Quoting:
To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen anything to suggest that these kinds of groups kill or attack others. At the worst, they break into labs and let animals go free.
End Quote

The animal rights bods this side of the pond have been using terror tactics for some years: they've extended it to hounding the families of major shareholders in companies they think (not always with proof) are involved in animal testing.  One doctor involved in medical research (can't remember the subject, but he was on the radio being asked about his decision to continue the research in the face of the animal rights bunch) had bricks thrown through the window, his car trashed and a bunch of guys with baseball bats at the door (which his teenage daughter opened).

I'd call that terrorism - I guess you're lucky if they don't get up to the same sort of antics over there.

Phil

Quoting:

The animal rights bods this side of the pond have been using terror tactics for some years: they've extended it to hounding the families of major shareholders in companies they think (not always with proof) are involved in animal testing.  One doctor involved in medical research (can't remember the subject, but he was on the radio being asked about his decision to continue the research in the face of the animal rights bunch) had bricks thrown through the window, his car trashed and a bunch of guys with baseball bats at the door (which his teenage daughter opened).

I'd call that terrorism - I guess you're lucky if they don't get up to the same sort of antics over there.

Phil
End Quote

At least they're not blowing (*#@ up.  I don't like ecoterrorists any more than I like "run-o-the-mill" terrorists.  I guess nowadays you just can't be too careful...and the civilians just have to accept that they always have to be on their toes, no matter how trivial the matter.

Quoting:
Radical groups use the same tactics as terrorists, therefore by definition they are terrorists. They may not blow up hotels or shoot missiles at airliners, but they endeavour to intimidate targets with fear. That's terrorism. And like other terror groups that are fuelled by hate, they're so blind to their cause they can't be appeased by negotiation. They won't listen. You can't even appeal to their humanity, because in many cases (like animal rights radicals), they use humanity as an excuse for what they do!
End Quote

There is a differance between killing people and stating an opinion. I believe the Bill of Rights allows for free assembly and free speech (even if we disagree with them!). If they happen to break the law while protesting, then they can be arressted. But the animal activist groups, to the best of my knowledge, are not murderers. To group them with killers is wrong. I remember the riots is chicago. The people have an absolute right to a voice, and so does any small group. If courts allow the KKK to march, then why not issue terrorist warnings against them?

As for the animal rights groups. I think they are dead wrong in their opinion. If testing on rats helps me live longer, I am all for it. My problem with the FBI is they are now going to use the label of "Terrorist" as a political term. One more step toward total control. Remember, in the 60's the FBI taped the phone of Martin Luther King.

Are we really free?

Quoting:
Are we really free?
End Quote

No. The only complete freedom is in anarchy, where there are no laws, no governments and no controls over what you do, say or believe. In a state of complete anarchy, there would be no religion or moral code, either. Would any of us really want that? There needs to be some form of control over people. That's what governments are for, and as much as we think its intrusive or un-Constitutional, all governments need to be clandestine about some of their activities.
But in relation to your comments about having an opinion, it's well known that this group in question isn't just about having an opinion. They use violence to try and force their opinions on others. They've destroyed property, threatened people, extorted them, blackmailed them and attacked them. It may not be terrorism, but it is criminal activity. Anti-abortionists have been known to assassinate medical practitioners. That's terrorism.

Quoting:
Maybe the better question is "Are our rights under the Constitution being safeguarded or undermined?"  

I work at a hospital that has an abortion clinic.  At least a hundred days every year there are people with protest signs in front of the building.  I don't remember any terror warnings being issued on those folks.  An agency of the United States government issuing a "terror alert" on any group is something to worry about.  
End Quote

What if it was against the KKK?  Or the handful of abortion doctor assassins who are just a taaaaaaad more extreme than the rest of the protesters?  I don't know about you, but when someone in groups like these are using scare tactics (read: terror!) to get their point across, I would hope that Uncle Sam would throw down on them.

Sorry I'm lurking, I'm too lazy to sign in today ;)

Quoting:


What if it was against the KKK?  Or the handful of abortion doctor assassins who are just a taaaaaaad more extreme than the rest of the protesters?  I don't know about you, but when someone in groups like these are using scare tactics (read: terror!) to get their point across, I would hope that Uncle Sam would throw down on them.

Sorry I'm lurking, I'm too lazy to sign in today ;)
End Quote

If they're peacefully assembling, you don't preemptively find them guilty of mayhem, Earl.  No matter who they represent or what their history is.  

Quoting:


If they're peacefully assembling, you don't preemptively find them guilty of mayhem, Earl.  No matter who they represent or what their history is.  
End Quote

That's why I stated that they should only throw down on the ones who are using terror/scare tactics.  The first amendment does give them the right to peaceably assemble, and I support that.  What I don't support is the throwing of bricks and dumb sh*t that people do to hurt themselves and others.

I think I'll log on now ;)

Quoting:


That's why I stated that they should only throw down on the ones who are using terror/scare tactics.  The first amendment does give them the right to peaceably assemble, and I support that.  What I don't support is the throwing of bricks and dumb sh*t that people do to hurt themselves and others.

I think I'll log on now ;)
End Quote

How would you decide what is a terror/scare tactic? My problem with issuing terror alerts for groups which want only to protest against a policy or issue and have never killed or attempted to kill anyone is this: will government start issuing warning against groups it disagrees with? I could imagine J Edgar Hoover issuing warnings about all sorts of civil right groups back in the 60's. I bet you, if governmet had this tool in the 60's, Martin Luther King and Mohhamid Ali would have been called terrorists. The U.S.A. has laws to deal with criminal acts, and they should prosecute if someone harms another. But to call someone a terrorist is wrong.

There is another problem to calling protestors terrorists. It stifles free speach. Do you think I would join a protest if Uncle Sam issued a warning saying that a group was terrorists? Hell no! What the FBI is doing is scaring people away from even listening to this group. It is unimprotant if you agree or disagree with a groups point of view for you to support their ability to organize and protest. I think the FBI should spend its time going after real terrorists, not some group which is concerned with the treatment of animals.

Quoting:
How would you decide what is a terror/scare tactic?
End Quote

That's the easy one: but there is a problem (as remarked on above) about what to do when you have a minority of extremists within a generally peaceable group who really can be described as terrorists.

I suppose in a way it's analogous to the behaviour towards muslims as a whole - the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, but there are some who are in the name of Islam.

Phil

Quoting:

That's the easy one: but there is a problem (as remarked on above) about what to do when you have a minority of extremists within a generally peaceable group who really can be described as terrorists.

I suppose in a way it's analogous to the behaviour towards muslims as a whole - the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, but there are some who are in the name of Islam.

Phil
End Quote

Don't you just arrest or detain the extremists when they disturb the peace?  I'm pretty much in total agreement with John on this.  MLK was "investigated" by the FBI throughout the 1960s because of his alleged Communist links.  
In other words, Hoover really loathed King and was able to use the Red Menace scare to dig for dirt.  We don't worry much about the Commies anymore, but we do about terrorists.  Let's protect ourselves as best we can against a real menace, but let's not let anyone use our concern to attack groups that are merely politically unpopular.

Quoting:
Don't you just arrest or detain the extremists when they disturb the peace?
End Quote

If you catch them at it - rather like terrorists, really.

Quoting:
Let's protect ourselves as best we can against a real menace, but let's not let anyone use our concern to attack groups that are merely politically unpopular.
End Quote

I have no gripe against any group demonstrating in a peaceful way.  What I do have a serious problem with is anyone who (in Goreripper's words) "use violence to try and force their opinions on others."

Surely what it boils down to is this: if a group is using/has used terror tactics in the past, then a "terrorism" warning is appropriate; if they haven't, then it isn't.

Phil