Letters to the Editor
-
civil disobedience
Civil disobedience is just that: civil. Nonviolent.
Disobedience is refusing to follow an unfair law (like drinking out of a "coloreds" water fountain, or giving up your seat to a white man), not committing an act of violent against other people.
-
Cosmic Mojo on aiming
sure it was aimed at innocent people.
Also, you seem to have trouble with the distinction between "was aimed at" and "indirectly affected."
I don't know what country you live in, but in mine, causing inconvenience is not (yet) a crime.
You seem to be one of those people who regards any crime, without distinction, as constituting a moral trespass which is equivalent in all cases and justifies any and all degrees of punishment.
If so, you might consider a rewarding career as a jailer in a gulag. If you hurry you might be able to get a job here in the US while we're still hiring.
-
re: But the act wasn't directed at an otherwise uninvolved civilian population with the intent of inducing panic and swaying public opinion.
A university is a public institution - the research is often paid for with tax dollars. This was no act against corporat frankenfood - this was pure terrorism - plain and simple. Protest is done with words and bodies and responsibility- not sneaky arson in the dead of night...
-
what if
what if you were practicing Satanism in your house, which is your right. And your well-meaning neighbor blew up your house cuz he sincerely knew that what you're doing is wrong. Legal but wrong. Sure, he waited til you went to work so no people would be injured, but he KNEW, just KNEW it was his obligation to stop that legal but OFFENSIVE act.
You'd be mad. You'd call him a zealot, a monster, a criminal, a controller, a terrorist. you'd want him punished for his mad, illegal frightening acts of violence against your home, your castle, your family, your place, your property, your sense of security.
-
The problem of fear...
Our fear of terrorism has allowed a very powerful govenrnment to amass even more power which it uses to further entrench its sole validation; the orderly conduct of business.
At 9/11 I found myself a zillion miles from a road in the middle of Alaska's bush straining my ears to a scratchy radio listening for the words of our leadership and what I heard and remember was Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the same un-indicted bribe taking, influence peddling, anti-big government, deep pockets, election buying Ted Stevens famous for his laughable understanding of reality who coined the definition of the internet as a "series of tubes" phrase, felt it was urgent enough to tell the people that he would protect the public from terror and that he wanted to it especially known that the environmentalists were under suspicion first in his mind, even if it looked like islamic extremist fuelled by oil money, were responsible there at the beginning of the war on terror.
This moment is still deep in my consciousness and it's become apparent that a big powerful governement of the likes that we'd like to believe are empowered to protect us, we find that it empowers corrupt leaders like Ted Stevens and his country club cronies, and it is not the answer to our one plea; to protect us, our environment or the peace of a free people.
I'm fully aware that Ron Paul is not going to be our next president, but I would remind people who are not aware of history that there is movement in the body politic still, and in 1854 when the crazy as a fox 1st governor of California formed the outlandish 3rd party called "the Republican Party" and ran as its candidate, nobody could have predicted that their next candidate would be a roughsawn autodidact from Salem, Illinois named Abe Lincoln.
So maybe, when whoever is elected this next cycle, despite their intentions to do good, finds a federal apparatus turning on its citizens who've exercised their rights, as it reaches to maintain the peace and order that keeps its own survival insured indefinitely, as any powerful organization seeks to do first and foremost, it won't just be environmentalists and radical libertarians forming an aliance of conscience which seeks resolution of problems we face in our communities and not from a top-down invasive paranoid organization that seen open, active and vocal dissent as a problem rather than as the primary indicator of health in a society where free people willingly work together.
-
Ironocrat
You're right! I "misspoke". There is a monetary figure of $10,000 being lost on the part of the purveyor for an action to be taken against me. Thanks for the correction.
-
re: I don't know what country you live in, but in mine, causing inconvenience is not (yet) a crime.
next time someone burns down an abortion clinic or a church or...
get back to us on that...
-
cabdriver on lenience
Thanks for the link.
Unfortunately for your argument, though maybe not fatally so, the Wikipedia article you cite describes the charges against Randolph as "homicide," of which there was enough to lock him away for life. The only place the article mentions terrorism is in quotes describing Randolph in the press.
It's possible that the Wikipedia article simply fails to mention that the federal government brought terrorism charges against Randolph as well. But assuming that no such omission exists, it's reasonable to take the article as further evidence that, indeed, there is an imbalance in how the federal government applies anti-terrorism laws.
-
more history
"Charles LEVENDOSKY
Oakland Tribune, Mar 9, 2003
ON Feb. 26, a nearly unanimous U.S. Supreme Court protected the right of protest for anti-abortion demonstrators -- and for everyone else, as well.
The 8-1 decision (Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.) will not be popular with those who find the tactics of Operation Rescue and others who actively oppose legal abortion threatening, destructive and coercive..."
"...Because we find that petitioners did not obtain or attempt to obtain property from respondents, we conclude that there was no basis upon which to find that they committed extortion under the Hobbs Act." Since there was no pattern of extortion, according to the high court, the severe penalties of RICO do not come into play. RICO requires a prior showing of and a conviction for a pattern of serious criminal activity.
RICO allows both criminal penalties and heavy civil liabilities. Both law enforcement and private citizens can bring action against those who engage in conduct covered by the act. One can receive a 20- year sentence for a single criminal violation of RICO. A private citizen can receive three times the actual damages suffered as well as attorneys' fees from a person who, in acting against the citizen, violated RICO.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a short concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, points out the dangers involved in using RICO. And this is really the heart of the matter. Ginsburg writes that a decision in favor of NOW would have ramifications far beyond the original intent of the RICO act.
In a footnote to the Ginsburg concurrence, she notes that at oral argument, the U.S. Solicitor General was asked: "Do you agree that your interpretation would have been applicable to the civil rights sit-ins?" He responded: "Under some circumstances, it could have if illegal force or threats were used to prevent a business from operating."
The use of RICO to punish protests with which we disagree would inevitably stifle all protests. NOW unwisely took an approach against anti-abortion activists that might have struck back like a snake. For example, women protesting against unfair labor practices or unequal pay -- if a few people in the protest were to engage in destructive acts -- could find themselves the target of a RICO prosecution.
THE Supreme Court was correct in reversing the lower federal courts' rulings. In its decision, the high court ensured the right of protest for everyone across the social-political spectrum -- for now." http://tinyurl.com/2bar94
Justice prevailed. But that was a very near thing- the alliance of the National Organization of Women and the Solictor General for the U.S. Justice Department took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The ends don't justify the means.