Most foes of abortion - myself included - agreed that pro-life activities should respect property rights and eschew violence.

These days, the pro-life front is generally quiet, but another type of protest movement is gaining steam, complete with grievous acts of violence and a wanton disregard for property rights. Instead of calling for tough action and condemning the violence, many mainstream media voices are refusing to make value judgments. When judgments are made, they often are sympathetic to the protesters.

I'm referring to the growing ecoterrorist movement.

The recent attack by people self-identified with the Earth Liberation Front at SUV dealerships in the Los Angeles area was widely covered in the media. But many other such events have rarely been discussed or have been buried on the inside pages of newspapers. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a broad campaign to destroy private property in order to promote a totalitarian political agenda.

Yet many liberals also hate SUVs, believe that developers are greedy and evil, and fret about urban sprawl. Rather than condemn ecoterrorists as the thugs they are, some reporters and environmentalists treat them as do-gooders who perhaps get a bit carried away with a good cause.

This is bunk.

The goal of the ecoterrorists is not to engage the public in a debate about public policy, but to frighten and intimidate people into doing what the radicals want - i.e., give up SUVs, eschew meat-eating, refuse to buy furs. Tree-spiking, arson, releasing animals from biotech firms and other crimes are bound to lead to death or maiming.

"If peaceful methods were working by themselves, that would be great, but unfortunately that is not the case, and we are running out of time," argues Earth Liberation Front spokesperson Elaine Close in a Web discussion on the liberal Mother Jones magazine site.

I'm not surprised by this attitude. Zealots from every cause believe their cause is so worthy that if others don't follow their dictates, they have the right to blow things up. But I am surprised at the level of sympathy given to their cause by people who should know better.

"The environmental crisis is, hands down, the most important matter facing humanity today," argues liberal cartoonist and syndicated columnist Ted Rall. Therefore he understands why SUVs are the targets of radical environmental groups:

"The idea is to make SUVs as unfashionable, and as scary to own, as fur became after the PETA-inspired spray-paint attacks of the '80s. In an ideal world, American consumers could be convinced to do the right thing through an appeal to logic with public service messages like the 'What Would Jesus Drive?' TV campaign, but the kind of people who would buy a car that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can't be reasoned with. They're selfish and stupid. It's unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one thing's for sure: It couldn't be happening to a more deserving group of people."

Understand? You are too stupid and selfish to do the right thing, as determined by your moral superiors such as Rall. You refuse to be moved by a propaganda campaign designed to push you into doing the right thing. So it's perfectly understandable that people will throw Molotov cocktails at your new SUV. If you or your children are injured or killed by this action, then it is too bad. It couldn't happen to a more deserving target.

I'm amazed by Rall's Taliban-like logic, of the sort that has infused every totalitarian movement. We know what's best. If you don't do what we think is best, you can expect to have violence used against your property. You and your group are rightfully demonized because you are stupid and selfish. You deserve what you get.

In fairness, Rall's apologia for ELF (it was even reprinted on the ELF Web site), noxious as it may be, is an opinion article. Most astounding is the "moral equivalence" coverage of ecoterrorist attacks in news stories. Both sides have their say, with one side arguing that violence is OK and the other saying why it is bad. You make your judgment. Somehow, I don't recall similar treatment of anti-abortionists who torch clinics.

A Los Angeles Times article on Oct. 13 reviews the growing number of ecoterrorist attacks in California, including $1 million in damage at a West Covina dealership, $50 million in damage torching a San Diego apartment complex under construction, a pipe bomb attack by animal-rights activists at a biotech firm in the Bay area.

Then the article asks: "Are such attacks, labeled domestic terrorism by the FBI, justifiable as a means of change? Or does their extremism alienate people from the very cause activists are trying to push?"

Notice how the issue is framed in a question. Maybe these crimes really are justifiable is the subtext. Notice also that the attacks aren't terrorism, but are merely "labeled" terrorism by the FBI. And the question isn't whether violence is right or wrong but whether or not it successfully advances the anti-business, anti-technology agenda.

Writers with environmentalist sympathies ought to think about the broader question: Would it be OK to firebomb their cars or their offices as a protest against press bias? Of course it wouldn't. Then why are we even ruminating about the justification of firebombing apartment buildings as a way to supposedly save open space?

This coverage isn't an aberration. A September 2002 article by a UPI science writer goes into great length explaining why violent attacks by environmental extremists should not be described as terrorism, but instead are part of America's long history of civil disobedience. The writer quotes Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" and quotes someone who compares the acts of violence to the Boston Tea Party and Underground Railroad. Those are the same comparisons that ELF leaders make.

This soft-touch treatment of zealots who use violence as a political weapon will have its cost. When the rule of law is cast aside, when property rights are only sometimes respected, when zealots are given a pass because they embrace a cause that's politically correct, then our society descends toward barbarism. Everyone's safety is in doubt when violence becomes an accepted form of discourse.

As I researched this article, I was shocked by the scores of ecoterrorist attacks that have taken place across the country. I was surprised also by the few arrests that have been made. As long as ecoterrorists can attack property with impunity, and can find themselves depicted as noble revolutionaries rather than miscreants, the destruction will continue.

It's time for a little more outrage.