TheRevolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB), known simply asAnimal Liberation Brigade (ALB), is a name used byanimal liberationists who advocate the use of adiversity of tactics within theanimal liberation movement, whethernon-violent or not. As part of apraxis, the intention is to destroyoppressive institutions, describing anendgame foranimal abusers.[1][2][3] The Revolutionary Cells is not a group but an example of aleaderless resistance, as a banner forautonomous,covert cells who carry outdirect action similar to theAnimal Rights Militia (ARM).[4]
Founded in the United States, after bombingChiron andShaklee's corporate offices in 2003, activists have since used the banner to firebomb vehicles and threaten to sendletter bombs to individuals in the California area. Targets have included corporate customers ofanimal testing laboratoryHuntingdon Life Sciences and animal researchers atUCLA and theCalifornia National Primate Research Center.[4][5][6] TheFBI issued an arrest warrant forDaniel Andreas San Diego for his alleged association with the cell responsible for the 2003 bombings.[3][7][8]
The Revolutionary Cells guidelines was posted on theBite Back website after the second bombing:[1]
- To take strategic direct action (be it non-violent or not) against the oppressive institutions that permeate the world.
- Make every effort to minimize non-target casualties, be they human or non-human.
- Respect a diversity of tactics, whether they be non-violent or not.
- Any underground activist fighting for the liberation of the human, earth or animal nations may consider themselves a Revolutionary Cells volunteer.
TheBite Back communique also explained who the Revolutionary Cells were and why they exist:[1]
The revolutionary cells exists as a front group for militants across the liberationary movement spectrum. We areanarchists,communists,anti-racists, animal liberationists,earth liberationists,luddites,feminists,queer liberationists, and many more things across various other fronts. Where ever there is oppression there are those unwilling to idly stand by and let it occur, and those people make up the nucleus of the revolutionary cells.
The group formed the same leaderless-resistance model as theAnimal Liberation Front (ALF), which consists of small, autonomous, covert terror cells acting independently. A cell may consist of just one person.[4]
According to theMemorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, theFront describes itself as "an international coalition fighting injustice". TheInstitute's knowledge Base describes it as an "unusually violent animal-rights terrorist movement [...] with a penchant for hyperbole and casting about pretensions of power and importance."[9] Oren Segal, co-director ofAnti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, believes the group consists of the same few "lone wolves" that carry out actions in the name of the ALF andEarth Liberation Front (ELF), "the names are interchangeable [...] they're going to rename themselves depending on what actions they're doing."[10]
The existence of activists calling themselves the Revolutionary Cells or Animal Rights Militia (ARM), another name used to inflict violence, reflects a struggle within the Animal Liberation Front and the animal rights movement in general, between those who believe violence and terror tactics are justified, and those who insist the movement should reject it in favor of non-violent resistance.[11]
Steven Best has coined the term "extensional self-defense" to describe actions carried out in defense of animals by human beings acting as "proxy agents."[12] He argues that, in carrying out acts of extensional self-defense, activists have the moral right to engage in acts of sabotage or even violence.[12] Extensional self-defense is justified, he writes, because animals are "so vulnerable and oppressed they cannot fight back to attack or kill their oppressors."[13] Best argues that the principle of extensional self-defense mirrors the penal code statues known as the "necessity defense," which can be invoked when a defendant believes that the illegal act was necessary to avoid imminent and great harm.[13][14] He also argues that is not just a theory, but policy in some African countries where governments hire armed soldiers to protect endangered wildlife frompoachers who wish to sell their body parts in international markets:
Pacifists cannot stop poachers, but bullets can, and while many measures must be taken to protect endangered species, right now armed soldiers are the best protection rhinos and elephants have against murderous, weapon-wielding poachers.[15]
In testimony to the Senate in 2005,Jerry Vlasak stated that he regarded violence against Huntingdon Life Sciences as an example of extensional self-defense.[16]
The RCALB took credit for its first action on 27 August 2003, when two "pipe bombs filled with anammonium nitrate" were placed at Chiron Corporation's offices inEmeryville, California. Both devices were packed with nails to act as shrapnel. Chiron was targeted because of a contract withHuntingdon Life Sciences, aNew Jersey–based animal testing contractor.[17] A group calling itselfRevolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade e-mailed a statement to reporters taking credit for the bombing which was also sent to theBite Back website.[2] One of the bombs exploded an hour after the first, although no casualties resulted from the second blast, as the second device was discovered and the area cleared before the explosion.[3]
In September 2003, the RCALB took responsibility for another bombing, this time at the offices of Shaklee Inc. inPleasanton, California. Shaklee was targeted because its parent company,Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical, does business with HLS.[5] The attackers are said to be linked toDaniel Andreas San Diego, who was featured onAmerica's Most Wanted and has been placed on theFBI's most wanted terrorists list.[3][8] A statement was again released from the group toBite Back this time also including their manifesto.[1][18] It was thought the bomb was this intended to cause harm, as nails flew out"at a speed of 100 miles an hour", although again no one was harmed.[3]
On 24 June 2007, an explosive device was placed under a car belonging to Arthur Rosenbaum, a pediatricophthalmologist who carries out animal experimentation with cats and rhesus monkeys at theJules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA. The device failed to explode because of a faulty fuse, but was still claimed by the Animal Liberation Brigade who called for"an end to systematic violence and oppression".[19] UCLA offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of the bomber. Then acting Chancellor,Norman Abrams, said the university "remains steadfast in its commitment to the lawful use of laboratory animals in research for the benefit of society."[20][21]
Although no suspicious packages have yet been found, RCALB claimed in January 2009 toIndybay[6] that they sent twoUC Davis animal researchersletter bombs because of their work at theCalifornia National Primate Research Center. One of the researchers targeted said, "It worries me a little bit [...] I mean, anytime someone threatens you physically I think it causes worry." The Animal Liberation Brigade said in a communique re-released by theAnimal Liberation Press Office that the act was not a hoax, with officials at the primate center claiming threats and protests have happened before and were unacceptable.[6][22][23][24]
In the early hours of 7 March 2009, the Animal Liberation Brigade once again targeted UCLA. This time setting ablaze and destroying a car belonging to researcherJ. David Jentsch. The UCLA Chancellor described the latest attack as "reprehensible", with the University raising the reward for information leading to the arrest of the activists to nearly $500,000.[25]
If physical force is needed to save an animal from attack, then that force is a legitimate form of what I call "extensional self defense." This principle mirrors US penal code statutes known as the "necessity defense," which can be invoked when a defendant believed that an illegal act was necessary to avoid great and imminent harm. One only needs to expand this concept slightly to cover actions that are increasingly desperate and necessary to protect animals from the total war against them.
