Who Hijacked Our Country

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Environmental Sabotage and Terrorism

Several convicted members of the Earth Liberation Front will be sentenced soon. They’ve confessed to about twenty arsons all over the Western states. Their targets included lumber mill offices, meat packing plants, research facilities and an SUV dealership.

They're facing three to 16 years for arson and conspiracy. But prosecutors want to add a Terrorism “enhancement” to their sentences. WTF???

This terrorism enhancement might or might not add time to their jail sentences. Mostly it’ll guarantee that they get sent to a tougher prison where they're more likely to be raped and assaulted. Judge Ann Aiken is considering the prosecution’s request for terrorism charges.

Terrorism??? Who's the dickwad that came up with that bright idea? Purposely violating a law that you disagree with — to change the law or to make a point — has been an American tradition. And when you knowingly break a law you have to understand that if you get caught you'll take the penalty.

Nobody is saying these people aren't guilty. Whatever the penalties are for arson and conspiracy, that’s what they should get. Nothing more; nothing less. Nobody was killed or injured by any of their fires.

This is a generalization, but the people who consider the Earth Liberation Front to be terrorists are most likely conservatives; probably the same conservatives who are so gung ho about our Global War on Terror. So think about it. If you want to keep up the paranoia and urgency of our war against Islamic terrorists, the last thing you want to do is dilute and trivialize the concept of “terror.” If somebody who sets fire to an empty office is a terrorist, what do you call the person who flies an airliner into the World Trade Center?

Labels: , ,


Blogger Praguetwin said...

Nobody was killed or injured by any of their fires.

This really is the point, isn't it? Much like the "Weathermen", ELF tries not to hurt people.

Contrarily, terrorist are trying to hurt and kill the greatest number of people.

Doesn't seem to fit, but leave it to the states to broaden a term so wide that it loses all meaning.

Public urination and and streaking are sex crimes, for example.

May 16, 2007 at 11:20 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Prague Twin: "Public urination and streaking are sex crimes, for example." Precisely. If somebody wants to crack down on rapists and child molesters, the worst thing they could do is put public urinaters and streakers in the same category.

May 17, 2007 at 2:16 AM  
Anonymous Benjamin Solah said...

Unfortunately, it's a completely 'normal' thing to do in this system. And it just highlights what the 'War on Terror' is really about - cracking down on dissent and critics of the government and the system.

May 17, 2007 at 3:22 AM  
Blogger Newsguy said...

Seems to me George W. Bush and company fit the definition of terrorists. The only difference between him and Bin Laden is that he has a massive military machine to carry out his terrorist activities. Ask the innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed and maimed in this illegal war if they distinguish between Bush's brand of terrorism and Osama's brand of terrorism. Makes little or no difference, seems to me, which terrorist comes after you. In the case of George W. Bush, more Americans have been killed by his brand of terrorism than Osama's. War is terrorism.

May 17, 2007 at 6:59 AM  
Blogger FunkyTown Fighter said...

This is just another example of what happens when you have EXGARATION front, right, left, and center of you A' La Shrub!

May 17, 2007 at 8:47 AM  
Blogger 1138 said...

They seem to have all of the characteristics of a terror group.

May 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM  
Blogger LET'S TALK said...

Just maybe when our President, his Administration and the Republican House and Senate are not running this country and the time comes for these people to pay for some of the dirt they've caused during the past eight years. Maybe Terrorism "enhancement" will be added to their charge, making it hard for anyone to pardon them for the crimes they've committed.

May 17, 2007 at 10:03 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Benjamin: Yup, that’s the problem with the War on Terror. Whatever validity it has is diluted by the fact that it’s such a popular excuse for cracking down on dissent.

Newsguy: Good point. If your family gets killed as “collateral damage” in a war, you're not gonna make much of a distinction over who killed them. Nobody ever thought “well, at least my wife and children were killed by the good guys, so it’s cool.” Sometimes wars have been justified but this one certainly isn't. The Iraqi invasion was just step one in a neocon masterplan; self-defense had nothing to do with it.

Funkytown Fighter: Yup, that’s what happens. I guess we have millions of “terrorists” whose only crime is disagreeing with Bush.

1138: “All the characteristics of a terror group” — well, there's one missing ingredient. They’ve never killed or injured anyone. They always made sure a building was empty before they detonated it. They broke the law and they’ll be going to jail. But terrorism?

Let’s Talk: Excellent idea. A terrorism enhancement for Bush and his puppetmasters if they ever come to trial.

May 17, 2007 at 12:07 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

I belong to many animal rights and environmental groups -- does that make me a terrorist? Probably, in the eyes of some.

The terrorism "attachment" is bullshit.

May 17, 2007 at 6:44 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Lizzy: Yes, I'm afraid you're officially a Turrist :)

May 17, 2007 at 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

J. Edgar Hoover is climaxing in his grave.

Well I think this is great because now it means that whenever a right wing group like the Klan and the Nazi/Skinheads burn crosses, desecrate temples and graves,intimidate people and other assorted hate crimes we can charge them for terrorism.





May 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Erik: Nope, no comparison. Rightwing racist hate-spewers are patriotic Americans who simply got a little carried away. They're well-intentioned but just a little midguided.

On the other hand, those leftwing America-hating treehuggers...

May 18, 2007 at 11:47 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

From the article you linked to:

"Prosecution filings argue that though the defendants were never convicted of terrorism, they qualify for the label because at least one of the fires each of them set was intended to change or retaliate against government policy."

To CHANGE government policy? Arrrrgh... So all of us lefties who want to change government policy are terrorists because our blogging actions ask for a change to government policy?

I notice that the sentence says "change OR retaliate against", meaning that there wouldn't even have to be any retaliatory action involved... just the desire to CHANGE things, which I am guessing could be either in action or in written word.

I don't like the idea of people trying to make a political point by destroying property. I think it's appropriate to book the ELF people on multiple charges of arson, willful destruction of property, vandalism, whatever... but "terrorism"? God help us all.

May 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: Good points. And adding a terrorism "enhancement" after they've already been convicted -- that's scary. What's next? Maybe somebody could get a speeding ticket and they could add "enhancements" for reckless driving or resisting arrest. If they think these people are terrorists they should try them in court on that specific charge and let a jury convict or acquit them.

May 18, 2007 at 4:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home