Suspected Oregon 'Eco-Terrorist' Arrested-FBI

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - A prominent environmental activist on the FBI's most wanted list for allegedly firebombing industrial sites in Oregon has been arrested, the FBI said on Monday.

Michael James Scarpitti, also known as "Tre Arrow," faces four felony counts linked to a fire that damaged logging trucks in Eagle Creek, Oregon, in June 2001. He is also blamed for another fire that damaged concrete mixing trucks in Portland in April 2001.

The FBI, which had offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to Scarpitti's arrest, declined to give further details until a press conference slated for Monday afternoon.

Scarpitti, 30, is "affiliated" with Earth Liberation Front, deemed a "domestic terrorism group" by the FBI, and has taken part in several high profile protests, including camping in tall trees to halt logging.

more..............

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4571818§ion=news

quite an experienced DU'er :)

I've lurked here since almost day 1.

"Eco-terrorism" is always a divisive issue, as is PETA.
;-)

to label ANY enviro related law breaking, including simple civil disobedience, as "eco-terrorism".

EVERY environmentalist (along with every teacher, of course) was considered a "terra-ist"!:eyes:

B-)

On the one hand, you have people who willingly murder 3,000 innocent civilians to accomplish a political goal.

On the other hand, you have someone who burns a few logging trucks to accomplish a political goal.

IMHO, the ELF guy should be charged with arson. Charging him with terrorism redefines the meaning of terrorism.

Right-to-lifers may want to remember this before they burn down their next abortion clinic.

...you are using violence and force to forward a political goal,and when you become an organized group with an agenda.

If ELF deliberately torched an occupied apartment complex, tending to kills dozens or hundreds of people, THAT would be terrorism.

The attempt to link the environmental movement to terrorism is uniquely Republican. ELF is a nuisance, and whoever is perpetrating these acts deserves to do time, but not for terrorism.

...but not killed anyone, it wouldn't be terrorism?

The attempt is to link the Envrionmental Terrorism movement with terrorism. Not the rest of the movement.

were terrorists who deserved the death penalty for their criminal conspiracy to destroy property?

...one mans terrorist is anotthers freedom fighter. I am pretty sure that the Brits would have thought the Boston Tea Party would have at least deserved to be imprisoned, if not executed.

terrorism (tèr´e-rîz´em) noun
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

O.K. so it's an old reference but by your description of the guy's acts (burning logging trucks to obtain a political goal) I'd say that he's guilty of terrorism using the dictionary's definition.

quote
-------
terrorism (tèr´e-rîz´em) noun
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons
---------

Under that definition the bush regime is certainly guilty of terrorism in iraq (not to mention haiti etal) and should be prosecuted by the world courts!

...who would object to that opinion.

They R guilty of terrorism against women, seniors, public education, national parks & forests, renewable energy......

NOT!! I posted this morning about how it is not feasible to monitor our railway systems for potential terror strikes per:Asa Hutchinson. I am so glad to see our tax dollars pumped into these "terror activities".... :puke:

I don't think things like this help their cause.

nt

a chance for employement, providing various raw materials for construction and paper products. Our civilization no matter how small or green will invariably have a negative impact on the environment. The best we can hope for is a reasonable balance which takes the conflicting interests of enviromental preservation vs. economic well being into account. Nature itself is not static. The ecosystem they are protecting was non existant 10,000 years ago when the entire region was covered by a massive ice sheet. When that invariably receeded an unprecidented mass extinction followed for many speices..which helped by man continues to this day.


Hummers are just obscene displays of greed, which destroy the enviroment and endanger others on the road. Even if I drive a fuel efficient Civic all the rich assholes with Hummer's are still driving up the price of gas for everbody else. Unfortunately in this country property rights and freedom of stupidity laws are given heavier consideration.

During the last ice age the glaciers stopped right around Olympia, Wa., safely north of Oregon. Regardless, it takes thousands upon thousands of years for those forests to grow into what they are today.

Tourching Hummers is one of THE most pointless "acts of protest" I seen come down the road in a while.

...dosen't help their cause either. Another one of those things that makes them look like idiots, and helps set back the real environmental movement.

Torching Hummers and SUV's is the single most self defeating and thoroughly misbegotten idea ever. Nothing but the perfect opportunity for cointelpro blame games. Best to step away from that crap and decry it for the foot shot it is.

about their cause.

Heh...

Okay, seriously though: TERRORISM? Tell me, who was killed or hurt here?

Is burning a few logging trucks tantamount to attempting to force the government to bend to some group's demands? Hardly. This is, at worst, arson.

Considering that property was destroyed during the Boston Tea Party, I'm not even sure how I feel about this. I can't say offhand that I condone it, but I'm also not sure I condemn it, either. I'd have to think about it for a bit.

But clearly, labelling this terrorism is ridiculous. If the 'eco-terrorist' had wanted to hurt or kill people, I'm sure that could have been accomplished. This is stretching the definition a bit thin, I think.

Besides, what's next? Nutritionist-terrorist? Alternative energy-terrorist? Where do we draw the line?

THe line is drawn where you iuse treat, force, and violence to forward you political agenda.

Thanks for playing.

THey destroyed property in a violent action against the proper ruling Government. They were also unlawful combatants, under the current definition, as not only were they not part of an organized military and did not have any uniforms, but they also intentionally concealed their identities by dressing as AmerInd braves.

no one is hurt, it's not an act of terrorism? Or maybe if they had burned the WTC down using matches instead of flying planes into them. Just wondering. Helping fan the flames!

arse. No one was "terrorized" and you know it. Sure, some people were inconvenienced and perhaps even put out of work. But to equate this with the World Trade is knee-jerk, reactionary, self-serving bullshit.

Remind me, who died again? Remind me, who was physically hurt again? Who was "terrorized"?

Oh, the terror, the terror!

you believe someone has to get hurt or killed to justify an act as 'terrorism'. Just a threat can be an act of terrorism. Consider cross burnings by the KKK. That act intimidates and terroriszes the hell out of people even though those people are not actually hurt or killed from the cross burning.

Terrorism is a tactic that uses threats or destruction to instill fear in a population for political or religious means. It's damage is more or less pyschological and not physical.

You may believe that massive destruction and death is terrorism but how many people were hurt or killed during the anthrax mailings following 9/11? just a very few people were actually hurt but that very act caused enough fear and paranioa that spanned the country not to mention the billions spent to counter the paranioa. And that was just a few ounces of anthrax.

Now, back to the truck burning. What was the purpose of that act? was it just to destroy it? If so, that's criminal vandalism. But if that was meant to send a message to the owner/operators of the truck, that is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. No difference between the truck burnings and the cross burnings. An act of intimidation fueled by political motive.

The answer to the question of whether the truck fire was vandalism or was intended to send a message is the responsility for the courts to determine now. The suspect will have his chance to answer it.

I believe that any group that uses violence and destruction of property as a means to express a political opinion or belief ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those who feel they need to break the law in order to express a political opinion are not only criminals but also destroying the very message of their political opinion. Does a guy who murders an abortion doctor spread a positive message that abortion is wrong? Does he win over the hearts and souls of the public to support his opnion? Absolutely not. And neither do the so called environmentalists who burn hummers, apartment buildings, and logging trucks pursuade the general public that those who they oppose are wrong. News Media and people focus on the crime and associate the environmental message to the crime. This casts shadows over the rest of us who truly are environmentalists.

Again, I say we prosecute the offenders to the fullest extent of the law according to the crimes s/he committed.

Terrorism?

Of course corporations want us to equate PROPERTY with life and of course CORPORATE PROPERTY is even higher than life. BY GOD! how dare anyone touch their money! However, when CORPORATIONS KILL PEOPLE AND ECO-SYSTEMS, it is for the GOOD OF THE PROFIT LINE.
Yes the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, it should be so stated in our non-revisionist history books. BTW, wasn't Bu$hie's major as an undergrad history?

in an effort to sway public opinion or scare people into changing their position.

Burning vehicles is terrorism. Non-violent civil disobedience isn't.

of labeling anything the government doesn't like, terrorism. I think labeling citizens protesting, albeit extreme, should NOT be labeled a terrorist act. That's just a step away from labeling dissent as such an act.

No sir, I don't like it. I don't like it a bit.

Marching with signs: not terrorism.
Marching, looting, fighting with police, and lobbing molotov cocktails at them: terrorism.

What part of "non-violent resistance" did they not understand? Oh, yeah....the "non-violent" part... :eyes:

butchering started. Imagine that!

"I want them gay-marrying Oregon county commishes in Gitmo with the rest of the terrorists.", screamed AG Ashcroft as pancreatic bile spewed forth from Ashcroft's mouth as he ranted, splattering all over his hospital bed.

i can see problems with logging, but why set fire to concrete mixing trucks? am i missing something?

frankly, I am just surprised they got one. That group
is harder to break into than just about any on the earth.

Just a bunch of random, totally unrelated, people who have the idea that current society is bad and they want to fix it.

edit, they want to fix it by blowing stuff up, not building stuff up, they want to fix it by whining, rather than solving, etc... really... they crack me up...

It'd be really ironic one day if some so called radical "industrialists" firebombed a few forests or something one day, and called themselves the "Earth Submission Federation."

hands.

I know, when I was a reporter I did multiple stories on them. They once burned down a cornfield because they thought it was using genetically altered plants.

Turns out they burned down the real cornfield and left the genetically modified one standing.

Groups like the E.L.F. and the A.D.L. hurt mainstream environmental and animal rights groups. They should be shunned and their actions condemmed by all clear-minded people.

another annoying publicity hound. Who cares about him or what he does or thinks - there are more important things to think about than Tres Arrow or whatever he calls himself. Maybe he could move back to Beaverton. IMHO

on judging anyone. I do have a question though...

When people or a person is left with no alternative because no one will listen to them regarding an issue that is of the utmost urgency regarding life and/or the destruction of life what is a person to do?

Example: Boston Tea Party
Example Soon to Come: GOP Convention 2004
Example: Haiti
Example: Africans taking back land from rich land owners forcefully
Example: Jesus in the temple overturning-destroying, vandalizing the money-changers tables, etc.


I don't think there can be a BLANKET description, yet I'm sure many will say I'm wrong. It seems to me that laws are broken in order to push the envelope towards a better future sometimes. If we always ONLY operate within the legal boundaries then are we necessarily moving forward?

Another question. The definition has been listed here for terrorism/ terrorist. What if * doesn't get ousted, what then? What if DU is considered terrorism? What if gathering to discuss political ideas different than this cabal's or the right wing agenda is considered terrorism?

Will you break the law? Will you assemble? Will you post?

Maybe we need to look at what the person is trying to get across who is described as a terrorist. Religious purposes... serves noone. Political purposes serves only a few.

Saving forests saves the whole planet.

Maybe it isn't the act or the person committing it...maybe it is the reason that should be looked into.

Just a suggestion and I'm sure one that will be flamed away!

That is very much the point. When people are ready to break the law to make change society will make a choice.. Maybe we arrest them or maybe so many agree that the police ignore them. Until the bulk agree strongly with them they are headed to jail. To have a working society it can be no other way!

No, it targets corporations.

So even though they do use violence (which i don't support) and even though they do use violence to try and advance their political agenda (which i don't support either), they do not use violence in order to instill fear in the civilian population as a means to advance their political agenda.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/0624/plant.html

any shred of empathy I might have had for this group went down the drain when they did this. really courageous of them to destroy a public education facility. how EXACTLY does this stem the wave of wave of genetically modified organism production, which they claimed was their excuse?

these people are thugs. the fact that they're using "environmentalism" as an excuse for their violent tendencies NOT only against corporations but against the public is detrimental to all the people who are actually trying to educate the public about ecological systems.

Society's awareness of and appreciation for the benefits of sustaining the environment is not going to happen overnight. But it can happen, with persistence and KINDNESS.

I'm interested to hear what a "real" environmentalist is.

an environmentalist is someone who belongs to a mainstream enviro org.You know, they send some cash in the mail, save some cans and vote for people who promise a lot and produce a little. Thus their concience is salved. <satire off>
Not that I'm not grateful for what has been accomplished, it's just too little too late. Massive loss of biodiversity is a given and water, air and climate problems will reach crisis levels in the near future. Feelgood local efforts are a bandaid approach to major trauma surgery. A manhattan project style effort is required and I fear that won't happen until we are smacked down so hard that recovery will be questionable.
Nobody will admit that sacrifice will be necessary in order to make our society sustainable, especially politicians.

"Scarpitti was known to travel around the country barefoot, hitching rides at truck stops and carrying a backpack and a black guitar case, according to the FBI."

So, trucks were okay with him when he needed a ride.