Brianna Waters was found guilty of arson despite what appear to be gaping holes in the case against her. She was named by witnesses hoping to reduce their own punishments, and there is no other credible evidence against her.

But all that has nothing at all to do with the increasing tendency of prosecutors, law enforcement and legislators to treat eco-terrorism and animal rights terrorism as what they are: terrorism. The article teaser screams that "U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism laws to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist." But the FBI and prosecutors did not go after Waters because she was an activist. They went after her because she was named by witnesses as a participant in criminal activity.

Prosecutors may very well have abused their power in this case, as they do in many cases. The problem is not the post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws. It is that there is little accountability for prosecutors who "win" convictions of innocent people. The legal system needs reform, not the law.

Clearly the law has been skewed in the past 7 years to prevent government dissidents from voicing their opinions. Meanwhile the FBI and CIA have had ever increasing powers, which more often than not trample all over American citizen's constitutionally granted liberty.

Also, clearly killing or attempting to kill others is far worse than merely starting a fire... so 2 consecutive 5 year sentences does sound like overkill.

However -- Briana Waters might not be a terrorist, but she SHOULD be serving jail time.

Anyone who participates in a crime, no matter what their motivations, should have to deal with the consequences of that crime. Don't tell me Waters didn't know that arson was illegal. Maybe she didn't light the match herself, but I have strong doubts that she knew NOTHING of the plans. She is a scapegoat, without doubt. But she still bears some responsibility for her actions and her choices.

What if their careful plan had gone awry? What if another person had been in the building, and died of heart attack or smoke inahlation? What if the fire had gotten out of hand? There are reasons it is illegal to light buildings on fire. Its dangerous, and as this case shows, it can destroy valuable research.

So yeah, terrorist, I think not. But someone who should be serving some jail time? Yeah. Lock her up. But not for 10 years. Maybe 10 months.

This case reminds me of Geronimo Pratt (read "last man standing: the Geronimo Pratt story). Pratt was convicted of a double homicide in L.A. The FBI somehow forgot to mention to the court that they had recordings of Pratt in Oakland at the time of the murder; under cointelpro the FBI had planted bugs in the homes of several Black Panthers. They couldn't let a little thing like the guilt or innocence get in the way of sending a Black Panther to death row. It turns out that the real murderers worked for the FBI's informant who testified against Pratt.

Welcome back to the Hoover/Nixon era, part II.

Obviously, burning an unoccupied building does not rise to the same level of moral reprehensibility as flying a plane into a building. Nevertheless, any arson is highly dangerous act that poses serious risks to innocent human lives. Indeed, even in unoccupied buildings, arson poses a serious risk of death or injury to those who come to fight the fires. Society cannot tolerate such activity whether it is done in the name of bin Laden or the environment.

I'm willing to let the Waters case work its way through the judicial system. To the extent that she was involved in or knowingly facilitated arson, she deserves severe punishment.

While I'm no fan of the legislation that was passed through after 9/11, it's also dangerous precedent to make distinctions between "terrorist." Does terrorism only apply to muslims? Personally, I think laws should be written to deal with the specific actions rather than the operation or thoughts behind those actions. These types of laws are the right wing equivalent of hate crime laws. Too much emphasis is placed on the motivations behind the crimes.

For all of you who are so concerned that Ms. Waters should do jail time for her crime because, if she indeed committed a crime, someone COULD have been hurt by her alleged actions:

How many people have been injured or killed in ELF actions in the past ten years? ZERO

How many people have been killed by unlawful acts in a motor vehicle (speeding, tailgating, running red lights and stop signs, drunk driving) in the past ten years in the U.S.? Over 450,000 killed, approximately ten to twenty MILLION injured.

Somehow, I doubt many of you would call for the imprisonment of all of the terrorists who do their killing and intimidating with two ton fossil-fool powered wheelchairs.

and when bankrupt builders torch their own work to collect the insurance money and get out of a losing deal, what is that? Is it terrorism if you call the cops afterwards and claim you are an eco-terrorist group.

recently there were some devastating wildfires in southern california, while the local government ordered mass evacuations on a scale before unheard of. people who wanted to save their homes ignored the warnings, and most of them did save their homes. those who were behind on their payments and holding underwater mortgages were allowed to get out.

in the wake of the 2003 fires some arsonists were found and prosecuted, but nobody was ever charged in any of the 2007 fires.

now whats your definition of (state sponsered) terrorism again?

Having myself been foreman of a jury in a recent trial, albeit one of less importance than this one, all I can say is that if those two witnesses both got up and testified that Briana was present at the fire bombing, and it was completely untrue, and they fooled the jury, then they have their consciences to answer to.

However, getting on the witness stand and testifying to something completely untrue and withstanding cross examination is not easy to do, and obviously the jury believed the two witnesses and did not believe the defendant. Making such determinations is what juries are supposed to do.

The evidence of the purchase receipt at 7:12 p.m. is inconclusive. She could have been there soon after 8:00 p.m. It is not as if she was three hundred miles away. Olympia is connected to Seattle by I-5.

The article does not say what the purchase was. It could have been gasoline for her car, and she could have been en route, and the gas station could have been on the road to Washington. A key point would be the nature of the purchase and the location of the purchase in Olympia.

If she was there, then she IS a terrorist. The difference between regular arson and terrorism is that the regular arsonist gets a kick out of seeing emergency services show up. The terrorist commits an act as a way of trying to subvert normal political processes.

Most of the article reads more like a defense final argument than a balcanced account of the case. Based on what I have read here, I would not care to second guess the jury.