A Conversation with Craig Rosebraugh

The Earth Liberation Front formed as a radical offshoot of the environmental group Earth First! in Brighton, England in 1992, when certain members of the group refused to abandon criminal acts of sabotage and property destruction. The goals of the ELF, as stated on the ELF Web site (www.earthliberationfront.com) are: “To inflict economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment. To reveal and educate the public on the atrocities committed against the earth and all species that populate it. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and non-human.” The ELF describes itself as an “international underground movement consisting of autonomous groups of people that use direct action in the form of economic sabotage to stop the destruction of the natural environment.” As the ELF cells are independent and non-hierarchical (there is no central ELF leadership), should one of the cells be infiltrated by law enforcement, the other cells would not be compromised and could continue to function as before.
The ELF first surfaced in the US in 1996, taking credit for gluing locks and spraying slogans at a number of McDonald’s restaurants around Eugene, Oregon. In November 1997, following a tree spiking at a timber harvest site in the Willamette National Forest in Oregon, the ELF first contacted Craig Rosebraugh. After receiving an anonymous communiqué from ELF, Rosebraugh, already active in social justice and animal rights movements in Portland, Oregon, became the de facto spokesperson for ELF, faxing the group’s anonymous press releases to media outlets and publicizing its actions. The ELF’s largest action to date was the October, 1998 arson set at the Vail ski resort in Colorado, which it performed “on behalf of the lynx,” and caused an estimated $15 million dollars of damage. Since 1998, the ELF has increased the severity, range and frequency of its actions, the most recent being a fire set at the Microbial and Plant Genomics Research Center currently under construction at the University of Minnesota’s St. Paul campus.

Rosebraugh, who resigned as the group’s spokesperson last September, has continually denied having any knowledge of the group’s members or prior knowledge of its actions—a claim he has maintained during two grand jury appearances. I spoke to Rosebraugh in early February after a talk he gave at Vassar College, on the eve of his subpoenaed appearance on February 12 before an Eco-Terrorism panel held by the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.

—Brian K. Mahoney

Chronogram: Why did you step down as the spokesperson for ELF?

Craig Rosebraugh: I stepped down on September 5, 2001, specifically because during the last four years, I’d become a focal point in relation to the Earth Liberation Front—I’d appeared in hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of media stories around the world. So any time anyone thought of the Earth Liberation Front, they would think of me as some sort of leader, and that was contrary to, I think, the ideology of the organization, being that this group does not have any hierarchy, it doesn’t have a central leadership; they pride themselves on having a centralized organization. So I stepped down, hoping that others would step forward to show that there is more than one person that does support the organization that’s in North America.

C: And did anyone step forward?

CR: Not immediately, no. An individual named Leslie Pickering, who worked with me for a short time—about a year or so, when I was doing the press office—he just continued on. Recently—as of last week—[Pickering] has got into the position and he’s running the press office at this point.

C: Are your personal beliefs still in accordance with those of the ELF?

CR: Yes. I would say, personally, ninety-eight percent. The two percent I would stray from their ideology is that I do feel that in order to make environmental preservation become a reality at the same time as protection of animal nations and the human species, that we might not only target those entities that are involved in planetary destruction, but the fundamental source causing a lot of the social and political conflict in the world today. And to me that is a mixture of things, but I think the larger the targets, the better; the more important the targets, the better. So, there are government agencies—not that I’m advocating violence toward government agencies, but in a variety of means I think government agencies need to be targeted—and just the whole capitalist state of mind and its symbols of propaganda. How we operate in this country is a much larger picture. Our society is to blame for a lot of social conflicts. So I think, while the Earth Liberation Front does target the profit motive, which is an underlying relation to capitalism in industry, they are very small, to a degree. They are targeting individual corporations, individual entities, rather than targeting the entire structure, and I think that however it may be done, the entire structure needs to begin to be looked at and targeted.

C: Would you have any suggestions on how that might be done? You say you’re not suggesting attacking or targeting government buildings, but you are raising the specter of something along those lines.

CR: Well, sure—I didn’t say I wasn’t talking about targeting those, I said I wasn’t advocating violence toward those entities. There’s a difference. Not that there should just be a random anarchy against government, but there should be a realistic approach to seeing what is it in the world that is realistically causing mass murder—not only domestically, but internationally—what is it that’s causing massive planetary destruction? What is it that’s wiping out industrial methodology? What is it that’s wiping out many millions of animal nations? Looking at those agencies, those individuals, those groups that are responsible for those horrific atrocities and targeting them as high up on the food chain as possible.

C: When you talk about the causes of these horrific atrocities, a reductionist might say you’re talking, basically, about capitalism.

CR: In a sense.

C: Can the aims of a group like ELF and those who agree ideologically ever be reconciled with the aims of capitalism?

CR: That’s an interesting question. My undergraduate degree is in political science and I’ve thought about it a lot, and while many people will talk about the great benefits that we as a society (and, really, around the globe) have gained because of capitalism, I more and more see that being out of balance with the realization of what capitalism has caused in a destructive manner around the world. And I do not think there is substantial evidence to indicate at this point that there can be any healthy relationship between capitalism and the preservation of the natural environment because I think what capitalism teaches people is that you can do anything you want to one another, to other species and the natural environment, in pursuit of profit, for maximum profit. And I think as long as we have that belief and practice instilled in our minds, we cannot even think about understanding the connection that all species have, that all life forms have, and the relationships that all life forms have to our natural environment.

C: What should capitalism be replaced with?

CR: I’m not an advocate of any of the -isms—the classic -isms. I do think that if we are serious about creating a new society, a new world order, as some of the Bushes would like to say, then we need to look at, historically, what sort of societies, what sort of nations in operation had successful qualities. What did we like about different indigenous peoples and their cultures? What can be learned of a positive nature—to go forward at the same time as trying to reduce the amount of destruction, not only to our natural environment but to all life forms. Trying to get bits and pieces out of various models that we have historical records of, and to take all those best bits and pieces and put them together into some new ideology. For me, I don’t have that yet—truthfully, I don’t think anybody does. If someone did, they would probably be much sought after. But I do think the realization of going back to a small-scale community is a must: a small-scale community that’s very self-sufficient, self-reliant, where everybody in that community plays an integral role in the health of that community. Such simple things as going against our current mode of tract housing and suburbia, that lines up blocks and blocks of houses, away from one another almost, in this very systematic industrial grid. And looking at how other, indigenous cultures throughout history have used a circular format, where there’s no endpoint and no starting point; everybody’s facing one another; it’s one community; it’s one family, and the middle is a community space. That being said, again, I don’t have all the answers. It’s a lot easier, as everybody knows, to point and complain, but it’s much more difficult to try and focus on where we want to go, and I think that’s what we need to do as political activists in this day and age, is not only focus on what’s wrong—because it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s wrong—it’s to really sit down and do a lot of research, and do a lot of debating, over where we want to go and how we want to get there.

C: Why didn’t you start a cell of the Earth Liberation Front yourself?

CR: Well, the thought, of course, came to my mind—it still comes to my mind—and there’s no realistic reason in my mind why I couldn’t do that today if I wanted to, even though I’m under a lot of surveillance—a lot of pressure—from the federal government. It’s not completely impossible to go underground and to evade law enforcement and live a life underground. That’s very difficult and by the time I began to—and this happens to a lot of people—by the time an activist gets to the point—particularly in the United States—gets to the point of understanding the need for every tool in the toolbox to be used, all different tactics to be used together, including illegal direct actions—by the time that recognition is made, oftentimes, the activist has been in the public eye for many years. People, a lot of times, when they just get into political activism, don’t come on board thinking every single tactic is okay and wonderful and needs to be used. By the time I began to fully support illegal direct action, understand the crucial necessity that it must play in social change, I had already been spokesperson for an aboveground nonprofit group for a while, I’d been a spokesperson for an animal rights group for a while, I was in the public eye. And of course we all know that every time there’s an illegal action that goes on within a political movement, the first people that get investigated are the aboveground groups. And for that reason, on its own, I never fully considered going underground.

C: You mentioned using every tool in the toolbox. Why is illegal direct action necessary now?

CR: Well, illegal direct action is not only necessary now, but it’s been necessary throughout history, if you look at the abolition movement—it wasn’t just people asking nicely for the abolition of slavery, it was activities such as the Underground Railroad; it was activities such as slave revolts, and the threat of more revolts, in addition to legal tactics that brought that change into a reality. If you look at the suffragette movement, you had the mainstream, large movement that everybody talks about, but you also had, in the early 1900s, individuals such as Alice Paul, more militant suffragettes, going outside of societal law, committing civil disobedience and even random acts—small and few, but random acts of property destruction, which aided the major, large-scale movement to gain the right for women to vote. If you look at the labor movement, again, the eight-hour workday was not gained merely by asking nicely. It was by organizing the workplace. It was by committing riots and strikes and boycotts and all different kinds of activities, both legal and illegal. The civil rights movement, look at that. The whole desegregation campaign and enfranchisement campaign was based on illegal direct action—civil disobedience. And it goes on from there. One of the things that we pride ourselves on in this country is talking about various historical occurrences to instill pride in our country. And one of the things we talk about, particularly in school, as we grow up, is the Boston Tea Party. Yet we never seem to mention that the Boston Tea Party is probably one of the most extreme examples of politically motivated property destruction I could think of. But we don’t see it that way. Throughout our history we have needed to use all sorts of tactics, and those tactics that have only stayed within societal law have not ever, I would argue, produced changes necessary for that social group as a whole to progress. It’s only when people have stepped outside the law and used other tactics in coordination with those [that are] legal, that civil change became a reality. It’s no different today—it makes sense.

C: You said in your talk that the environmental movement has failed. What is your opinion of the mainstream environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.?

CR: I definitely think that a lot of the larger mainstream groups have a place, a definite place. I think they have done a lot of good work. They have brought about public education to a degree—as far as the environment goes—that was unheard of prior to those organizations existing. That being said, I take a great exception to organizations such as Sierra Club that speak out against those who feel that every tool in the toolbox needs to be utilized. They purposefully speak out and condemn the actions of the Earth Liberation Front, when it’s just as easy for them to speak out and say things like, “Well, although our organization does not take part in any illegal activity, our environment is so devastated right now, we can understand why some people feel that motivated to do something. We don’t take part in it, but we can understand why some people would.” Legally that would not produce any sort of repression for them at all. Financially, their public wouldn’t say a word about it, because a lot of these groups are funded by donations, primarily government grants and grants from non-governmental organizations. And that’s what it comes down to—a lot of it is economics. But truthfully, some people—a lot of people—do not make the realization that every tool in the toolbox needs to be used. That’s why they speak out against it. So in that regard, I’m very upset. I think it’s counterproductive for them.

C: You’ve been subpoenaed to testify before the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. What kind of reception are you expecting at the subcommittee hearing?

CR: Cold. Very antagonizing, I guess. The House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health is having their eco-terrorism hearing on February twelfth, and the main motivation behind that is not to come out and discuss the actual threats occurring to our natural environment, which I consider is a true meaning of the term, if you break it down, of eco-terrorism—is to threats occurring, to terrorism occurring, to our ecology or to our natural environment. They’re not interested in doing that. They’re interested in trying to stop those individuals who are not gaining anything—they’re not being paid—those individuals who are going out and taking illegal direct action in the form of nonviolent property destruction, in order for all of us as a species, and all life forms, to continue to exist on the planet. That’s the main motivation behind this meeting. And just the plain fact that I’m the only pro-environmental advocate to be subpoenaed or even asked to voluntarily testify at this meeting, when there’s three other panels stacked in opposition, shows you exactly what the true motivations are of this hearing. It’s sure enough not a forum, to bring different sides together to discuss the issues of environmentalism. It’s a direct attempt to do political posturing—because some of the individuals involved, I think, on the subcommittee, are vying for different positions politically right now—as well as try and brainstorm and make it look like, in the eyes of the public anyway, that the federal government is doing something against eco-terrrorism.

C: Are you going to plead the Fifth?

CR: As far as my plan going in there, I’m going to be relying primarily on my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, correct. I have authored written testimony—a twelve-page written testimony—that was put in the Congressional Record yesterday or the day before. And that I’m going to be relying on [that] as my statement in objection to the hearings. It talks about US domestic and foreign policies, it talks about the history of our country, the origin of our country, what we’re based on as far as domination and how that domination relates to our natural environment, and just our whole way of thought in this country, that we can do anything that we want to in the name of profit—anything we want to one another, the natural environment or animals. And so—I’m still under investigation for being a spokesperson for the Earth Liberation Front—there’s still a lot of attempts to indict me with various crimes, and they even admitted that—McInnis’ aide admitted that to my attorney, saying that, “You know, Craig’s still under investigation.” [Rep. Scott McInnis is a Republican representing Colorado’s third congressional district and head of the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.]

C: What was it like being a spokesperson for an underground group like ELF?

CR: Inspiring. Angering. Devastating. Pressurizing—very pressuring, I guess. All those mixed into one. Seeing that people are willing, in this day and age, to give up their lives to perform selfless activities—I can’t think of much more of a selfless activity than giving up your lives so that others may continue to live as a species. That all life forms can continue to live. Seeing those actions go along with the dedication revealed in those communications showed me such sincerity and such motivation—motivated by the heart, primarily—that it really inspired me to continue. I felt that as long as there were individuals out there risking their lives and freedom to protect those of the globe, I should be at least willing to stick up for them in public.

C: In spite of ongoing antagonizing by law enforcement?

CR: Sure. And I still do that today—even though I’m not a spokesperson, officially, of the group, I still discuss, I still talk about it, promote the group, around the country. And I will continue to do that, because I believe in what they are doing. But of course, the law enforcement, all the harassment, the grand jury subpoenas, the two raids, my arm being broken—all of that, and more. It is very, very difficult, in addition to the psychological pressure of dealing with, over a four year time period, upwards of hundreds, if not even thousands, of news stories and reporters. And you can imagine the anger and frustration a lot of these reporters are feeling towards me. And that comes out in the interviews.

C: Why are reporters feeling anger and frustration towards you?

CR: Well, reporters, especially from mass media/mainstream public, are a representation of the mainstream public, to a certain degree, and a lot of the reporters, truthfully, come from large mass media that is corporate owned and run. They have a clear political agenda coming into the interview. It’s not just a choice that the reporter will make, to come and interview me. A lot of times, with these bigger agencies, it’s a clear political objective, handed down from the executives above, and they’ll cover a certain slant they want to put on it. For instance, probably one of the worst interviews I sat through was one conducted by John Stossel of “20/20”. I originally tried to conduct this interview out of Washington, DC a couple years ago, and I became very ill—I had a case of the flu. So I postponed the interview—stopped halfway and went back to the West Coast and got better. They flew the crew out and I agreed to finish the interview, and John Stossel walked in, said hello, sat down, and immediately just started insulting me on camera. Called me a thug—I was very polite, I’m always very polite to people—called me a thug, called me uneducated, I think he said something as mundane as “nincompoop” or something—but just insulted me the entire time, just to get a rise out of me. Because their objective, as many of the news media’s objectives were, was to get a rise out of me, to show that I am a terrorist; to show that I am violent and have a violent nature; that these people who are in ELF had a violent nature, you know? And by insulting me, he thought he could do that. I never became angry—I will get in debates, but I do not get angry in that regard, so it failed. But it is frustrating.

C: How do you respond to criticism that the ELF’s actions merely forestall the inevitable and perhaps harm the environment further in the process of their actions?

CR: I disagree with it. I don’t feel that the ELF actions harm the environment, number one.

C: Don’t you think, say, burning a large building is harming the environment?

CR: Well, if you want to take it at that level, sure. Our mere existence on this planet is harming the environment. When we walk along the street, we step on all different kinds of organisms. Breathing into our body every single day, we kill many, many organisms, if you want to take it down to a simplistic level. But, if you look at the actions of the ELF, sure, conducting a massive action that is going to burn down a very large facility is going to put out all different kinds of toxins and pollutants in the environment, especially depending on what is housed in that building. But, the Earth Liberation Front feels, I believe, that it is important, so important, to end that destructive practice. And by doing so, they’re going to preserve life for all of us to survive on the planet. It’s more important to do that than to not do that because you are concerned about a minor amount of pollution when you’re trying to stop a greater beast, so to speak. I mean, people have said, “You’re speaking out for the Earth Liberation Front, and you have a car?” Sure, I have a car. To some degree, we’re all hypocrites. What I have always stated for people is that my goal is not to point the finger and say, “You’re the bad person, you’re the bastard, I’m fine, and the Earth Liberation Front are angels.” That’s not the goal, I think, of myself and of the ELF. The goal is, at least in a simplistic nature, to suggest that our main motive, as humans in this day and age, is to try and figure out, in our own personal daily lives, how we can walk as lightly on the Earth as possible and still survive and live a happy, fruitful life. So many people never even take that into consideration in their everyday activities. Sure, we make choices, we make sacrifices, one good for one bad, burning down one building that may pollute the environment to try and save the entire planet, but the Earth Liberation Front feels that that is important to do.

C: What’s next for Craig Rosebraugh?

CR: Well, obviously the subcommittee hearing is on February twelfth, and I’m forced to go to that. Right now I’m working on a master’s degree, and I hope to go on to a PhD program regarding history of social militant tactics, purely demonstrating, hopefully, within my work as I have so far at this point, that there is a strong history of necessity of every single tool in the toolbox being used. The social change throughout history has not been produced by limiting ourselves to only legal means, or only certain tactics—that we have, many times, if not most oftentimes, had to use every tool in the toolbox. So I’m hopefully going to continue along that route. Also, I’m just doing a lot of different projects. Hopefully, I have a book in the works about my experience with the Earth Liberation Front, so that’s the main thing I’m working on now.

C: Do you hope to see ELF cells multiply in the future?

CR: Yes. In fact I said so in my statement to Congress. I hope to see an increase, not only in the number of actions by the Earth Liberation Front, but also their severity, the geographical areas that they occur in, and also their targets. As I stated earlier in this interview, I hope they expand and re-evaluate their targets to insure that each and every one continues to be the most prominent entity they can target within that agency of repression. I think that the goal should be to target as high up on the food chain of oppression as possible.

Coda
According to Rosebraugh’s Web site, www.protectcivilliberties.com, at the February Eco-Terrorism panel, Rosebraugh took the Fifth Amendment to all but two questions, which he answered in the affirmative—whether he was a citizen of the US and if he had submitted written testimony. (Rosebraugh’s written statement can be found on his Web site.) At the end of the hearing Chairman McInnis decided that the committee would submit questions to Rosebraugh in writing. If he then refuses to answer or invokes his Fifth Amendment rights, McInnis made it clear he intends to hold Rosebruagh in contempt of Congress, a misdemeanor charge that could carry imprisonment of up to one year and a $1,000 fine.