Letters to the Editor
-
Two conclusions?
A) I hate radical environmentalists. Not fewer than 3 of them have said to me they think cutting down trees is akin to murder because each tree has a soul. Dying in a scum jail-cell with your fist raised and a note about saving the bears... what an idiot. The whole rhetoric is pathetic with an utter lack of self-awareness how important these people want to feel
B) The very attempt to legally define 'terrorism' is insidious in the manner in which it can be manipulated. If you murder, or are an accomplice to the murder of 1000 people, then surely you can be charged within the statutes we have for murder or 'aiding an abetting'. Deciding what happens to those who act in tandem with the actual murderers, such as the accomplice who provides them with explosives can be charged on their own criminal merits. Using 'terrorism' as a legal descriptor is unnecessary and dangerous and hence there ought be no discussion about whether what they did is terrorism as opposed to some youth in North Philadelphia who burns down an abandoned building. both are arson, albeit with differentials in the degree of destruction, all of which is or can be accounted for under the requisite laws.