Threat Assessment of Earth Liberation Front

Introduction 

There is substantial proof indicating that activists for the rights of animal and the ecosystem pose a threat to national security. There was a total of 239 eco-terrorist incidences carried out by Earth Liberation Front as well as the Animal Liberation Front in the United States between 1995 and 2010 (Chermak, Freilich, Duran, & Parkin, 2013; Braddock, 2015). Among the 239 cases, 45 percent was attributed to ALF while 55 percent to ELF (Chermak et al ., 2013). 38 percent of the incidents were arson and 62 percent were bombings ( Chermak et al ., 2013). More studies have indicated that environmental extremists’ attacks have the potential to get even worse in the coming years. Subsequently, a top FBI local radicalism representative recounted to Congress that eco-terrorists had carried out 600 criminal acts and above in the U.S. between 1996 and 2002 leading to more than $40 million in damages (Chermak et al ., 2013). 

On 1 st August 2003, early in the morning in San Diego, California, fire destroyed an under-construction apartment complex with 206 units (Loadenthal, 2013). The ELF claimed responsibility stating that they are mad. The blaze resulted in damage worth approximately $50 million (Loadenthal, 2013). Another significant attack happened on October 14, 1996 in the state of Oregon and was the first Earth Liberation Front attack in the United States. Simultaneous attacks happened at a public relations office, McDonald’s food joint, and a Chevron station (Loadenthal, 2017). The locks of the three properties were glued and the also painted with political messages including a letter with the three letter “E.L.F” (Loadenthal, 2017). A decade later, the United States declared ELF as the number one domestic terrorist threat and the most active criminal terrorist constituent in America. The ELF remains active, transitory and resistant to arrest and discovery a decade after such a rhetoric was mobilized with so much strength. 

EFL is keener on damaging properties and not humans and has always tried to avoid harming people inadvertently. One scholar notes that while EFL has had more than 300 attacks they have always been casualty-free since this movement’s primary target is property (Hirsch-Hoefler & Mudde, 2014). The targets are primarily pharmaceutical companies, police, power plants, research facilities, fast food restaurants, timber/logging companies, government facilities, fur/leather companies, universities, automobile/truck dealerships, meat/food processing plants, and private homes (Loadenthal, 2017). 

The United States’ Federal law enforcement authorities identifies the ELF as a threat considering the significant value of the damages the arson and bombing incidents produce (Hirsch-Hoefler & Mudde, 2014) . FBI have continued to conduct investigations on ELF to facilitate in estimating its potential as a threat to national security. While there are no well-documented casualties in attacks perpetuated by ELF, the increasing numbers of other terrorist groups including the Islamic radical cells that are openly violent makes individuals have a stereotypic opinion about all extremist groups (Loadenthal, 2017) . As such, a threat assessment on ELF that an empirically-derived will inform current policy by either criticizing the stance of the state on the movement or suggesting a more efficient resources allocation plan towards more persistent threats. 

With this objective in mind, this paper breaks down the different elements of tactics, ideology, and structure of ELF and provide a mire analytical evaluation of the potential threat of this extremist movement. The paper further explores the motivations and capabilities of the EFL to assess if the organization possess a threat of resulting in not only property damage but also mass casualties like the possibility of utilizing nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons. 

Origin and History of Earth Liberation Front (ELF) 

ELF is an environmental extremist (eco-terrorist) movement formed in 1992 in Brighton, United Kingdom (Joosse, 2012). ELF was established from the conceptual fractionalization of the U.K. Earth First! The association’s philosophical substructures are founded on deep ecosystem, anti-totalitarian rebellion underscoring a warranted feeling persecution by State forces, a collective defense of the Earth, a commitment to nonviolence, and a critique of capitalism ( Nagtzaam, 2017). In 1992 during the British Earth First’s first meeting in Brighton, various activists agreed that while the movement was keen on impacting environmental policies, it was just not radical enough (Hirsch-Hoefler & Mudde, 2014) . Earth First’s leader Judy Bari developed the idea of the group adopting a non-violence code and conduct civil disobedience blockades. On the other hand, the Earth Liberation Front was to do more aggressive acts like vandalism, sabotage, and arson. 

The emergence of a political movement in the early years of 1960’s advanced a radically new critique of animal use and environmental practices (Loadenthal, 2017) . These novel ideological tendencies had a different language and collective practice as well as the philosophical views (Joosse, 2012) . During this period, the previous environmental protectionist framework was replaced with a deep ecology structure. Peter Singer’s 1975’s book on the ideas of animal liberation challenged the popular ideas of animal rights and welfare and groups formed during this period replaced the initial protest approaches with that of independent, self-guided units (Loadenthal, 2017). Subsequently, the emergent groups such as the Band of Mercy (BOM), ALF and ELF adopted the novel revolutionary frameworks and began using arson, vandalism, and sabotage. 

Initially, the EFL’s activists were dedicated to sabotaging the bulldozers and also inciting more people to them and commence their radical ‘direct actions.’ In the United States in the mid-1990s, the American EFL cells were quite active in various areas (Loadenthal, 2017). They broke into horse and fur farms, released animals, set buildings on fire, and wrecked veterinary offices which provided services to those businesses. The movement rapidly became an excuse and umbrella for various vandals and mischief-makers who would hide behind the notion of being environmental-conscious when in reality they had anti-American feelings, personal rage and were in pursuit of an adrenaline rush. 

ELF is a decentralized, international network of independent, covert cells that employ unlawful approaches by vandalizing and sabotaging property (Loadenthal, 2013). As independent small unit cells that can function without the getting support from external entities like weapon procurers, and financiers. The structure of ELF is non-hierarchical with no well-defined membership and those who act under the EFL umbrella are guided by their individual conscience ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . Ideally, the make personal selections and are not approved, motivated, or endorsed by readers, contributors or administrators. From 1996, EFL have committed and claimed responsibility for numerous felonies (Loadenthal, 2017) . While it is a leaderless, decentralized, loose organization, some of the militants have acted more directly as recruiters, webmasters, and spokespersons of the movement. 

Literature Review 

Philosophy and Tactics 

Rosebraugh’s doctrine that supports violent revolt against the United States government and private establishments provided the main ideology behind the increase in violence committed by EFL. These cells also targeted upper-middle-class people and wealthy communities that represent the American lifestyle. Rosebraugh’s dogma is contradictory since it advocates for pillage, rape, murder, and bloody revolution while maintaining that human life should be respected ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . He talked about his struggled to develop a non-violent philosophy for ELF since his conscience questioned the credibility in non-violence. In 2002, ELF sent a message about sabotage and arson and reiterated that the movement would implement justice by all means even if using guns is what it takes ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . In the following year, Phillip Dawdy who was another ELF activists said in a speech that the severity of the ecological threat issues was quite significant and political violence is considered a potent alternative in setting things right. 

Political-Philosophical Ideology 

According to the North American Earth Liberation Front Press that went down in 2001, EFL guidelines were developed by unknown individuals and disseminated all through the movement literature thus creating expansive reality for successive acts (Loadenthal, 2013). The guidelines of this movement include (1) to be careful and avoid injuring humans; (2) to ensure public is well informed about the violence committed against life and the ecological setting; and (3) to make those benefiting from destroying the ecosystem and life suffer grave financial damage (Loadenthal, 2013). 

The guidelines are quite broad since they avoid the fractionalizing function while allowing for great strategic and tactical diversity (Braddock, 2015). The activists conduct the actions but they choose whether to adopt the ELF identity or not. The ELF ideology has thematic inclinations jointly instituting common ethos. First, the deep ecology is a philosophical movement founded on the works of Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher that provides that all that has life has value and an integral privilege of existence and prosperity (Loadenthal, 2013) . It is widely believed that it is through that deep ecology lens that ELF assumes its position regarding those who destroy the Earth. Part of the influence emanates the movement’s historical expansion together with mayhem, and particularly its anti-development inclinations popularly referred to as Primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, and anarchism. Radical environmentalists subscribe to the same ideology with ELF contending that today’s capitalism represents the biggest danger to the environment and the individualism perpetuated by the Western world leads to the exploitation of the Earth’s natural resources. 

Second, the ELF claims that the organizations forte is the ‘defender of the defenseless’ and ‘voice of the voiceless’ contenting that the planet is subjected to humankind attacks but it cannot react or retaliate (Loadenthal, 2013) . Since the Earth is unable to react or defend itself makes ELF defend and speak for it despite facing opposition from critical activists who challenge anthropocentric protectionism. Third, ELF support non-violence vis-à-vis living entities but non-living units like governments, corporations, and property of eco-offenders are not protected from any form of violence. To this end, ELF targets destruction of property since it is a non-violent sabotage while failing to target any living creatures. 

Finally, ideology is stained with allegations of unwarranted attacks by the law enforcers. The ELF cells believe that they are being maliciously targeted and persecuted by governments (Braddock, 2015) . After the September 11 occurrences, America started its war on terrorism domestically and animal liberation and environmental activists were among the most-targeted groups in what they referred to as Green Scare (Loadenthal, 2013) . The State has been employing various repressive methods on activists which are not the quintessential approaches used when dealing with social movements that are not violent. There is an increase in electronic surveillance, raiding homes and other kinds of unconcealed policing, and utilization of federal and state-level legislation to track down these movements. 

Strategic Ideology  

The Earth Liberation Front outspreads its structure creating a strategic approach that fuses ethos with practice while developing environmental, anti-capitalist, anti-State, radical praxis. The praxis supports direct action to stop killing the Earth for profit (Loadenthal, 2013) . As a primary aspect of anarchist tradition, direct action is regarded the only technique to attain the aim of the movement since conventional methods forms of lobbying and politicking have not accomplished instant success. The ELF’s understanding of direct action is the utilization of unlawful approaches of political protests like arson, sabotage and other forms of destroying properties with an aim of damaging entities determined as its enemies economically (Loadenthal, 2013) . Since ELF’s primary goal is economic sabotage, it utilizes methods that result in financial harm while circumventing harming the environment, animals and humans. Thus, the organization primarily utilizes incendiaries and not projectiles or firearms. The targets are mostly unfinished buildings, privately owned cars, and setting ablaze research centers and removing the genetically-modified organisms from the ground. 

Analysis of ELF as a Domestic Threat 

While the ELF has resulted in property damage worth millions of dollars, it has not unintentionally or even internationally brought harm to humans. Members of ELF have always believed in not causing harm to living entities as explained under the deep ecology ideology that they subscribe to and has always maintained that it is a nonviolent organization ( Loadenthal, 2014). The members of the movement are also part of the society and they do not have a leader who may impose to them violent ideas. Those activists that are fairly educated encourage debates on environmental and animal liberation topics and participate in social distractions which discourages them from engaging in aggressive acts. 

However, the ELF as a subculture dehumanize and demonize their opponents. Just as explained in the Social Identity Theory, the ELF members take so much pride in all that they do in their advocacy for protecting the environment while calling out government and environmental officials as they consider them corrupt, greedy, and evil exploiters with no or few redeeming qualities ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . For instance, in the Earth First! Journal 1989’s September issue, Gula recognizes life as sacred, thus, undeserving of direct action ( Loadenthal, 2014) . However, he questions those people who destroy the environment and whether they are worth being considered human. Moreover, while the movement is committed to non-violence, there is room for accidental harm as long as all the necessary precautionary measures are effected. As such, radical environmentalists would easily use the open room to justify their acts in the event of casualties (Braddock, 2015) . For instance, one of Earth First! Leaders talked about the issue of innocent bystanders not holding any water and reiterated that they planned to widen their threats to challenge all institutions. 

EFL views the world as being characterized by a corrupt system and corporate greed with the movement’s members being the only hope froe defending living entities. The organization’s propaganda alludes its actions to ‘self-defense’ which is totally far-fetched and eerily ill-conceived ( Loadenthal, 2014). Some radical environmentalists consider non-violence unnatural and would easily pull the self-defense card to justify their engagement in crime. The ELF members are also angered by how they are treated by law enforcers and would easily resort to violence if that is what it will take for the social ills to end. For instance, after a December 2000 Long Island’s arson, while claiming responsibility, ELF members alluded the acts to defensive aggression by stating that oppressing the movement’s members will only cause the oppressors more financial damages ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . Furthermore, more environmental movements are mushrooming which are totally in agreement with ELF regarding the social injustices and continue to reject the legitimacy of the current system (Ackerman, 2010) . Social revolutionaries are angry and may resort to violence and expand their targets to ensure that they are heard. Just like Ted Kaczynski, the ELF members may resort to radical measures in their pursuit for an ideal society ( Nagtzaam, 2017). The fact that they do not have any leader who can influence their decision, make ELFs next moves almost unpredictable. 

Assessing the prospects of ELF for mass-casualty violence indicates that there are some motivational factors that would promote these attacks attack but they are not as strong as those advocating for non-violence ( Loadenthal, 2014) . Furthermore, it is only a small fraction of the organization that may feel strongly about mass-causality attacks since most of them are pro-life and the whole movement is founded on the deep ecology ideology. To this end, very few ELF members are like Ted Kaczynski to dehumanize their opponents since they will be termed hypocrites and ultimately ruin the entire movement and all that it stands for regarding life (Ackerman, 2010) . 

However, since the targets are on a significant rise and have moved from just building under construction and privately owned vehicles, to research centers dealing with GMOs, university, food establishments, and banks ( Nagtzaam, 2017) . ELF is also openly anti-capitalist and anti-globalization and their actions have moved from advocating for reforms to acts of revolution ( Loadenthal, 2014) . Furthermore, ELF members not only consider the powerful and the wealthy as the problem but have also included the middle-class which exacerbates the situation. They are angered by the government disregarding them and acting indifferent towards their concerns which leads to more frustration that can easily lead to violence among the ELF members that are more radical. Furthermore, animal rights and environmental activists in Europe have resorted to violence and greater extremism than their American counterparts who may easily do the same (Ackerman, 2010) . In the recent years, the ELF has been underground leaving the public unaware of its future actions. 

Courses of Action 

In the recent years, the United States has experienced a myriad of threats to its homeland security. As such, the country should always strive to be on top of the security situation by utilizing the law enforcement and investigative resources towards managing the most prevalent dangers ( Loadenthal, 2014) . Empirical-based threat assessment determines the threat degree to the safety of the public as posed by extremist groups like ELF who membership is ill-defined and has entwined conceptual elements that can misrepresent its superficial evaluations. Threat assessment on the ELF indicates that the possibility of the organization members moving towards more violent approaches is low-to moderate ( Gruenewald, Allison-Gruenewald, & Klein, 2015) . Furthermore possibility of mass casualty attacks and use of CBRN agents among its members is also low in the foreseeable future (Ackerman, 2010) . However, we the growing fiery EFL rhetoric, more radical and disturbed members of the movement may consider arson an inadequate approach and incline towards more violent tactics. 

As such, it is important for the government to remember that it can never be too safe and put in place measures to cater for any eventualities ( Gruenewald, Allison-Gruenewald, & Klein, 2015). While Earth Liberation Front is not an instant hazard for effecting CBRN and mass-casualty aggressions and also minor violent deeds, the local authorities should be well structured to address any anomalies (Ackerman, 2010) . The federal law enforcers should pump resources into various investigative activities in the information coordination domain. However, at the moment with the increasing Islamic militia posing a bigger threat to the U.S. homeland security, the resources are better off utilized in that area. 

While the local police department focuses on the on-ground investigations, the federal government should also perform strive to understand the radical environmentalist settings ( Gruenewald, Allison-Gruenewald, & Klein, 2015). The federal law enforcement agencies can achieve this by tracking developments in ELF in the coming few years to identify any shifts in their capability and ideologies that may indicate a probable mass-casualty attack (Braddock, 2015) . It is important to note that sudden change in the ELF rhetoric, as well as an increase in violent acts among the European counterparts and other allied groups like anarchists serve as early-warning signs that should never be ignored (Ackerman, 2010) . Security should also be enhanced on the structures that are more prone to being attacked by eco-terrorists. 

Next Steps 

It is characteristic of groups like ELF to be very adaptive and over time metamorphose into unforeseen manifestations. Both internal dynamics and external circumstances may result in a shift towards more extreme violence or dissolution of the organization (Ackerman, 2010) . It is important to keep a keen eye on the organizations since motivations that may energize latent capabilities are rapidly changing. Presently, ELF remains a destructive yet minimally violent movement whose threats are not as pressing as compared to the ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups. However, the signs of ELF drifting towards violence should never be ignored. Both federal and local law enforcers should perform meticulous surveillance on the entire movement, keep it in check to ensure that it never resorts to CBRN or mass-casualty attacks because that will be a more significant threat to national security. 

References 

Ackerman, G. A. (2010). Beyond arson? A threat assessment of the Earth Liberation Front.  Terrorism and political violence ,  15 (4), 143-170. 

Braddock, K. (2015). The utility of narratives for promoting radicalization: The case of the Animal Liberation Front.  Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict ,  8 (1), 38-59. 

Chermak, S. M., Freilich, J., Duran, C., & Parkin, W. (2013). An overview of bombing and arson attacks by environmental and animal rights extremists in the United States, 1995-2010.  Final Report to the Resilient Systems Division, Science and Technology Directorate, US Department of Homeland Security (College Park, MD: START . 

Gruenewald, J., Allison-Gruenewald, K., & Klein, B. R. (2015). Assessing the attractiveness and vulnerability of eco-terrorism targets: A situational crime prevention approach.  Studies in Conflict & Terrorism . 

Hirsch-Hoefler, S., & Mudde, C. (2014). “Ecoterrorism”: Terrorist Threat or Political Ploy?.  Studies in Conflict & Terrorism ,  37 (7), 586-603. 

Joosse, P. (2012). Elves, environmentalism, and “eco-terror”: Leaderless resistance and media coverage of the Earth Liberation Front.  Crime, Media, Culture ,  8 (1), 75-93. 

Loadenthal, M. (2013). The Earth Liberation Front: A Movement Analysis.  Radical Criminology , (2), 15-46. 

Loadenthal, M. (2014). Eco-Terrorism? Countering Dominant Narratives of Securitisation: a Critical, Quantitative History of the Earth Liberation Front (1996-2009).  Perspectives on Terrorism ,  8 (3). 

Loadenthal, M. (2017). "Eco-Terrorism": An Incident-Driven History of Attack (1973–2010).  Journal for the Study of Radicalism ,  11 (2), 1-33. 

Nagtzaam, G. (2017).  From Environmental Action to Ecoterrorism?: Towards a Process Theory of Environmental and Animal Rights Oriented Political Violence . Edward Elgar Publishing.