With acts by animal rights extremists such as blowing up things, burning down buildings and threatening individuals, the federal government is now attempting to bring charges of terrorism against those who commit such crimes.

In a string of events in Oregon and surrounding states about a year and a half ago, where groups such as The Family, Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front did things such as blow up an SUV at a car dealership, plant a bomb outside the home of a college professor and a rash of other attacks all in the name of saving an animal, no one was seriously injured but could have been quite easily.

Even prior to 9/11, the FBI had defined terrorism as an act that would utilize fear to coerce or change laws, etc. Many people have been led to believe that terrorism has to utilize force or violence to its end. This is not true and now the feds seem to be more interested in pursuing those activists who use measures other than protest banners and organized marches.

In their 148-page sentencing memorandum filed last week in federal court in Eugene, prosecutors argued that "although the government was not a direct victim, it was nonetheless a federal crime of terrorism because of the offenders' motivation." Intimidation, coercion, and retaliation aimed at the conduct of government, prosecutors said, deserves "enhanced" punishment under federal antiterrorism laws.

While those who continue to support the rights of criminals including terrorists, say that bringing charges against those who go beyond organized protests to achieve intimidation through fear, would deter people from their right to protest.

When groups or individuals decide to take it upon themselves to use tactics whether directly violent or not, for the purpose of scaring people in order to promote personal agendas, is terrorism. When someone blows up an SUV at a auto dealership, only a moron would think that this was not some sort of violent scare tactic in order to effect change. This cannot be tolerated.

The feds bringing charges against these people in Oregon for their actions are the first. It is time that our laws begin acting against those who go beyond the sane as part of their activism in the name of animal rights or animal protection.

In Idaho, where I reported of one man overhearing the conversations of others discussing how a public health scare and a confirmed case of disease would bring about the needed public support to win a considered citizen's initiative to stop domestic elk ranching, one has to consider whether this would fall under the definition of eco-terrorism. If not then what?

We have the right to peaceful assembly and protest. Remember the days when it used to be that way? In our progressive society where we seem overly tolerant toward insane behavior and less toward sensible support of everyone's rights, we need to bring back into check how far people can be allowed to go in "peaceful" protest.

Tom Remington