution.

McDavid’s attorney, Mark Reichel, defended his client by saying that he was a victim of entrapment. “There has never been a case in America,” said Reichel, “that has involved this much entrapment, this much pushing by an informant… and by the FBI behind it.”

But the jury was given false information about “Anna” and her role in the events that had taken place. After the trial, one of the jurors, Diane Bennett, issued a formal declaration to the court, complaining that she and the other jurors had been gravely misled:

“During deliberations, we asked the court to please clarify for the jury the issue of whether Anna was a government agent, and if so, when did she become one… The written answer was from the court and stated ‘no’ that she was not a government agent… Once the written response advised Anna was not a government agent, we then changed to a guilty verdict.”

Eric McDavid was found guilty in September, 2007, and sentenced to 19 years and 7 months in prison, far longer than the average sentence given to violent child molesters and many murderers. The U.S. Attorney’s office promptly issued a press release proudly trumpeting “Eco-Terrorist Given Nearly Twenty Years In Prison.” The statement made no mention of the fact that an informant and provocateur had been involved. It mentioned, only briefly and in passing, a “confidential source.”

Since 9/11, the U.S. government has prosecuted more than 20 “terrorism” cases involving environmental activists. In so doing, the government has redefined environmentally motivated property destruction, such as torching Hummers or destroying tree-felling equipment, as being tantamount to the murderous assaults of Al Qaeda.

Some of us may think the nation should turn its terror focus to Al Qaeda and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Others, including experts at the Pentagon, are worried about the colossal national security threat posed by climate change. But apparently there are federal officials who for whatever reason consider the threat posed by “eco-terrorists” to be priority number one. This, even though no act of environmental protest, even those where property has been intentionally damaged, has ever resulted in a single human death.

These comments are moderated to support respectful, non-commercial, and open-minded dialogue.

4 Responses to “Are So-Called ‘Eco-Terrorists’ Falsely Prosecuted?”

  1. Michael Jones says:

    Doesn’t sound too unbelievable to me as a former reader of Earth First! magazine. Actually, pick up a copy of “Timber Wars”, which tells the story of activist Judi Bari and her struggles for sustainable redwood forest harvesting in California. Before her untimely death from cancer, a case was brought against the government for the FBI’s dishonest actions against her. The case was continued after her death and it was won! Hopefully, this young man, along with the others, will get good legal help and do the same.

  2. Richard F. Turnbull says:

    Look, the moment — the nanosecond — that anyone in my presence advocates violence outside of imminent self-defense
    or defense of others is when I ascertain their seriousness; if they persist in disrupting an otherwise peaceful protest, I turn them in forthwith. Tolerating scum like “Anna” (or any other infiltrator) cuts in more than one direction.
    Until “progressives” absolutely learn this and consistently practice it, we get sad cases like the one described above.
    None of which in any way, shape or form excuses the horrendous ongoing assault on the environment and human health posed by the callously indifferent businesses alluded to in the article; these issues need to be dis-entangled.

  3. Edpeak says:

    A year and a half of providing materials, encouraging to act, dangling romance in front of him, and attacking them as “all talk no action” if they hesitated, sure sounds like entrapment.

    But what if there was a case without any entrapment?

    The utter hypocrisy of spending HUGE amounts of resource to catch even a non-entrapped would-be attacker while doing little to nothing (and often even being in bed) with those who are committing assaults on the environment which lead to thousands times more deaths, is incredible.

    Why the focus on eco-terrorism? Allow me to quote Chomsky:

    “..a trick familiar to every petty crook and tenth-rate lawyer: when you are caught with your hand in someone’s pocket, cry “Thief! Thief!” Don’t try to defend yourself, thus conceding that there is an issue to confront: rather, shift the onus to your accusers, who must then defend themselves against your charge [and whether they are successful or not in defending themselves, the person who played the ‘thief! thief! trick wins either way”

    Multi-billion dollar interests want the focus shifted away from their own ecological crimes and brutalization of the landscape and of the health of people and more..

    So the focus is convenient.

    Of they can tarnish “greenies” (as the far-right likes to call those who care about the liveability of our planet and uses as an epithet) so much the better.

    Defaming those working to protect the environment is another way to counter effect to protect (the “regulations” they love to hate, are just that: efforts to protect).

    Which buys them more time to make more profits this quarter, and next, and next, every little bit more they can grab, even a little bit more time to grab before the party’s over, is a ‘win’ for them, the planet be damned

  4. Jennifer says:

    This is an absolutely unbelievable story! I am deeply saddened by the state’s obvious effort to increase public appreciation, and yet (ironically) decrease personal freedom.

Share this with your friends:

All material on this site © 2013 John Robbins. All Rights Reserved. Nothing may be reproduced without express permission of the copyright holder.