Letters to the Editor
-
Cosmic Mojo on what I would do
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.
No, I wouldn't. You're projecting.
-
What bothers me about this case
Is the whole "roll over" method employed by the FBI. I know it's common, especially in drug trials and organize crime prosecution, but it seems to me that the two woman who made a deal were probably equal to Waters in culpability. When they are able to finger people higher in the organization, it at least makes some sort of sense (though I don't think that's the case for contract killers for example. People like that are most likely natural born killers. If they weren't working for the Mob most likely they'd be working for a Columbian cartel, or the CIA...hehe) but I think her punishment might be teensy bit disproportionate.
Or she may be more culpable. A lot of the letters here imply she got the getaway car.
On a side note, I do think this article suffers from the, look at this white woman with a child, how could SHE be a terrorist, syndrome. If she was involved in any way, then she's a terrorist. If Arabic men can spend 6 years in GITMO for talking on the phone with their cousin who might be connected Al Quaeda, then she is certainly a terrorist.
This reminds me of my blonde white friend who was caught with an insane amount of illegal drugs in her possession, obviously for sale, who didn't go to jail at all because I'm sure the arresting officers couldn't see her as a drug trafficker. (WHICH SHE WAS. She crossed state lines to get her drugs.) And the federal court didn't take the case, on the recommendation of her arresting officer. (Before any of you think I am pro-drug war, I'm not. But there should AT LEAST be parity in sentencing.) They gave her community service, mandatory drug tests (she was a dealer not a user!) and purged her record when she completed her time.
Unfortunately for Waters, the white girl get out of jail-free card didn't work this time. Conservatives hate a lot of things and a lot of people, but they really really really hate "tree hugging" liberals.
-
It is tragic that Liberalism has been reduced to this; defending a fucking arsonist.
Ramasees,
The fact that you think a poorly written Salon article that raises doubts about the verdict of the Waters case and questions the motive of expanding the scope of terrorism laws to include these kind of acts is somehow the ultimate distillation of current American Liberalism only goes to shows you for the clueless reactionary you are.
Over 50% of the comments here disapprove of the actions of ELF or any environmental activist who engages in arson and other criminal acts against people or property. What are the chances that each and everyone of these posters are self identified conservatives ?
By your logic, I could claim that its tragic that Conservatism has been reduced to defending fucking murderers of women and children on the basis of an article in National Review raising questions about the political motivation and circumstances in the prosecution of the soldiers charged with the killings in Haditha.
Unlike you, apparently, most people's political affiliations are more a matter of degree than dogmatic allegiance to the party line.
-
Mister Buck on getting back
next time someone burns down an abortion clinic or a church or...
get back to us on that...
The next time an abortion clinic arsonist gets extra sentencing for inconveniencing the people whose appointments had to be canceled, you let me know.
-
Wow.
Many of the letters here operate under the presumption that Waters was somehow involved in the arson. Yet there is no evidence of that, other than the testimony of two witnesses of questionable credibility, whose testimony was derived in a fashion that compels suspicion of the investigation itself (and thus any evidence submitted by the prosecution).
You see, people are quick to judge, quick to convict, and quick to condemn. The letter-writers above see themselves as "concerned citizens," and ape that the sentence was perhaps harsh. They miss the one simple fact: there is no credible evidence which places Waters at the scene of the crime. There is considerable reasonable doubt as to her complicity and involvement.
That is the standard in this case, people: reasonable doubt. Not preponderance of evidence (of which there is none). Not guilt by association (of which there is some). There is a great deal of reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. In their presentation of the case before the court, the prosecutors did not overcome reasonable doubt. But they did managed to activate the unreasonable qualities of the people on the jury - their ignorance and fear.
It is possible, even probably, that an innocent person has been unreasonably convicted of a crime. It is perhaps unquestionable that, even if she did serve as lookout, the sentence is (and will be) unreasonably harsh. As the letters here indicate, even those who sympathize have her convicted in their minds. That she associated with "elves" is enough for many Americans to either judge and convict, or merely shrug their shoulders and suggest Waters got what she deserves.
I am not surprised (not one iota) by the unreasonable outcome of this case. The judge was American, the lawyers were American and the jury was American. Locked into this system of fear, denial and ignorance we the people and out elected representatives have created, there is little likelihood one can expect reason from a jury of Americans. One cannot even expect it from a legion of ostensible "liberal" and reasonable letter-writers, who are as quick to judge on scanty evidence, quick to react from prejudice and fear, as those who sat in actual judgment of Waters.
There is not a preponderance of reason among the American people. But there is a good deal of fear, denial, and ignorance. In such a climate, there can be no true justice.
-
That's why we vote and petition our representatives.
-- MacDonald , it's terrorism to burn down a building just to make a point.