Interview with Jeff Luers on sfgate June 22, 2005

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/06/22/gree.DTL

GREEN Flaming SUVs
A conversation with convicted ecoterrorist Jeff Luers
Gregory Dicum, Special to SF Gate
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Five years ago this month, Jeff Luers set fire to three
SUVs at a dealership in Eugene, Ore., to protest America's
heedless contributions to global warming. He was promptly
arrested and put on trial for arson.

Refusing to plea bargain, as his accomplice did, and with
a past record that includes 30 days in jail for a scuffle
with a U.S. Forest Service agent, Luers was sentenced to
22 years and 6 months in prison, the longest sentence ever
handed down in America for environmentally motivated
sabotage.

The FBI estimates that in 2002, about 100 acts of
ecoterrorism, which the agency defines as "the use or
threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against
innocent victims or property ... for
environmental-political reasons," are perpetrated each
year. Though these acts have included spectacular actions
such as the 1998 incineration of a ski lodge in Colorado
and a number of more recent SUV torchings (including an
incident at the same site Luers had targeted, which took
place while he was on trial), very few perpetrators have
ever been caught, and only about 10 people in the United
States are serving time for this kind of crime. (No one
has died in any of these attacks.)

Luers' supporters say his sentence is far longer than the
act of simply burning three cars would seem to warrant,
and he continues to appeal. Supporters have organized
chapters in 35 cities and 11 countries, and they say Luers
is a political prisoner rotting in prison because of the
way he expresses his political beliefs.

This month marks the start of Luers' fifth year behind
bars. Though he's imprisoned, Luers is still active in the
radical environmental movement. Since successfully
fighting an effort to censor him, he has participated in
interviews, written articles and letters from prison and
contributed to a zine.

Meanwhile, the specter of "ecoterror" has, in the eyes of
the federal government, become more dire than ever: In
March, a list of domestic-terror threats from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security included environmental
extremists right behind groups such as al Qaeda. Indeed, a
number of local environmental activists have been
subpoenaed to appear today before a federal grand jury
investigating a pair of 2003 bombings in the East Bay.

I first contacted Jeff Luers in writing at the Oregon
State Penitentiary, in Salem, and last week I spoke with
him by phone.

GD:Did you consider yourself engaged in terrorism when you
set fire to those SUVs?

JL:No. Really, when you look at the use of the word today,
terrorism is nothing more than a way to define armed
struggles that you disagree with.

We were trying to draw attention to the use of resources
in America that are contributing to climate change and
global warming. Obviously, during an act of property
destruction, objects are smashed, burned or demolished.
That happens. But what makes an individual act of sabotage
more heinous than crimes committed by governments and
transnational corporations? If we're going to look at the
definition of terrorism or the definition of violence,
then we need to put it in its proper perspective. We
certainly ought to open the definition up to corporate
destruction of rivers, forests, oceans and all ecosystems,
because those certainly aren't acts of love.

GD:The SUV caper wasn't your first attempt to bring
attention to environmental issues. What other efforts had
you been involved in prior to that action?

JL:I had been involved in civil-disobedience direct
action. I spent a year and a half in an endangered
old-growth forest outside of Eugene. I've done tree sits,
roadblocks, lockdowns and some more confrontational
things. I've been involved in street protests. I've met
with and lobbied members of Congress. I've debated with
timber-industry officials.


GD:Was burning the SUVs the most extreme thing you'd done?

JL:Yeah, I'd say it was.

GD:Were you conscious of it being a step in a new
direction for you?

JL:I was trying to move into the realm of more radical
actions. If you compare arson actions that have happened
in the U.S., the majority of them were quite major. That's
the goal that I was working toward -- to be more of an
underground guerrilla activist. The SUVs were kind of a
baby step.

GD:Even so, the judge threw the book at you. Was this an
effort to make an example of you, or was it just the start
of tougher sentencing in general?

JL:About six months ago, there was a man from
Springfield[, Ore.,] who took his case to trial -- he
didn't take a plea bargain. He was accused of multiple
counts of arson in the City of Springfield for lighting
apartment buildings on fire. And in every single one of
his fires, people actually had to be evacuated. The fire
department had to do door-to-door searches to ensure that
no one was in the buildings. He very, very clearly put
people in danger, and he was sentenced to 15 years --
seven years less than me.

I'm obviously biased, but I have to say that my sentence
is out of the norm. The only official explanation that has
ever been given came from Kent Mortimore, chief deputy
D.A. in Lane County [the county in which Eugene is
located], who says, basically, bottom line, I'm a
terrorist and I got what I deserved.

GD:At the same time, the sentence has increased your
platform and your notoriety. I wouldn't be talking to you
if it hadn't been so unusual, for one thing.

JL:Yeah, I think their idea backfired. I think the goal
was to make me serve as a deterrent to anyone else that
wanted to be involved in radical actions and dissent. And
I think that they failed to understand that all they did
was galvanize my position.

With the growing trend toward eco-tage in this country, I
think that they looked upon me as representing that as a
whole. But I didn't back down. I didn't plea out, and I
didn't make apologies.

GD:And even after you were sentenced, since you've been in
prison, you've had to face unusual restrictions.

JL:Yeah. Back in 2003, the [state Department of
Corrections (DOC)] told me that I would not be able to
write about or express my political ideology, or write
about environmental- or social-justice movements or
issues. I was told that every time I did, it would be
considered a gang member-type thing, and that I would be
punished accordingly. I quickly filed suit against the DOC
for violation of my First Amendment rights, and they very
quickly decided to settle out of court.

GD:And, as a result, you can talk to me today.

JL:Actually, they're censoring me again. They're censoring
my outgoing mail when they consider it endorsing or
supporting anarchist or environmental activity. CNN and
"60 Minutes" have recently been denied access to videotape
me. I just recently filed a notice of intention to sue
because of this. If the DOC knew that I was talking to
you, I'm not sure how they would view it.

GD:I take it these are not ordinary restrictions in
American prisons?

JL:If they are, I have not seen it in Oregon.

GD:Going from the life of an eco-anarchist in the Oregon
woods to the top-down, rules-focused life of prison must
have been quite a change for you.

JL:It sucks really bad. All the stereotypical things that
you see in the movies -- that stuff happens here. But it
hasn't broken me, and it can't break me. I just accept
this environment as home -- my ability to deal with it has
really surprised me.

Part of it's just survival. But the other part is trying
to remain active and inspirational to the folks on the
outside that are working for change. I want people to know
that prison isn't the end of being able to be involved;
it's not the end of your life.

It really warms my heart to know that all those people
around the world are supporting me and are getting active.
It lets me know that everything I did wasn't in vain, that
what I did made a difference.

GD:As you know, the Department of Homeland Security has
recently identified eco-sabotage as one of the top
domestic terror threats the United States faces. Do you
think the government is justified in seeing the type of
action you took as a serious threat to the nation?

JL:It's interesting, because you have to look at the
ideals behind our government. It's very well known that
the government, time and time again, tries to side with
corporate interests. Those corporate interests have
trumped environmental protection, they have trumped
endangered species, they have trumped poor communities
trying to keep toxic waste dumps out.

This [eco-sabotage] movement has specifically targeted
corporate entities. They have found those transnational
corporate entities that are polluting and destroying and
wreaking havoc on the environment, and they have targeted
them with property destruction.

Now, compare that with the arrest a few years ago in Texas
of a man named William Krar. He was arrested and sentenced
to 11 years for possessing machine guns, pipe bombs and a
100-pound cyanide bomb -- a weapon of mass destruction, as
defined in the USA Patriot Act, which existed at the time.
He was a white supremacist and part of a white Christian
group, but he was never labeled a terrorist.

So, it goes back again to what the political agenda is. If
you target property -- you target corporate interests --
you are somehow more of a threat.

GD:In before-prison pictures, you look like the
stereotypical anarchist punk. Do you consider yourself an
anarchist now?

JL:Yeah, but probably not in the way that most people
define anarchist. I believe in autonomous self-rule. My
definition of anarchy includes the ability of other people
to choose to live nonanarchist lifestyles. I think that
people need to choose the lifestyle that's best for them,
as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedom of others.

GD:How does your brand of eco-sabotage fit in with
mainstream environmentalism?

JL:Like every other historical movement, all facets of the
movement work together, even if sometimes they don't agree
or even understand that they're working together. More and
more, even mainstream environmental activists are
understanding and recognizing the need for direct action.
And while they don't necessarily condone it, they
understand why people partake in it.

Plus, radical actions make other groups seem more
moderate. In the late '70s, the Sierra Club was viewed as
a bunch of environmental wackos. In the early '80s, Earth
First! came along doing tree sits and lockdowns and all
sorts of other really far-out stuff, and suddenly the
Sierra Club looks moderate. Nowadays, the Earth Liberation
Front makes Earth First! look moderate. They all fit hand
in glove in creating social change.

GD:But a lot of the environmental movement is based on the
idea of nonviolence. In their abhorrence at the violence
being done to the Earth, many -- perhaps the majority --
of committed environmentalists have renounced any sort of
violence.

JL:Well, education and ethical debate is a powerful force
for change, but it can only sway someone whose problem is
that they don't know. It can't reach someone who doesn't
care. Industry and government have institutional and
monetary biases against protecting the Earth, and no
amount of education is going to change their viewpoint.

Now, people need to be outspoken, and everyone who
believes that we need to change should do everything in
their power -- writing letters, protesting, talking to
their neighbors -- but we also need people to go out and
commit acts of direct action. We have reached a point
where simply being outspoken is not enough.

There is no equality between the average person and a
corporate entity. Good, solid communication cannot occur
when people are not equal, and that's where we find
ourselves. We need to take corporations that aren't
willing to listen and force them to listen, or hurt their
pocketbooks. Losing money is the only thing that ever
seems to affect a billion-dollar enterprise.

GD:I can anticipate some of the e-mail this column will
generate, and I'm sure you've heard it before. People will
say, "Why are you giving this guy a platform? He's just a
criminal."

JL:I think that anyone who is quick to judge me for what I
did should, at the very least, be quick to judge
corporations for what they do. They look at my activities
and say that they're wrong because they break the law. But
I believe in a higher law: We have a responsibility to
future generations and a responsibility to ourselves to
challenge injustice. The destruction of the world is
injustice. The exploitation of indigenous peoples and
peasants in underdeveloped countries is injustice.

I've gone down the road of aboveground activism, I've gone
down the road of lobbying Congress, of meeting with
corporate entities -- I know what kinds of results they
get. If anyone can point out something that works better
than what I did, I'll be more than happy to listen. Until
then, here I am five years later for burning an SUV, and
that one single action seems to have worked out pretty
well for me so far. I don't have a problem doing time for
my beliefs, because I believe strongly enough in them to
accept it. I think that's what some people out there don't
understand. The dangers that we're facing -- they're real.

Gregory Dicum, author of Window Seat: Reading the
Landscape from the Air, writes about the natural world
from San Francisco. A forester by training, Gregory has
worked at the front lines of some of the world's most
urgent environmental crises. For more of his work, see
http://www.dicum.com/list
He can be reached at gd [at] windowseat.info