Letters to the Editor
-
Extremely Sad
My stomach literally dropped as I read this article. It is tragic that Liberalism has been reduced to this; defending a fucking arsonist.
This is why no Liberal can ever win an election in this country - the base is so extreme and will contort itself and violate 'principles' to protect one of its own, even one as disgusting as this woman. What is wrong with you people?
/weep
-
Another aspect not mentioned ...
.. is the arson of three luxury homes in Seattle's "Street of Dreams" which occurred while Waters was on trial. Waters' attorneys tried to argue a mistrial, saying publicity around that event would prejudice the jury. The judge didn't buy it.
The FBI called it an act of eco-terrorism because ELF graffiti was found on the scene. But the three homes destroyed were owned by developer John Heller, the housing market is tanking, and it all seems very convenient.
Who knows what really happened: it just appears that environmental groups are an easy target, and one that Corporate America and their GOP cronies would like to publicly smear any chance they can get.
-
@mte
Unless you've written your own dictionary, the standard definition for the word "violence" can be found below:
vi·o·lence (vī'ə-ləns) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=violence
Nowhere does it say that all of these happen only to PEOPLE not POSSESSIONS.
-
Ramesees
the base is so extreme and will contort itself and violate 'principles' to protect one of its own, even one as disgusting as this woman.
That doesn't seem to have stopped Conservatives from being elected and they practice this much more often.
Then again tons of Liberals are elected in this country, so you simply don't know what you're talking about.
-
Two issues
Two issues:
1. Was the arson of the Horticultural center an act of terrorism?
2. Was Briana Waters involved?
My opinion - #1 yes. If an environmental group was concerned about the research directions of the scientists within this building, there are legal methods to voice these concerns. Only a terrorist group would burn first, find out the truth later. By the choice of target, they are suggesting that any researcher that they think is pursing research they don't agree with might suffer the same consequences. As will all the others who may work in the same building. This is instilling fear, this is terrorism.
#2 - This article would like to suggest that she was railroaded, but as other posters have already pointed out, this article is biased in one direction, while others may be biased in other directions.
-
Excessive Governmental Overreach in the Hysterical Wake of 9/11
Would also have been a fitting title for this article.
I hold no support for groups such as ELF, but this article is a perfect example of how any average citizen can be caught up in the excessive overreaction of government officials in the wake of 9-11.
"It has a chilling effect on free speech," says Guild director Boghosian, "and that's where the real damage to the Constitution is happening."
Exactly. The loss of our civil liberties happened when the people in charge became frightened bed pissers after 9-11 and stripped us of our rights, using "patriotism" and "protection" as a cudgel to beat an entire nation of citizens into submission. Well, it worked. And the terrorists won that round.
-
To Reiterate
EF! and ELF are not the same thing. At least three letters have confused them.
-
Of course she's a terrorist.
Assuming she really was there, holding the walkie-talkie, she aided and abetted the conscious destruction of property with the explicit intent of terrorizing a civilian population into abandoning its goals. That we might be somewhat sympathetic to her cause does not mean that we need to consider approving her methods.
If we choose to punish terrorism more harshly than other crimes -- if, as with hate crimes, we apply harsher sentencing structures and enforcement mechanisms to penalize someone for their intentions, not just the actual details of their crimes -- then we need to apply that punishment evenly.
-
Point of clarification on what otherwise may be a fine article.
. . . and a luxurious Vail ski lodge built on mountain lynx habitat,. . .
The Two Elks Lodge that ELF burned down may or may not be near or in lynx habitat. It sits at the top of Vail's Back Bowls, a part of the ski area that had been used for over 20 years prior to its construction. The new structure did not in any way alter the natural terrain or forest as that part of Vail has been without trees for about 100 years. The south facing Back Bowls, like most southern exposure slopes in the central Rockies, don't support much vegetation. The bowls were partially denuded of what trees there were by a wild fire in the late 19th Century.
ELF was protesting Vail's expansion into the area named Blue Sky Basin, some two miles as the crow flies south of the Back Bowls, an area which may or may not be lynx habitat (no one seems to know for sure).
If you didn't get this fact straight, what else did you get wrong?
-
Props to Ramesees
" It is tragic that Liberalism has been reduced to this; defending a fucking arsonist."
I don't know if I would ascribe the tragedy to Liberalism, so much as Salon, but this is pitiful. If this woman is innocent and the jury got it wrong, then let's have an article about that.
This garbage is a bunch of mushy relativist drivel. This is not much different from defending islamofacists because you believe they make good points regarding the moral and intellectual bankrupty of consumerism and the injustice of imperialist foreign poicy. If this woman is guilty of looking out while this act occurred, 20 years seems a little light, actually.
-
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.