Letters to the Editor
-
a few points...
and I'm out of this one.
1) if the dispute in these comments is simply over the severity and application of the "terrorist enhancement" in sentencing- Briana Waters has not been sentenced yet. She's been convicted on two counts of arson that carry a minimum of 5 years, and according to at least one report, the sentence is not a mandatory minimum:
Media reports indicate that for each count of arson, Briana faces a maximum sentence of five years. There is no mandatory minimum. Sentencing is scheduled for May 30. http://tinyurl.com/2bjwyu
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that indicates that the sentences can be arranged to serve concurrently, and that Waters is eligible for release after 50% of her time behind bars- 2 1/2 years.
A Federal "terrorist enhancement" would of course add more time to that sentence- but only if the judge thinks it's appropriate. And the judge would make the decision on how much to add- it's by no means assured that he would drop the full 20 years on her.
Much of the argument and invective in these pages- indeed the apparent raison d'etre of the story itself- makes it sound as if Briana Walters has already been sentenced to a full maximum of something like 25 years in Federal prison. I think there's little reason to have that certainty. My advice to the hyperbolic is to take care of where you focus your energy.
2) Briana Walters has not been treated like a Guantanamo Bay detainee. She's been allowed to make bail; to know the charges against her; to face her accusers; to have the benefit of legal counsel; to have her case judged by a jury of fellow adult American citizens; and to appeal her conviction(s). If she does go to Federal prison, the conditions that she faces upon entry will not resemble the cellblocks of Guantanamo Bay, and she will not be subjected to a program of perpetual interrogation and full-scale operant conditioning. She will be allowed visitors from outside.
Don't indulge in falsehoods. They neither help Briana's case, or serve the cause of justice.
3) as employed in this discussion, the phrase "environmental intent" is simply an invented euphemism for "motivated by political goals." Violence motivated by political goals is terrorism.
Like the Federal government or hate it, in whole or in part- it's reasonable to expect that governments emphasize political motivations in criminal offenses, in order to deter aggrieved citizens from taking matters into their own hands. My points of contention vs. the Federal government have to do with the possible application of recently enacted "terrorism" provisions to non-violent civil disobedience, or even to formerly legal modes of activism and free assembly.
Fire-bombers are not part of my bill of concerns in that regard.
The on-line dictionaries are in general agreement that the term "violence" is defined as "physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing." No distinction is made between that employed against "property" and that employed against living creatures or human beings.
However, such distinctions are routinely made in the legal statutes, and by judges and juries. This fact helps to explain why Briana Walters is subject to less of a legal penalty than, say, Ted Kaczynski (another person convicted of offenses inspired by "environmental intent.") However, no one disputes that violence against property is a criminal offense; and that if the damage is sufficiently severe, it's a felony. Except for, apparently, some of those who commit such violence "with environmental intent", and their sympathizers, who think that "environmental intent" is a mitigating factor.
4) To the poster bringing up the Civil War as an analogy to this firebombing case: that's an inappropriate comparison, on too many levels to get into here. A more accurate one would be the pre-Civil War case of John Brown, who attempted to seize a Federal arsenal with the intent of arming a slave revolt. One can argue whether John Brown was a martyr or a fanatic and a megalomaniac- but he was captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death- and he accepted his sentence, to the point of refusing an attempt to spring him from his prison cell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
I'd probably like Briana Walters instantly as a friend; it sounds as if she's very much my type of folks. But evidently, she made one bad, gravely serious decision- most likely without reckoning with the implications and the risks, including the legal consequences. I hope that the judge exercises his discretion to be merciful. She'll get an appeal to protest her innocence, and the severity of her sentence. But no one should expect that the counters be re-set to zero, simply because they share her political views on environmental issues.