Incident Summary:
08/00/1999: In a 100-letter booby trap letter campaign, animal rights group, The Justice Department claimed responsibility for sending out 100 letters rigged with razor blades to fur ranchers across the United States and Canada. In this particular incident, at least three Oregon ranchers received the letters, though there were no injuries reported among them. In a related incident as part of this campaign, one woman in Pennsylvania was cut by the razor (80099a). Not all of the letters were ever confirmed, reported or found. The Justice Department claimed responsibility for the incident in a communiqué posted to both their website and that of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). This was one of two large-scale booby-trapped letter campaigns allegedly committed by this group; the second, (in October 1999) was to 80, or potentially more, scientists and researchers in the vivisection industry conducting research on primates at centers across the United States (102599a-k).
Overview
GTD ID:
199908000003
When:
1999-08-00
Country:
United States
Region:
North America
Province/administrative
region/u.s. state:
Oregon
City:
Unknown
What
Attack Information
Type of Attack () |
Unarmed Assault |
Successful Attack? () |
No |
Target Information ()
Target Type: Business |
Name of Entity |
fur ranches in Oregon |
Specific Description |
three Oregon fur ranchers |
Nationality of Target |
United States |
Additional Information
Hostages |
No |
Ransom |
No |
Property Damage |
No |
How
Weapon Information
Type |
Sub-type |
Other |
|
Weapon Details |
letters in envelopes rigged with utility razor blades affixed to index cards |
Additional Information
Suicide Attack? | No |
Part of Multiple Incident? | No |
Criterion 1 () |
Yes |
Criterion 2 () |
Yes |
Criterion 3 () |
Yes |
Doubt Terrorism Proper () |
No |
Additional Information |
This was one in a series of two incidents related to a larger letter campaign of 100 booby-trapped letters rigged with razor blades, that were sent to fur farmers across the United States and Canada, claimed by the animal rights group, The Justice Department. A few months later, the group committed another letter campaign against primate researchers across the U.S. |
Who
Perpetrator Group Information
Group Name |
Claimed Responsibility |
The Justice Department |
Yes (Confirmed: Unknown; Mode: Posted to website, blog, etc.) |
Perpetrator Statistics
Number of Perpetrators |
Unknown |
Number of Captured Perpetrators |
Unknown |
Casualty Information
Total Number of Casualties |
0 Fatalities / 0 Injured |
Total Number of Fatalities |
0 |
Number of U.S. Fatalities |
0 |
Number of Perpetrator Fatalities |
0 |
Total Number of Injured |
0 |
Number of U.S. Injured |
0 |
Number of Perpetrators Injured |
0 |
Sources
Sources
"Four Oregon researchers included on animal rights hit list," Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 27, 1999. |
Bryan Denson, "Animal Rightists Send Maiming Mail to Scientists," The Oregonian, October 27, 1999. |
"Animal Rights Group Mails Razor Blades To Medical Researchers, Says Foundation for Biomedical Research; Group Warns of Wave of Violence If Primate Research Is Not Halted," PR Newswire, October 25, 1999. |
Criteria
Criteria 1
The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal. In terms of economic goals, the exclusive pursuit of profit does not satisfy this criterion. It must involve the pursuit of more profound, systemic economic change.
Criterion 2
There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. It is the act taken as a totality that is considered, irrespective if every individual involved in carrying out the act was aware of this intention. As long as any of the planners or decision-makers behind the attack intended to coerce, intimidate or publicize, the intentionality criterion is met.
Criterion 3
The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities. That is, the act must be outside the parameters permitted by international humanitarian law (particularly the prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians or non-combatants.
Doubt Terrorism Proper
The existence of a "Yes" for "Doubt Terrorism Proper?" records reservation, in the eyes of GTD analysts, that the incident in question is truly terrorism. Such uncertainty, however, was not deemed to be sufficient to disqualify the incident from inclusion into the GTD. Furthermore, such a determination of doubt is subsequently coded by GTD analysts as conforming to one of four possible alternative designations: 1) Insurgency/Guerilla Action; 2) Internecine Conflict Action; 3) Mass Murder; or 4) Purely Criminal Act.
Alternate Designation
The determination of "yes" for "Doubt Terrorism Proper" by GTD analysts is coded as conforming to one of four possible alternative designations: 1) Insurgency/Guerilla Action; 2) Internecine Conflict Action; 3) Mass Murder; or 4) Purely Criminal Act.
Successful Attack
Success of a terrorist strike is defined according to the tangible effects of the attack. For example, in a typical successful bombing, the bomb detonates and destroys property and/or kills individuals, whereas an unsuccessful bombing is one in which the bomb is discovered and defused or detonates early and kills the perpetrators. Success is not judged in terms of the larger goals of the perpetrators. For example, a bomb that exploded in a building would be counted as a success even if it did not, for example, succeed in bringing the building down or inducing government repression.
Type of Attack
This field captures the general method of attack and often reflects the broad class of tactics used. It consists of the following nine categories:
- Assassination
- Armed Assault
- Unarmed Assault
- Bombing/Explosion
- Hijacking
- Hostage taking (Barricade Incident)
- Hostage taking (Kidnapping)
- Facility / Infrastructure Attack
- Unknown
Target Information
This field captures the general type of target. It consists of the following 22 categories:
- Abortion Related
- Airports & Airlines
- Business
- Government (General)
- Government (Diplomatic)
- Educational Institution
- Food or Water Supply
- Journalists & Media
- Maritime (includes Ports and Maritime facilities)
- Military
- NGO
- Other
- Police
- Private Citizens & Property
- Religious Figures/Institutions
- Telecommunication
- Terrorists
- Tourists
- Transportation (other than aviation)
- Unknown
- Utilities
- Violent Political Parties