The potential “terrorist” title likely adds weight to the risks. ALF and ELF members “estimate the costs and benefits of their attacks and would only consider attacking when the benefits outweigh the risks”. The FBI’s prosecution of radicals’ “direct action” has resulted in the public labeling of such activists as “terrorists”, and according to a 2005 speech by former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the ALF and ELF are given the “highest domestic terrorism priorities”. The heavy-handed prosecution of ALF and ELF activists has likely raised their inhibitions. The quick results of violent “direct action” techniques are likely an attractive alternative from letter writing and picketing, which are driven by similar activist motivation. This change from democratic activism to extremist activity is very likely due to the ALF and ELF’s mindset that “democratic channels a dead-end for animal rights activists.” Providing further evidence of the vigilante mindset, according to Daniel McGowan, an ELF activist in If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, “In one night, they had accomplished what years of letter writing and picketing had never been able to do.” (referring to the logging headquarters that were burned to the ground, which temporarily stopped their operations). At some point in their lives radical ALF and ELF members “felt compelled to move from the democratic stage to an action arena”, where vigilante “direct action” is “adopted to directly halt instances of eco-system destruction as they occur”. Members of the ALF and ELF are motivated by the belief that civil disobedience does not go far enough, and that they are the ones who can deliver justice by “direct action”. The self-concept of a vigilante takes hold of ALF and ELF members who believe “any and all measures should be taken, beginning with the most peaceful and escalating to the most radical” to thwart those who exploit the Earth. Although these direct actions have “been confined to property damage and threat of violence rather than actual violence”, these criminal acts have very likely induced fear in victims. For ALF and ELF attacks to be considered legitimate, they must have the intention to “economically harm the adversary, aim to educate the public, and avoid harming both human and (non-human) animal life”, and in most cases “clear steps are taken to avoid it”. This mindset leads to members of the ALF and ELF to reject legal protest and engage in further criminal activity against those who exploit the earth for profit, such as the destruction of infrastructure on industrial cattle farms, logging facilities, and natural gas facilities. This is the driving force for ALF and ELF “direct actions” against adversaries, such as sabotage, vandalism, and arson, which they see as “nonviolent and heroic”. national security.ĭeep ecology, or the idea that “Everything on earth is equally important whether the being is a person, an animal, or a stone”, has been radicalized in ALF and ELF members minds. Though, due to the heavy-handed prosecution of violent “direct actions” and the growing mainstream environmental movement, the ALF and ELF’s threatening intentions are decreasing, posing only a moderate threat to U.S. This philosophy and self-concept are what drive ALF and ELF actions, which they see as the only viable way to prompt political change. national security because of their radicalized belief of “deep ecology” and their self-concept of a vigilante. The ALF and ELF carry out actions that pose a threat to U.S. However, an increase in ineffective democratic activism and law enforcement complacency would likely cause a rapid increase in violent ALF and ELF activity. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) pose an insignificant threat to United States national security because of their decreasingly violent intentions, their hindered capabilities, and their nonexistent (ELF) or isolated (ALF) recent history of violent activity. Animal Liberation Front - Earth Liberation Front: A Threat Assessment