Template:Animal liberation The Revolutionary Cells - Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB) is the name of an animal rights group founded in 2003, in the United States, which advocates the use of an armed struggle, as well as a diversity of other tactics for animal liberation.


Pipe bombsEdit

The RCALB took credit for its first action on August 27, 2003, when two "pipe bombs filled with an ammonium nitrate" were placed at Chiron corporation's offices in Emeryville, California. Both devices were packed with nails to act as shrapnel. Chiron was targeted because of a contract with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey-based animal testing contractor. [1] A group calling itself Revolutionary Cells of the Animal Liberation Brigade e-mailed a statement to reporters taking credit for the bombing which was also posted on the Bite Back website. [2]

One of the bombs exploded an hour after the first, possibly in an effort to target police and federal agents responding to the first blast. This tactic was used in double-bombings committed by Eric Robert Rudolph, a right-wing terrorist, in 1997. No casualties resulted from the second blast however, as the second device was discovered and the area cleared before the explosion.

Office bombingEdit

In September 2003, the RCALB took responsibility for another bombing, this time at the offices of Shaklee Inc. in Pleasanton, California. Shaklee was targeted because its parent company, Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical, does business with Huntingdon Life Sciences.[3] These attacks are alleged to be have been perpetrated by Daniel Andreas San Diego, who was featured on America's Most Wanted and has been placed on the FBI's most wanted [4] A statement was again released from the group to Bite Back this time also including their manifesto.[5][6]

Incendiary deviceEdit

On June 24, 2007, an explosive device was placed under a car belonging to Arthur Rosenbaum, a pediatric ophthalmologist who carries out animal experimentation with cats and rhesus monkeys at the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA. The device failed to explode because of a faulty fuse. 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."[7][8]



Revolutionary Cells Guidelines was posted on the Bite Back website after the second bombing: [6] Template:Quotation

Structure and aimsEdit

The Bite Back communique also explained who the revolutionary cells were and why they exist: [6]


The group formed the same leaderless-resistance model as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which consists of small, autonomous, covert cells acting independently. A cell may consist of just one person.

According to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the Front describes itself as "an international coalition fighting injustice". The Institute'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 of Anti-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 Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth 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 is justified, and those who insist the movement should reject it in favor of non-violent resistance. [11]

Extensional self-defenseEdit

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] 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.[14]



See alsoEdit

External linksEdit

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.