"Ecodefense" and corporate personhood -- a resource and response for:

[nashville_brook]

this thread:

"one of my best friends was sentenced in federal court today..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1016087

it occurs to me that the news of the sentencing of the two ELF members brings up a lot issues near and dear to DU -- specifically should corporations be afforded the rights of individuals.

i'm posting this because i think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1016087">this thread expected everyone to be conversant and sypathetic to the concept of "ecodefense." Because most Dems aren't conversant with ecodefense, the thread generated more heat than light. I want to provide a resource for discussion because I think it's important for progressives to be able to navigate areas of moral ambiguity with grace, and that means having information at your disposal. If you haven't lived near the timber industry, you prolly aren't aware of ANY of this. If you have lived near the timber industry, you prolly can't imagine anyone NOT KNOWING all this stuff. So, here you go...

FWIW, monkeywrenching was controversial even within the Earth First movement and there's a history of Earth Firsters being entrapped and murdered by government interests intervening on behalf of the timber industry.

The main question is -- does "ecodefense" rise to the definition of "terrorism." Maybe it's a matter of degree, where, spiking a tree isn't necessarily a terrorist act, but arson on a large scale is. Maybe economic sabotage should ONLY be treated as a CRIMINAL OFFENSE rather than a crime against humanity. But I think that it's fairly non-controversial that acts of lesser vandalism (such as tree spikinkg) shouldn't be treated as terrorism.

Reading the history of ELF, particularly the case of the two people charged with "terrorism," I'm struck by the tragedy of "doing bad things for all the right reasons." I knew Earth First enthusiasts in college and understand the trajectory of passion that takes a person down this road -- they've identified a cause worth fighting for -- and when you mix that with the righteousness and immortality of youth, you get kids champing at the bit for a shot at glory (i've observed that it goes away after they have kids).

Eco-warriors have as their philosophical base.

Deep ecology biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that all living things have the same right to live and flourish.

Proponents of deep ecology believe that the world does not exist as a resource to be freely exploited by humans. The ethics of deep ecology holds that a whole system is superior to any of its parts.

BTW -- the founding principle of "ecodefense" is economic terrorism, by definition. The idea is to remove profit from environmentally destructive acts like clear cutting. We live in a time where corporate entities are afforded more rights than people, and this is an expression of that principle. The question this episode begs of us is, "should economic entities be afforded the same legal protection as people?"

I'd argue that this is a spectacular opportunity to examine the "personhood of corporate entities." This episode tugs at the boundary of this question. No one was hurt, but there was widespread property destruction.


Here's a timeline of ELF actions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Earth_Liberation_Front_actions




here's some background on the news I'm referring to:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003719703_ecosentence24m.html

Earth Liberation Front arsonist sentenced to 13 years

EUGENE, Ore. — Declaring fires set at a police station, an SUV dealership and a tree farm acts of terrorism, a federal judge Wednesday sentenced the first of 10 members of a radical environmental group to 13 years in prison.
snip
Before sentencing, Meyerhoff denounced the ELF, saying its goals of promoting a public discussion about stopping practices that harm the earth actually cut off debate and harmed people.

"I was ignorant of history and economy and acted from a faulty and narrow vision as an ordinary bigot," Meyerhoff read from his four-page handwritten statement, his voice breaking at times. "A million times over I apologize ... to all of you hard-working business owners, employees, researchers, firemen, investigators, attorneys and all citizens whose property was destroyed, whose holidays were ruined, whose welfare was thwarted, and whose sleep was troubled."

here's a story from Seattle Times --

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=terrorist07&date=20060507

Is ecosabotage terrorism?

Who is a terrorist?

After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, it was clean-cut Timothy McVeigh, a brooding loner — infused with hatred of the government — who was convicted and put to death for that crime. After 9/11, which claimed the lives of more than 2,900 people, it was the bearded visage of Osama bin Laden.

This year, the Bush administration has touted the arrests of terrorists of a different kind — homegrown militants who have embarked on arson attacks to protest treatment of animals and the environment.

During the past three years alone, FBI counterterrorism agents have conducted at least 190 investigations into property crimes claimed by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). None of the crimes injured or killed people.

"Terrorism is terrorism — no matter what the motive," declared FBI director Robert Mueller on Jan. 20, when he announced the indictment of 11 people in an alleged conspiracy that involved 17 attacks. Those include arsons at a ski resort in Vail, Colo., a horse slaughterhouse in Oregon, a federal wildlife research center in Olympia and the University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture.

Is it terrorism? FBI says yes, even though environmental militants target property, not people. In the post-9/11 era, they say that the word tilts the criminal-justice system against defendants and helps the Bush administration justify a broader infiltration — and surveillance — of groups that protest government policies.

Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union indicate that the FBI has monitored the activities of some environmental, animal-rights and peace groups. "You couple spying on political dissenters with grand jury subpoenas and a series of arrests, it's had a huge effect," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. "There is a serious danger of chilling dissenting points of view."

The FBI decision to run these investigations through a counterterrorism branch also has been questioned by its own Office of Inspector General, which in a 2003 report recommended that the cases should be handled by its criminal division.

I'm providing a link to the book, "Ecodefense: a Field Guide to Monkeywrenching" for background. I'm posting the foreward to the book written by Edward Abbey to provide an historical-affective perspective on "ecodefense."

There is no copyright restriction on this material as it is meant to be distributed freely.

It is important to note that Earth First founder Dave Foreman stepped away from the sabotage component of the movement (as he became older and wiser, I imagine).


http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/inttxt.htm

[originalpckelly]

1. Excuse me, burning something releases greenhouse gases, doesn't it?

Isn't that little hypocritical and contradictory?

[mike_c]

17. you've been flogging that dead horse a lot in these discussions...

...so stop and compare the greenhouse gas contributions of:

one burning logging company headquarters;

vs

thousands of acres of forest clear cut by that logging corporation.


Or how about:

one smoking Hummer dealership;

vs;

hundreds of smoking Hummers carrying fat ass parasites around town.


I think your greenhouse gas argument is REALLY lame.

[originalpckelly]

20. I think you lost all credibility with anyone reasonable the moment you started justifying this.

The way you disregard the lives of firefighters, many of whom are unionized and their unions deeply support the Democratic party, I think it's sick.

Quite frankly, you lose the ability to be credible in any way, including the criticism of oligarchic corporations, when you start justifying methods of terrorism. Oh no, you may not be involved in the terrorism, but I bet you had some type of hand in making these people more comfortable doing it.

And despite what you may think, the people who own corporations are humans too. They are sick people, just like yourself, but they are human.

What you're doing is de-humanizing these people being terrorized so that you can attack them and scare the hell out of them without feeling bad. You're no different than any other force in world history that de-humanizes its opponents so that it feels OK to treat them like shit and do inhumane things to them.

One of the reasons this nation is in Iraq, is directly related to that. People don't seem to feel for the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people, and that's because they are abstract to most Americans. They aren't really people, because we don't know them personally and when someone hurts them it doesn't have a direct impact upon ourselves as when someone hurts someone we know.

It's not as real, because the Iraqis have been de-humanized.

The same thing is true of GITMO. People don't seem to give a damn about these people as well. These people have not been convicted of any crime, unlike your friends. Until these people at GITMO have a trial and are convicted using a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they must be treated as if they didn't commit a crime, because they could very well be innocent.

And that's if there isn't torture going on down there, which by all common sense probably is going on. That's even worse.

And the truth of the matter is that you are no better than anyone else is this world like Bush or even these corporate oligarchs, because you're doing the same thing as your "enemy" and thusly you are as bad as they are.

The ends never outweigh the means to real Democrats and progressives or even environmentalists.

I hope that anyone else who feels the way I do speaks up against you, because that's the only true way to counter extremism of the type you're pushing on us.

[mike_c]

21. my friend, I have scrupulously refrained from discussing your ancestry,...

...your "credibility," and my personal opinion of you in these threads (for the record, I hold you in higher regard than you hold appear to me). I shall continue to do so.

It is clear that we disagree. Can we not do so respectfully, without personal judgments?

[originalpckelly]

23. I don't care about your "ancestry" and why you even mentioned it, I'm puzzled.

Couldn't care less. I don't even think what I said could easily be construed to be an insult about your ancestry, simply because I don't even know your ancestry.

And as to the aspect of "respect", I think you don't deserve it, honestly, I think you might even go so far as to support killing me if I were a conservative or something, or made some choice in my life that ran afoul of your extremist views.

This is not a traditional disagreement, this is about the fundamental nature of democracy and the rule of just laws.

What you advocate, at least by mitigation of these crimes and these techniques, if not by open support, is something that cannot happen in truly democratic nation. It takes us all in the wrong direction, it does more damage to this country and humanity in general than the supposed benefits of these terrorist acts.

When people cross the line and start doing things that are extremely harmful to life for political reasons, even just acts of vandalism as you reduce it down to, it crosses a certain line of respect for other people. If there can be such a thing as right and wrong, it is clearly wrong.

What you are advocating is the sort of thing tyrants in countries throughout history have used to keep people in submission, under their thumbs, deceiving them of the natural truth of democracy.

Fear is the greatest enemy of freedom, because one may use it to coerce a person into submission, that's inherently undemocratic, and it is inherently wrong.

There can be honest disagreements, but someone's right to live and not be subjected to terrorism by the people who take the techniques you support and use them is not an honest disagreement. It's no more honest a disagreement than someone claiming to have the power to usurp the inalienable rights of any human being and be a dictator.

[mike_c]

29. well then...

Sticks and stones, and all that. It really helps to have a flameproof skin on the intertubes.

[spoony]

46. And in the short term it destroys air quality, endangering

many people.

[baldguy]

2. Corporate Personhood is a bigger issue than just the environment.

Suffice to say- corporations can burn, vandalize, destroy & kill with impunity. And if a corporation is, by some miracle, held responsible - the owners just declare bankruptcy, sell off the corporate assets to themselves, and re-organize under a different name.

Nice racket.

[nashville_brook]

13. maybe this is part and parcel to an "ecodefender's" motivation

on this, Edward Abbey writes:

"...We are justified in defending our homes-our private home and public home ­not only by common law and common morality but also by common belief. We are the majority; they-the greedy and powerful-are the minority.

How best defend our wilderness home? Well, that is a matter of strategy, tactics and technique, which is what this little book is about."

the idea being that the wilderness is a "home" with no defenders -- and also a "home" without which we'd have no home. because wild areas provide the ecology that keeps the earth alive. cutting down all the trees is like removing your lungs.

seems like there's a question of where "defense" ends and "offense" begins -- but i'm not convinced that an offense against a ski lodge or timber mill constitutes terrorism in any "real" sense. maybe there's something wrong with the idea of "terrorism" itself. lord knows the word is used to justify all sorts of killing, torture and empire-building. is this just another example of the word "terrorism" being appropriated in order to clear the way for corporations to usurp human rights?

[bryant69]

3. Do you want corporate personhood to continue? Or to end?

Because it seems like this particular argument is likely to bolster those who want to see corporate personhood to continue. If your argument is that we should not get bent of shape over ecodefenders trying to hurt corporations because corporations aren't actually people, than the come back is that corporations are made up of people though.

I don't know - it just seems like given the negative response of people generally towards Ecodefense or Ecoterrorism, that this defense isn't likely to push events in the right direction.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[nashville_brook]

6. not sure i'm offering an "defense" -- i think the question is more interesting

does eco-sabotage rise to the level of terrorism?

just heard on NPR that this will be on the next Talk of the Nation, monday at 3pm eastern (i think).

have a friend who is a lawyer and who is vehemently against making "hate crimes" a separate form of crime. his argument is that if someone is murdered, then the murderer should be prosecuted under the existing law against killing people. in a way, he says, by creating the separate entity of "hate crime," we are saying that murdering a someone who is black/gay/jewish/etc isn't enough of a crime WITHOUT the extra umph of the "hate crime" designation. in his opinion, the designation of "hate crime" undermines protection of the law being afforded to all people equally.

not sure i agree with that, either -- but it seems to apply. isn't arson already a crime? when some sets fire to property that doesn't belong to them, they are already engaging in a giant criminal offense. by adding the "terrorism" charge we are affording corporations an additional legal definition that might not apply and might have unintended consequences.

but -- we have to be able to have this conversation in a reasonable manner -- i.e., be able to hold ambiguity at arm's length -- to be able to suss it out. otherwise we are only swinging wildly at everything that goes bump in the night.

[bryant69]

9. I don't know -I suspect the response would be that

both a Hate Crime and Eco Terrorism are really two crimes. The initial crime, which has a set penalty, and the additional threat of future crimes. A Hate Crime is designed to hurt not just it's initial victim but to terrorize a community. An eco -crime contains within it the threat they could come back and do more to the corporation. So there are really two crimes.

At least that's the theory as I understand it; I'm not completely sold either.

[nashville_brook]

11. yeah -- i'm not sold either -- the friend really did a mindwarp on me as i had not

thought of hate crime in that way before. i was of the mind that no punishment is too much.

what you said about the "threat of future of crime" is not something that i had attributed to the hate crime designation, but i suppose that's a motivation for the legal stance. thing it, it has phillip k dick written all over it, and gives me pause about unseen repercussions.

ON EDIT -- he just wrote me to say:
"my biggest issue is that hate crime statutes punish thought and speech by impermissibly attempting to punish motive, which is otherwise not a crime at all, e.g., it doesn't matter is you kill someone for money or out of jealousy, and the only way to EXAMINE such motive is to put someone on trial for their beliefs. E.g., do you have an SS tattoo or frequent racist/homophobic websites.

(i'm persuded when he puts it like this...)

[bryant69]

15. It's possible but let's be realistic

It's not like we are using magic to divine future actions; if I guy grafittis your shop and writes "Get out of this neighborhood, undesired ethnicity/earth basher, or I'll get you out." the threat is pretty clear. Even if they don't say it it's not like you have to be encyclopedia brown to figure that maybe they will continue their ways if they aren't stopped.

I don't know - on the other hand both hate crimers and eco-defenders usually have organizations behind them. Punishing one person extra severely might not put the fear of God into the next guy in line.

I don't know.

Bryant

[nashville_brook]

16. just added an edit, as my friend emailed me to clarify...

he says...

"To clarify, my biggest issue is that hate crime statutes punish thought and speech by impermissibly attempting to punish motive, which is otherwise not a crime at all, e.g., it doesn't matter is you kill someone for money or out of jealousy, and the only way to EXAMINE such motive is to put someone on trial for their beliefs. E.g., do you have an SS tattoo or frequent racist/homophobic websites."

i emphasized this differently above -- he's saying that it's a foundation of justice that motive is impermissible.

[John Kerry VonErich]

4. Wait a minute

If my memory serves me correctly, ELF was responsible in 2 deaths when they set a factory on fire. And the assassination of Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn.....

[blondeatlast]

5. Cite a source, please. I've no dog in this fight, personally, but be aware

that EF and ELF are not the same organizations.

[John Kerry VonErich]

8. Gimme a lil bit to find it.

There were deaths at the hands of ecoterrorists. Just goin by memory on the numbers.

[nashville_brook]

7. there's a timeline of ELF crimes/actions in my OP

you can check to see if it's cited in there

[nashville_brook]

10. i don't see that listed, nor does "Pym Fortuyn" come up in Wikipedia, but i think

this points to the central question of the difference between people and corporate interests. is human death necessary to make the case for terrorism?

if we afford corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to terrorism, what consequences might we expect?

[John Kerry VonErich]

12. misspelled

Try Pim Fortuyn, no Y in his first name.

[nashville_brook]

14. the guy who killed him

was an animal rights fanatic whose legal appeal has something to do with being an Asperger's sufferer. this is a fascinating story, but i don't think it applies because it's not ELF, nor is it being trumpeted as "terrorism." as a matter of fact, it's easier to discuss this instance as being an act of terrorism since a human life was taken.

i'm really interested in the Asperger's aspect to this, though, because Asperger's seems to make people indifferent to other people. but, the person supposedly was not indifferent to animals -- very odd.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf

[LeftyMom]

43. By definition, an act that involved violence against humans could not be claimed as an ALF or ELF

action. There are guidelines for these things.

[mike_c]

18. this is an excellent post, NB-- recommended....

You're right I think-- anyone who has lived under the shadow of corporations like Maxxam/Pacific Lumber cannot help be be aware of these issues and the moral questions they raise. My original thread on this topic was imbued with my sadness over the sentencing of a dear friend and my outrage that the federal government places greater priority upon protecting the property of those who wantonly destroy the environment for corporate profit than it does on the rights of individuals to seek redress-- even when that redress involves crimes of civil disobedience.

I tried to argue-- not very successfully-- that the U.S. government's current trajectory is toward elevating vandalism-- albeit serious vandalism-- against corporate property to the same conceptual level as mass murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and so on. And they are succeeding. The green scare and operation backfire illustrate how this distressing trajectory is especially being applied to environmentalists.

Environmentalism is perceived as a particular threat because its success will likely impact the corporate profits of presently powerful and influential corporations, far more so than genuine acts of domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City bombing or attacks against family planning clinics. These are typically not regarded as terrorism cases by the federal gov't, while even non-violent advocacy of environmental and animal rights issues is ruthlessly suppressed as "terrorism."

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/bestkahn08182004/

http://greenscare.org/

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/

[flvegan]

19. Why is it "ecosabotage" that's viewed this way?

If "ecosabotage" is terrorism, in that it harms a corporation in the name of the environment (ELF) or animals (ALF) then when will the first hacker/cracker be dubbed a webterrorist because he/she is pissed at Microsoft?

When will the Army of God leadership be tossed in prison like the SHAC7?

I hope EVERYONE reading this thread looks really, really hard at this point:
Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union indicate that the FBI has monitored the activities of some environmental, animal-rights and peace groups. "You couple spying on political dissenters with grand jury subpoenas and a series of arrests, it's had a huge effect," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. "There is a serious danger of chilling dissenting points of view."

It's not just the ELF or ALF (which aren't even "groups" to begin with, which is the governments biggest faux-pas in this) but they've tossed "peace groups" into the mix. If you dissent, you're on notice.

I don't believe in arson, for any purpose, but I'm the first to praise animal liberation or sinking an unoccupied whaling vessel in her harbor. I do believe in monkeywrenching, to an extent, so long as it's not done with the intent of hurting anyone. Arson, to me, is terribly counterproductive.

[mike_c]

22. I think part of the answer lies in the potential for the environmental movement...

...to seriously damage the profits of corporations that are presently powerful and influential. As citizens align themselves more and more with the goals of environmental protection, they begin to see those corporations as exploitative, and more to the point, they MIGHT think twice about their own consumption patterns. That hurts profits, and the federal government is ALL about protecting the profits of its corporate benefactors.

That, more than anything, is the reason for so ruthlessly targeting environmental activists IMO-- they have a far greater potential for actually harming the economic status quo than do the bombers of family planning clinics, racial bigots, etc.

[flvegan]

24. I think that it's because

these corporations and interests that are subject to these "ecosabotage" actions not only have a lot to lose, but they're actually doing something wrong. They've pissed and moaned, tossing money and support behind legislation to get "domestic eco terrorism" on the map. As is always the case, our officials caved to the pressure and almighty dollar and enact this shit.

You know, in several states, you can't even TAKE PICTURES of a factory farm or anything of that nature. There will come a time when tree-sitting will be terrorism, at this rate.

I agree that the eco-movement has incredible potential to do damage, and has done a great deal already.

I am sorry about your friend. If your friend did indeed set a bunch of objects on fire, then while I don't agree with the tactics, I don't think that this person should be sentenced under any terrorism guidelines. I watched people I know railroaded into the same punishment with the outcome of the SHAC7 trial. Quite frankly, it irritates the shit out of me. I've never struck a match, but I'm on those same FBI lists for liberation activities, and it's bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. What Those Radical Extremist Psychos Did Was Absolutely Domestic Terrorism.

I'm not sure about the whole corporate personhood thing and would be inclined to think that no, corporations should not have all the rights of people, but I don't even need to know enough about that in order to determine that these dangerous criminals absolutely engaged in domestic terrorism. They're going to prison as they deserve to, but I probably would've given them double the sentence.

[gravity]

26. But they're white, they can't be terrorists

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

27. the most interesting part of your remarks....

"I don't even need to know enough... in order to determine that these dangerous criminals absolutely engaged in domestic terrorism."

THAT's a relief! :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Oh, that one's a keeper.

I'm gonna hafta K&R

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. What, A Made Up Quote Out Of Context? Yeah, That's A Huge Sign Of Intellectual Prowess.

Can't say I'm surprised that you find such childish forms of debate to be worthy of 'keeping' though.

So since you decided to jump into this, are you on the side of actually defending these terrorists? I'd like to know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Mike, Your Best Friend Is A Domestic Terrorist. There Is Nothing Funny About That.

No matter how much you take my words out of context to make a point that doesn't exist, it doesn't change the reality that what your friend and their cohorts did was domestic terrorism and doesn't change the fact that they are radical extremist dangerous criminals who deserve to be locked in prison for quite a long time. No falsely constructed joke of yours is going to change that pal.

[flvegan]

34. Nice RW talking points there, OMC.

As. fucking. usual.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Oh Cut The Crap Already. RW Talking Points My Ass. It's Called Simple Reality.

This isn't about fucking politics and it's pathetic how some here want to boil everything down to some stupid black and white right vs left ignorant mentality. You think chavez is a piece of shit? Stop spoutin the rw talking points mannnnnn. Ya think that firebombing a ton of innocent businesses and destroying 40 million dollars worth of property while attempting to spread fear through a violent message is domestic terrorism? Stop spouting the rw talking points dude.

Oh give me a goddamn break. This ain't no right vs left. It's about radical extremists who repeatedly broke laws in a monumentally dangerous way in order to provoke fear. It is CLEAR CUT domestic terrorism and no wiseass illegitimate nonsensical 'I'm just gonna get a shot in on OMC' void of argument post is gonna change that.

What these people did is a disgrace and they belong locked away from society. They are dangerous radicals and I'm glad they're off the street. So spare me your empty attacks.

[mike_c]

36. LOL-- dude, I found this in your profile....

It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal.

Did you write that?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Damn Right I Did. And I'm Proving It Here.

I couldn't possibly respect myself, wouldn't possibly be being honest, couldn't possibly claim decency or open mindedness, and most definitely could claim a desire to wish good upon all, INCLUDING PEOPLE IN BUSINESS I DON'T LIKE, and I most DEFINITELY couldn't claim I had integrity if I for a second dismissed the heinous acts of these radical extremist domestic terrorist criminals. THAT's being honest pal.

And I think I'm done talking with you. I'm not sure I'm too comfortable talking to the best friend of a radical extremist domestic terrorist. You should have nothing short of condemnation for the acts of that radical, dangerous and psychotic group. The fact you favor them, is all sorts of scary to me.

So by mike_c. You radicalism is far too disgusting for me to want to be any part of.

[mike_c]

38. be still my heart....

Is that a promise?

:bounce:

[porphyrian]

32. He isn't a terrorist, he's an arsonist, but prosecutors always go for the harshest possible charges.

I think that corporate personhood is absolutely wrong, as it allows these artificial entities the rights of citizens without the accountability. It needs to be changed as soon as possible. However, burning trees that are the property of someone else is arson, and that's not acceptable either.

[originalpckelly]

33. These people were interested in more than just setting something on fire...

they did it for a political point to intimidate the people who own these companies into making a certain decision.

Intent definitely changes the meaning of a crime, if someone accidentally causes the death of another person, and they were not doing anything negligent to cause the death, they aren't charged with murder. On the other hand, if they kill someone on purpose they are charged with murder. There is major difference in culpability between vehicular homicide and homicide using the murder weapon of a vehicle.

We prosecute and punish crimes at various levels of intent because people who intend to kill someone are generally thought to be more dangerous to society than people who do not intend kill someone, and do so either through negligent or non-negligent activity.

In this case I think it is, and many other reasonable people think it is, more dangerous that someone has the intent to use violence to affect a decision, if done on a widespread scale American life would be even more unpredictable and crappy than it already is.

The same thing is true about hate crimes.

People decry hate crime statutes as really thought crime statutes, but they never say anything about the statutes that punish homicide varying on the amount of intent to kill.

[porphyrian]

39. I don't know what their intent was, and I don't presume to guess.

However, it was definitely arson, and that's good enough for me.

But, since you bring up the intent argument, it's fairly difficult to prove intent with regards to degrees of murder unless the killer kept a diary or showed a great deal of preparation. But hate crimes, unless I'm mistaken, do not require much more than the use of hateful language to be applied. I believe that's a means justified by the end and a slippery slope, despite the intentions of those who created the statutes.

[mainegreen]

40. If corporations are people, then should they themselves murder someone....

then every owner should go to jail for murder, accessory to murder etc. It's only right. (that and I suspect corporations would start behaving better if this were implemented).

[gravity]

41. How can a corporation physically murder someone?

[mainegreen]

42. Same way a lot of people do: placing a hit.

Paying someone to take care of problem people. It happens in other countries and it happens here.

[gravity]

44. Someone has to make the call and someone physically has to murder

There is still someone who could be held accountable and punished.

[John Kerry VonErich]

45. Always wanted to know

Has any monkey wrencher ever been killed in the act?