Letters to the Editor
-
One Man's Terrorist Another Man's Freedom Fighter
I am surprised to see that all the legal eagles, who have otherwise dissected the article so expertly, seem to be blindly accepting that the description of the activities supposed to have taken place in the burned down building is somehow equal to the intent behind the crime.
Example: Genetic engineering was thought to have taken place in the building, ergo the specific intent was to deter genetic engineering.
Actually, o ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have all accepted this was terrorism without hearing a single word from the defendants about their intent.
I do not know more of the details of this case than anyone else here, but I do know that part of the philosophy of activism and civil disobedience is to correct existing flaws in our democracy and stop crime in progress. Did some of the offenders believe something illegal was taking place in the building? Did they think a crime was in progress? Did they think they were acting against something unconstitutional?
If you wish to talk about terrorism - which, as one poster has already pointed out, is a largely meaningless label these days - you have to talk about intent. Here's a few questions about intent:
1. As nicely hinted at in the article, Earth First, like Al Qaeda, seems to be largely a brand name that anyone can assume or be labeled with, so at what point are you simply a citizen, and at what point are you a member of Earth First legally incapable of having an opinion (intent)independent of those attributed to the organization?
2. What was the stated intent of the people carrying out the act?
3. Was Waters indentified as and proved to be a card carrying Earth First member responsible for its stated aims?
Part of the government's War on Civil Rights is that they can label you as part of something which robs you of your indviduality and puts in a you in a box/legal bracket that is not suited to make the appropriate distinctions between a Waters and a Bin laden. Graffiti painting carries political messages, it can be intimidating to many or be intended as intimidation; it can even destroy and devalue property. Is it terrorism?