Nightline Daily E-Mail
 March 15, 2004
 TONIGHT'S FOCUS: Just days after the worst terrorist attack in Europe, the bombings of the trains in Madrid, Spanish voters threw out the ruling Conservatives and voted the Socialist Party into power. So how much did the terrorist attacks influence the outcome? And what are the implications?

Terrorism works. It's hard to deny that in the world we live in today. Not always in the way that the terrorists intend, but it is effective. Normally, we probably wouldn't pay that much attention to the election results in Spain, but I guess these aren't normal times. Spain's outgoing Prime Minister was one of the first, and one of the few, European leaders to support President Bush on the invasion of Iraq. An invasion that was hugely unpopular with the Spanish people. Spain has contributed about 1300 troops to the occupation of Iraq. The ruling Conservatives, at least according to pre-election polling, were expected to win. They didn't. To what extent did the bombings sway the results?
Now conventional wisdom is that acts of terrorism will swing the electorate behind those in power, the idea being that it's important to stand together. There is a lot of talk about how an attack on the U.S. might impact the upcoming election. I guess no one really knows how people will react. Will they feel that it's important to stand behind whoever's in office? Or will those people be blamed for failing to stop any new attacks? That appears to be part of what happened in Spain. Another factor, the Spanish government came out almost immediately and said that it thought the Basque group ETA was responsible, even though there now appears to be a fair amount of evidence to suggest that al Qaeda was involved in some way. There was a lot of anger in Spain over the appearance that the government might have pointed to ETA for political reasons. But we're not going to focus on Spain's internal politics tonight. There are greater issues involved. What lesson have the terrorists, whoever they are, taken away from the events of the past few days? Do they now feel that they can influence elections, and policies? Will they be emboldened to strike elsewhere as elections approach? In most European countries, public opinion was decidedly opposed to the war. Spain's incoming government says it will remove its troops from Iraq. Will other countries follow that lead if they too are attacked? Regardless, there is a lot of nervousness in Europe, and this country, these days. There is extra security around transit systems. And somewhere, there is a group of people who must be watching the pictures of the havoc they are responsible for. The terrorists responsible for the bombings in Madrid are probably pretty pleased with themselves right now. And that makes our world a more dangerous place. Much more dangerous. ABC News correspondent Richard Gizbert will report on the latest from Spain, and the mood in Europe. Ted will anchor tonight. I hope you'll join us.
Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
ABCNEWS Washington D.C. bureau

[Excerpt only. From September 18th, 2003 interview, after ELF terrorist group burned a 206-unit condominium tower to the ground in San Diego on August 1st, causing over $50 million in damage.]
CL: (Creative Loafing): you seem to be saying in your most recent blogs that you are a supporter of stepping up direct action these days?
F (Fishy): well what else are we going to do when corporations rule the world and the democratic procedures that we attempt to use year after year in order to instill change for the better stop working for us? Our country was founded on a revolution. Sometimes people forget that. Remember that quote from Rosebraugh from the ELF [editors note: Earth Liberation Front] who had said, “How long are you willing to wait for your idea of justice to come about before you take steps to implement the next higher level of activism?”
CL: You are a supporter of the ELF then?
F: well from what I understand there is no real ELF. I mean, as an organized political body, no one is even sure if it even exists. It is more of an idea. Actions are taken in the name of ELF, on behalf of this idea of doing whatever it takes to liberate the Earth from the corporations’ greedy clutches. It’s a fascinating idea isn't it?
CL: But you’ve also spoken out against the destruction of personal and private property in the name of political direct action in the past.
F: I know. it’s a tricky issue. I am starting to lean the other way now. The more you study it, the more you see the tight grip that large corporations—corporate governmental states—have on our freedom, on our laws, on our freedoms as people to direct our own lives... I don't know. it seems like a more direct form of action might be necessary at this point.
CL: But do you really think that these kind of terrorist acts do anything? What about those who say that it just aggravates the issues? That it turns people off to the real issues of the environment or human rights?
F: I don't think that's true now. Look at the ELF for example since we’re already speaking about them. Because of these particular acts that they have committed over the last few years, time magazine dedicated 6 pages about the organization, a cover story, detailing not only the acts, but outlining the exact issues that the organization is trying to raise awareness on. How many people does that magazine go out to? I'm not sure. But lets say one or two million people per week. received this magazine, showed it to their friends and family members. People learned, some of them for the first time, what is happening to the environment with oil spill offs or how many animals around the world are endangered because of these fuckers in control. When I read the article myself, these were things that I didn't even know. Its like over twelve thousand different species of animals that are threatened to become extinct?! That's fucking insane! And this is something we can actually stop. But not if we’re just going to sit around and try to lobby congress about it.
CL:  So you don't believe that traditional means of environmental activist groups are helping?
F: look at this way. Right now as we’re speaking, we've all heard these statistics, but for the record, we are destroying the rain forests of the world—less than 2% of the entire planet—at a rate of 214,000 acres per day! That’s an area larger than the entire city of New York. And that's PER DAY. And this is happening right now! Its fucking crazy. So the answer is no. traditional forms of environmental activism are not working.
CL: It is a figure that is hard to conceive of for most people.
F: Yeah it is. And we can stop this, but we don't. I talk to the people in our generation every day you know, the people that are into more forms of direct action and the feeling now in our generation and in the younger generations is that those traditional forms where people send in their twenty dollars in an envelope to Greenpeace or the world wildlife fund or the sierra club or whatever—and I'm not trying to single them out—but people think that this is helping. These organizations have been raising hundreds of millions of dollars a year for decades now and they can afford all these very expensive attorneys in Washington to have lunch with senators and all this lobbying in the traditional sense and its just not doing anything. If it were doing something, then we wouldn’t be destroying over two hundred thousand acres of rainforests a day. Right? I mean what is it doing? So now I think the consensus is changing about what is necessary in order for us to show that we mean business. and if that means blowing up a whole fucking lot of hummers or destroying oil rigs or someone chaining themselves to a tree, then that's what its going to take. And I'm there with them now.
CL: But what about when that means the potential for human loss or suffering, when it involves the injuring whether intentional or otherwise, of others? As is the case with some of the more extreme terrorist acts that we have seen in the last few years?
F: I don't think that there's anyone who cares about human rights or the environment who wants to see other people get hurt. That's not on the agenda. But the point is that the world is moving to extremes now. the left is running to the left because it sees that its losing. And the right is running to the right because it too sees that its losing. Perhaps on different issues. But the battle has now begun. And I think that if we have to, then people are going to take to the streets and it could get ugly.
CL: You have referred to it as the last great battle between the enlightened and the barbarians. Who’s who? [laughs]
F: I know it is a ridiculously pompous thing to say. But I think its true to a certain extent now. sometimes you have to become a barbarian to defeat a barbarian, and that's what we’re seeing now. There's going to be more and more destructive direct action taken in the name of the environment and human rights issues. I think it has the potential to get ugly but hopefully not. I can’t speak for other people, but for myself I'll say that if you sit here right now and you tell me that we have to accept the total degradation of the planet and we have to accept that in the next few years over twelve thousand different animals are going to die even though we can stop it, then I'm going to tell you that I'm going to do everything in my power to stop it. And if that means very blatant overt direct acts of protest that cause every one in the world to sit up and take notice, then that's what I'm going to do. And I know a lot of other people all over the world who feel the same way. I mean, you don't have to say anymore than that. That says what it says.