Animal Rights Activist Named to FBI "Most Wanted Terrorist List"
Labels: Animal Rights. Terrorism. Most Wanted Terrorist List. Daniel Andreas San Diego
There is only one domestic suspected terrorist on the FBI's "most wanted terrorist." His name is Daniel Andreas San Diego, who hails from my neck of the woods in Berkeley, CA. San Diego has been on the run for years after allegedly bombing a local company that refused to promise to never do business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. From the story:For the first time, an accused domestic terrorist is being added to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terror suspects. Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California. Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has tattoo that proclaims, "It only takes a spark."...
An arrest warrant was issued for San Diego after the 2003 bombings in northern California of the corporate offices of Chiron Corp., a biotechnology firm, and at Shaklee Corp., a nutrition and cosmetics company. The explosions caused minor damages and no injuries. A group calling itself "Revolutionary Cells" took responsibility for the blasts, telling followers in a series of e-mails that Chiron and Shaklee had been targeted for their ties to a research company that conducted drug and chemical experiments on animals...
In February, the FBI announced San Diego may be living in Costa Rica, possibly working with Americans or people who speak English in the Central American country. Law enforcement officials describe San Diego as a strict vegan who possesses a 9mm handgun. On his abdomen, he has images of burning and collapsing buildings. The FBI's "Most Wanted" terrorist list is distinct from the much longer-running "Ten Most Wanted" list. Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is on both.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:18 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Wesley: You say: "Some--certainly not all--animal rights and radical eco activists are akin to the anarchists of the early 20th Century." I'd have to agree with you on that, although the same can be said for some people in almost every movement, such as right-to-lifers who shoot doctors or defenders of states' rights who join the Klan. So why make the comparison in the first place except to take a gratuitous shot at animal rights activists in general. Oh, sure, you put in a disclaimer --- "not all..." --- but come on, let's be honest. Why pick animal rights extremists from among all the other nut cases out there? Just because one of them made the Top Ten?
History Writer: Becuase unlike the pro lifers, I believe that the mainstream of the animal rights movement countenances the terrorists in their midst. I have written about that often here. If you are interested, use the search function.
"The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action."
Throughout human history all power structures have become corrupt and are eventually torn down via the process of Anarchy, often as the results of "Direct Action". I have yet to observe an Anarchist that isn't in revolt of some form of perceived corruption, but that does not necessarily make them a terrorist or nihilist.
This blog is an example of engaging in Direct Action to protest the laws and precedents that you disagree with by speaking out against them.
The brilliant writings of Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" brought to light the realms of gray between the stark contrasts of social disorder and despotism. He wrote on how liberalism aims for a golden mean between despotism and anarchy.
I think a common misconception of an Anarchist is one who seeks only his will, regardless of law or order of others, this is my view of Nihilism. I have not met anyone who considers himself to be an Anarchist who fits this mold. But is often mischaracterized to by those describing an Anarchist.
Furthermore I see a distinction between Terrorism that is militant in their targets vs. terrorists who will strike out at random civilian targets with no obvious intended result other than social mayhem. The "Terrorist" direct actions of Guy Fawkes to blow up the British Parliament is far from a suicide bomber action on a public bus in Tel Aviv.
That being said, I hesitate to lump the radical Direct Action of an Animal Rights Activist with the same creed that blows up children in shopping malls. Judgment as well as motive is to be considered.
I'll address your comments about terrorism, Swan.
As you said, there are many degrees and forms of terrorism. The old Mafia used it to run protection rackets for profit. Bullies use it to extort lunch money. And political groups use it to try to exert power over society. In any case it involves the use and/or threat of force.
That is what these people are wanted for. Using or threatening force against other members of society. Is that what you mean by your "direct action" euphemism? Do you think these people didn't endanger anyone that wasn't their direct target? A firebomb is not exactly a precision weapon.
The animal rights movement is only relevant to law enforcement because it tends to attract, or even generate, a violent fringe. If they didn't support or at least tolerate the firebombers in their midst the FBI would have no interest in them.
Do you think these people didn't endanger anyone that wasn't their direct target? A firebomb is not exactly a precision weapon.Sure it isn't. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians died as collateral damage due to hostile takeover of a nation, does that make the USA Bombers or private armies (Blackwater) Terrorists? You could just as easily argue that way from your basis.
It makes me sick to the core when I hear talking heads say that "detainees" do not deserve Geneva Convention rights, nor the rights to trial because they are not sponsored by any "State". As if nationalized sponsorship for the destruction of humanity is somehow more justified.
I really hope to see Cheney behind bars for opening the door to justification for the torture of future American POWs and citizens. Lets slam Cheney into walls, force him into cortortions, let millipeeds crawl all over him in confined spaces and simulate drowning him 183 times, even if he tells us what was in all the white house emails he illegally ordered deleted. Cheney is the worst American Ever. An Evil man.
Off topic much Swan?
Dark Swan: Focus please. Cheney, Iraq are irrelevant here. Thank you.
Seriously? I pose all these philosophical questions relating to anarchy, and its correlations between animal rights and terrorists and this is all you can muster to respond with - I'll stop the contribution if there is no thoughtful responses.
Am I off topic much, generally no, and the correlary here is not - off topic.
The topic was terrorism. If I am condemned for relating to other terror actions (of which I would consider torture) when discussing terrorism then this forum becomes quite boring and homogenized.
Well at times I think out of the box to yield different views, so I guess my thoughts aren't welcome.
By the way, what does Randy Newman have to do with fat people having sex and global warming??
Ridiculous!!
Au revoir
"It only takes a spark" is not nihilistic; it could refer to a fire bomb but it also refers to the courage to try to do something about animal experimentation, and I'm all for anything anyone tries to do about it. Gee, I usually like the feds. This isn't terrorism. It's a desperate attempt to stop something really, really, really bad. I applaud him and all who try to do anything about it.
OK, Ianthe, suppose next time you do something legal that someone else thinks is awful, like get (or perform) an abortion, someone follows Santiago's example and plants a firebomb outside your house. That of course won't be terrorism because the bomber was trying to stop something really, really bad. And there are plenty of people that would applaud that, too.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home