Letters to the Editor
-
A thought.
But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.
This could actually be applied to a great many things; the first to come to mind is the anti-abortion movement. They've planted bombs and shot doctors before.. Under this definition, they would inherently become terrorists.
Of course, this administration would not apply it like that. We know that because of the 2007 Austin Woman's Health Center bomb. A bomb made up of 10 pounds of gunpowder and nails was left in the parking lot, and luckily failed to explode. The bomber was sentenced to 40 years after being charged with "Attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, malicious attempt to damage a building and property by means of explosive and fire, possession of a destructive device by a convicted felon" and two counts of use and carrying of a destructive device in relation to a crime of violence.
While the "weapon of mass destruction" charge is amusing (in terms of it typically being applied to nuclear/chemical/biological devices), you should note the lack of any terrorism charge. How deeply did they probe into his contacts to ensure that he was a 'lone gunman'? Did they use wiretaps and informants? How deeply involved was he in the anti-abortion movement?
Notice that Briana Waters is facing a 40-year sentence as well (20-years for arson, with a 'terrorist-enhancement' of another 20-years). Holding a walkie-talkie in a bush during the arson of an empty building is the equivalent of attempting to blow up a woman's health clinic full of people.
From the tone of this article, it appears that the lengths they are willing to go for ecoterrorists is much farther than they will go for anti-abortionists.
-
Re: a key point missing
This does seem to be a very big key point. It makes me question the credibility of Salon's report when the biggest piece of evidence against Waters is ommitted from this article. This is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
-
The ends don't justify the means.
I'll repeat that-
The ends don't justify the means.
It's really that simple, for me.
Anyone who thinks otherwise still has to take responsibility for their own acts of violence, coercion or fraud. They might wholeheartedly think/feel that the end justifies the means- but it's too much to expect sympathy from their adversaries, or from those who don't share their personal commitment. Once you start playing for keeps, you accept the consequences.
Firebombing isn't play-war. It's playing with fire. Whatever the supposed nobility of the motivation.
A book I'm fond of recommending to all those flirting with the seductions of violent terrorism- The Demon Lover, by Robin Morgan http://tinyurl.com/ywp3w2
Not that I buy into every last view of the author- but there are insights in there that I've never found anyone to put better. Robin Morgan lays it on the line. There's one hell of a shadow between the expressed ideals/goals of terrorists, and the actual satisfactions of committing terrorism. (click my signature for link)
I recommend that anyone doing governmental resistance give anyone in their circles advocating violence a wide, wide berth- even if the target is "only property." And try to grasp the fact that provocateurs shilling unethical means are BOTH a proven method of discrediting all facets of a given political or social activist movement- AND an arguably defensible tactic by law enforcement to attract and identify the violence-prone before they do serious damage. There is a point where such police tactics turn into indefensible entrapment- but I think it's reckless for the politically active to get anywhere near that edge, from the other side. You don't want to make it easy for them. The best defense for a victim of entrapment is innocence.
-
A good lesson
This is a good lesson in two regards. One is that as a people we have reached a state of near-total corruption. The Patriot Act may be an evil piece of legislation, but it wouldn't have passed in an honorable Congress. The Justice Department and its policing arm, the FBI, wouldn't be mounting such phony prosecutions if they were honorable men. The judge and jurors wouldn't go along with such a sham trial if they weren't already compromised as human beings.
The other lesson is about "activists" who commit crimes as a method of effecting change. They are grandstanders, always. Ego-centered macho types, they feed on the energies and selflessness of those who do the hard work to save our civilization from ruin. When faced with responsibility for their actions, they cave.
I lived in a house with the leadership of the midwestern branch of Greenpeace in the early 80s. While they were off to protest a nuclear plant in "Canada," a stranger showed up. He made a lot of talk about how he was at "Rocky Flats" (in Colorado, a nuclear weapons plant, site of numerous protests), and was asking a lot of questions about the Greenpeace bunch. He didn't exactly come right out and suggest violence, but he said things to the effect that he was into "direct action." I felt uneasy about him, and didn't let him go past the living room. I was glad when the Greenpeacers came back a couple of hours later. They got rid of him immediately.
Wakeup calls like this come every so often. This one makes two things abundantly clear: our government/political class is completely corrupt, and anyone who advocates violence or destruction should never be trusted, and avoided completely. Prosecuters make their reputations on convictions, then they run for governor. In their mad quests for political power, the lives of the innocent matter not a whit. In the grandstanding "activists" quests for "underground" glory, the lives of others than themselves also matter not a whit.
These times will pass, but until they do, great care is called for in all that we do.