Letters to the Editor
-
so Cosmic Mojo...
you would then think that the Civil War was wrong. police use violent means against non-violent protesters all the time. but in your world, it must be ok, b/c it's the state against the people.
Maybe we should just blow little love bubbles in the air and hope that corporations stop deforestation. remember, they see trees as currency.
violence works, just ask Dick Cheney & dubya.
-
hope that corporations stop deforestation
I would NEVER want to use violence to stop people from exercising their freedoms, THAT is FACISM. FREEDOM is most precious.
If we don't want people to do certain things, we change the laws, not use force to stop them from making legal choices.
-
riiiiigght
I will continue to sit at my desk and HOPE that those running corporations which pillage our natural habitat in the name of profit will stop already.
I'll let you know when my hoping wins that war.
and please don't bring up Gandhi. he was a misogynist pig.
-
For all intents and purposes
Joe INTENTIONALLY burns down Bill's house. Joe does it because:
a. Bill's house is built in a wetland.
b. Bill is sleeping with Joe's wife.
c. Bill is a total asshole.
d. Bill is black.
e. Bill is an Irish-Cajun-Cuban mix.
f. Bill's house blocks Joe's view.
g. Bill is a Republican.
h. Bill is a Democrat.
i. Bill is Joe's secret lover.
j. Joe is a pyromaniac.
k. Bill is an environmentalist, and Joe hates environmentalists.
Or combinations of the above, or a million more.
I can see how any of these motivations could provide one of the elements of the crime of arson by proving motive. They could convince the jury the fire was not an accident. But which of these motives should we choose to designate as crimes in themselves, and allow lower standards of proof, different investigative techniques, and longer jail sentences because of those intents?
So, the pyromaniac that was one of the ELFs should go a SHORTER sentence BECAUSE he was a pyromaniac and his real intent was not political? How does that make sense?
-
I will continue to sit at my desk and HOPE that those running corporations which pillage our natural habitat in the name of profit will stop already.
NO ONE's implying all you should or can do is hope the world changes the way you want.
I'm saying: use legal and nonviolent ways to make that change. And also, accept that there will always be people who act differently than you want and you need to accept that difference rather than think you have the right to force them to behave the way you want. That's facism and we live in a free county.
-
I WISH!!!!!!!
"To imply that she doesn't look like a terrorist not only, as others have said, indicates that Tullis thinks there is a terrorist look, but also justifies some of the worst post-9/11 sweeps of people with dark skins who speak Arabic."
-- Breadbaker
-------------
The "worst post-9/11 sweeps of people with dark skins who speak Arabic?"
In what universe did that happen? I WISH that were true in this universe. There was a sweep of white skinned little old ladies with walkers at airports. But, we didn't want to offend those with dark skins who speak Arabic, so we just let them pass on through. See how nice (and smart) we are?
-
Universal discrimination
"In what universe did that happen? I WISH that were true in this universe."
Muslim clerics pulled off flight from Minneapolis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/us/01muslim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And that's just the first incident that came to mind.
Happier, now, fascist?
-
@Paul in NJ
How do you feel about 'hate crimes,' Ilya? Do you think a person should get extra jail time because s/he injured or killed a person of color rather than a white person? Just curious.
Actually, I almost added this point to my post. I think hate crime legislation is utterly stupid for the very same reasons: (a) criminal justice should not be in the business of judging the person's motives (b) is actually counter-productive to convicting the person, e.g. the jury sympathizes with the person's leanings. Just out of curiousity -- how do you feel about hate crimes, Paul?
Once again, this is quite simple -- read JackSparx's post that sums up quite well the absurdity of judging someone's intentions.
-
a few points...
and I'm out of this one.
1) if the dispute in these comments is simply over the severity and application of the "terrorist enhancement" in sentencing- Briana Waters has not been sentenced yet. She's been convicted on two counts of arson that carry a minimum of 5 years, and according to at least one report, the sentence is not a mandatory minimum:
Media reports indicate that for each count of arson, Briana faces a maximum sentence of five years. There is no mandatory minimum. Sentencing is scheduled for May 30. http://tinyurl.com/2bjwyu
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that indicates that the sentences can be arranged to serve concurrently, and that Waters is eligible for release after 50% of her time behind bars- 2 1/2 years.
A Federal "terrorist enhancement" would of course add more time to that sentence- but only if the judge thinks it's appropriate. And the judge would make the decision on how much to add- it's by no means assured that he would drop the full 20 years on her.
Much of the argument and invective in these pages- indeed the apparent raison d'etre of the story itself- makes it sound as if Briana Walters has already been sentenced to a full maximum of something like 25 years in Federal prison. I think there's little reason to have that certainty. My advice to the hyperbolic is to take care of where you focus your energy.
2) Briana Walters has not been treated like a Guantanamo Bay detainee. She's been allowed to make bail; to know the charges against her; to face her accusers; to have the benefit of legal counsel; to have her case judged by a jury of fellow adult American citizens; and to appeal her conviction(s). If she does go to Federal prison, the conditions that she faces upon entry will not resemble the cellblocks of Guantanamo Bay, and she will not be subjected to a program of perpetual interrogation and full-scale operant conditioning. She will be allowed visitors from outside.
Don't indulge in falsehoods. They neither help Briana's case, or serve the cause of justice.
3) as employed in this discussion, the phrase "environmental intent" is simply an invented euphemism for "motivated by political goals." Violence motivated by political goals is terrorism.
Like the Federal government or hate it, in whole or in part- it's reasonable to expect that governments emphasize political motivations in criminal offenses, in order to deter aggrieved citizens from taking matters into their own hands. My points of contention vs. the Federal government have to do with the possible application of recently enacted "terrorism" provisions to non-violent civil disobedience, or even to formerly legal modes of activism and free assembly.
Fire-bombers are not part of my bill of concerns in that regard.
The on-line dictionaries are in general agreement that the term "violence" is defined as "physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing." No distinction is made between that employed against "property" and that employed against living creatures or human beings.
However, such distinctions are routinely made in the legal statutes, and by judges and juries. This fact helps to explain why Briana Walters is subject to less of a legal penalty than, say, Ted Kaczynski (another person convicted of offenses inspired by "environmental intent.") However, no one disputes that violence against property is a criminal offense; and that if the damage is sufficiently severe, it's a felony. Except for, apparently, some of those who commit such violence "with environmental intent", and their sympathizers, who think that "environmental intent" is a mitigating factor.
4) To the poster bringing up the Civil War as an analogy to this firebombing case: that's an inappropriate comparison, on too many levels to get into here. A more accurate one would be the pre-Civil War case of John Brown, who attempted to seize a Federal arsenal with the intent of arming a slave revolt. One can argue whether John Brown was a martyr or a fanatic and a megalomaniac- but he was captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death- and he accepted his sentence, to the point of refusing an attempt to spring him from his prison cell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
I'd probably like Briana Walters instantly as a friend; it sounds as if she's very much my type of folks. But evidently, she made one bad, gravely serious decision- most likely without reckoning with the implications and the risks, including the legal consequences. I hope that the judge exercises his discretion to be merciful. She'll get an appeal to protest her innocence, and the severity of her sentence. But no one should expect that the counters be re-set to zero, simply because they share her political views on environmental issues.