Arson attacks ruled terrorism

[central scrutinizer]

Source: Eugene (Oregon) Register Guard

Ruling that arson attacks on a police office, an SUV dealership and a tree farm were acts of terrorism, a federal judge on Wednesday imposed a 13-year prison term on Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, the first of 10 defendants to be sentenced in the nation's largest-ever investigation of radical underground environmental activists.

The sentence is about 2 1/2 years less than the government offered Meyerhoff in a plea deal that rewarded his cooperation in the investigation. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said prosecutors did not give Meyerhoff enough credit for "doing the right thing" after his arrest in December 2005.

Nevertheless, she told Meyerhoff he should "count his lucky stars" that the government offered him a plea deal. Aiken calculated his potential sentence at 30 years to life. Had prosecutors pursued all possible charges, they earlier estimated he could have faced a minimum of 230 years.

Read more: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/24/a1.meyerhoff2.0524.p1.php?section=cityregion

---

Now if you are right wing terrorist, clinic bomber, fundamentalist like the Mujahadeen, an airline bomber like Padilla, or a wise use bully, there is no problem.

[depakid]

1. More evidence of American Facism

It's going to be a very interesting decade.

My prediction is that by 2020, people like this will be looked at as heros- and others will be remembered- and likely scapegoated, ala Mme DeFarge.

[unpossibles]

2. so what about the Liberty University Bomber?

oh wait - he was a white Christian dude. Never mind.

[Parche]

3. Arson

This arson has all the makings of an Al-Kida Plot....:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:



Lets call him what he is, an arsonist, nothing more nothing less.
This right wing love with terror and terrorists labeling has to stop.

[AwareOne]

4. According to an NPR story yesterday

the defendants face much longer sentences at much harsher facilities due to this being labeled terrorism under the new Homeland Security rules. There should be no doubt that we are now under fascist rule, act accordingly.

[superconnected]

5. Pretty soon disagreeing with the chimp will be terrorism.

Oh wait, the rethugs already tried that.

[Guaranteed]

6. So, you see, what we're going to have to do here is re-label every criminal

act as terrorism. Criminal acts are against the public, and therefore all criminals are terrorists.

[ngant17]

7. Terrorism means to be defined appropriately

Scare tactics can be construed to mean terrorism. If I sneak up behind you and say "Boo", like Casper the Friendly Ghost, then technically I can be commiting an act of terrorism.

Ghosts and apparitions can be now held fully accountable and incarcerated under such charges, although the scientific mechanics of imprisoning ectoplasm may not be developed for many more decades to come. Dept. of Homeland Security would be awarding contracts in this regard, I suppose.

Of course, when death squads ran amok in Central America, that wasn't considered terrorism as long it was all about stopping communism.

The US gov. and the judicial system has become mentally unbalanced and unstable when they go to these absurd extremes, targeting enviromentalists as the terrorists instead of prosecuting for some old-fashioned acts of vandalism and monkey-wrenching.

[krkaufman]

9. Indeed, "boo"-ing someone would be more terroristic(?) than ...

... simple vandalism of SUVs. Vandalizing private property is NOT terrorism. (Otherwise, all those high school kids arrested for TPing houses should be doing a few decades in the pen.)

[krkaufman]

8. So vandalism is now terrorism?

Who, exactly, was "terrorized" by this guy's actions? Did he threaten someone's life, or take a life? Or did he simply destroy or damage private property?

Hello "V for Vendetta"

[Double_Tap]

10. This guy's actions meet the clear definition of terrorism

The criminal definition of terrorism is: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

These guys clearly were doing just that - committing violence against property in order to coerce a government agency to act in a certain way, in furtherance of their social objective - in this case their environmental cause. People don't have to be killed for it to be a terrorist act. Besides, it's just plain dumb luck that they didn't kill someone.

And no, walking up behind someone and saying "Boo" is not a terrorist act. It doesn't meet the definition above. Nor do simple criminal acts, like arson. Arsonist burn things down because they enjoy it or they are trying to cover up another crime. They aren't attempting to influence anyone to do anything.

[central scrutinizer]

11. maybe, but

women's clinic bombers, wise use zealots, and Jose Padilla fit that definition perfectly, yet these provisions are rarely applied against conservative terrorists.

[UNCLE_Rico]

12. So I take it you SUPPORT the use of the term 'terrorism' in cases like this...

I would have to suppose you also TOTALLY SUPPORT all 'Hate Crime' laws which are based on EXACTLY the same principle; i.e. the 'intent' is being considered as well as the criminal act and used to 'trump up' the charge far beyond what the actual 'act' would traditionally incur?

Cause if you DON'T, then you are nothing but a hypocritical asshole.