It’s high time The Oregonian/OregonLive ended its 20-year charade of headlining eco-terrorists as “eco-saboteurs,” as it did recently for serial arsonist Joseph Dibee (“Eco saboteur Joseph Dibee pleads guilty to Oregon arson, conspiracy in string of environmental attacks decades ago,” April 21). He and his cohorts used violence against businesses and the government to intimidate them and influence policies and conduct. That’s a textbook definition of terrorism, not some late-night project reminiscent of French Resistance fighters.
Many have called out those who riot inside the U.S. Capitol, firebomb abortion clinics and hurl Molotov cocktails on the street as terrorists. Why should ecologically inclined terrorists receive special treatment? Are their motives more sympathetic or their targets less worthy?
A 2006 editorial in The Seattle Times titled “Ecoterrorism is real” described similar attempts to “soft-pedal” such heinous conduct as “insulting” toward the ultimate targets, people engaged in lawful activities. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken recognized this when she applied the terrorism sentencing enhancement to several of Dibee’s co-defendants and imposed long prison terms. “It was only dumb luck no one was injured or killed,” she said.
I was part of the team that prosecuted Dibee’s co-conspirators for 20 arsons and related violent crimes that occurred from 1996 to 2001, covering five Western states and causing $40 million in damage. The victims included an auto dealership, a ski resort, a tree farm, timber companies, a university research facility and a meat wholesaler, among others. Every victim – private and governmental – was terrorized, not sabotaged. The Oregonian/OregonLive should finally acknowledge this and set the record straight.
Stephen F. Peifer, Portland
Peifer is a retired assistant U.S. attorney.
