Group of radical environmentalists facing long sentences as terrorists

[Kadie]

Group of radical environmentalists facing long sentences as terrorists
Destructive acts are interpreted as crimes against government
William Yardley, New York Times

Saturday, May 26, 2007


(05-26) 04:00 PDT Eugene, Ore. -- By the time Chelsea Gerlach was 16, she was putting her passion for the environment into action.

snip...
Aiken sentenced Gerlach to nine years in prison for her role in "the family," a group of at least 10 radical environmentalists who have been convicted of arson and other destructive actions at an electrical transmission tower; timber research centers; a Eugene police station; a ski resort in Vail, Colo.; and other sites in five Western states that they viewed as threats to the environment or their mission.

The defendants are connected to the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. The crimes occurred from 1996 to 2001, and the arrests were made in 2005 and early last year.

snip...
The cases have provided a window into conflicts in the radical environmental movement about strategy and loyalty. They have also highlighted a debate over what constitutes domestic terrorism at a time law enforcement and the military, as well as public attention, have focused on the terrorism faced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Defense lawyers had argued that the environmental cases were not terrorism because they did not take aim at people's lives.

"It was only intended to damage property," said Craig Weinerman, an assistant federal defender who represented Gerlach.

Last week, Aiken rejected those arguments, ruling that some of the crimes could be sentenced under the "terrorism enhancement," which can add substantial time to a prison term, if they were intended to retaliate against, coerce, or intimidate the government.


more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/26/MNGGNQ23MJ1.DTL

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I guess I feel about these people the way I imagine

some anti-choice people feel about abortion clinic bombers. It's possible to share an ideological perspective with someone while being totally repulsed by their tactics.

[LeftishBrit]

21. I agree with you!

[TahitiNut]

2. Hayduke rulez!

:evilgrin:

[NightWatcher]

11. yeppers. God Bless ELF

they make such wonderful cookies in their tree.


Ed Abbey had it right all along.

[Vincardog]

3. When did stooping Corporate GREED become "retaliate against, coerce, or intimidate the government."?

[realisticphish]

4. when did violent destruction of private property

become "stopping greed"

[Vincardog]

5. IN what cause? IF I destroy your D10 Caterpillar so you can not mow down 10,000 year old Redwoods

that is a different thing than if I blow up your house because I am a psychopath.

When did Corporate interest become ===== Government's interests?

That is FASCISM.

[MilesColtrane]

7. But, blowing up a Caterpillar doesn't stop anything.

Because there are more Caterpillars.
You'd better blow up the whole Caterpillar plant.:sarcasm:

Better to chain yourself to the tractor, or to a tree. (and don't forget to call a news crew)

That is called civil disobedience, and it takes courage.
Blowing things up is for cowards. (see Bush Administration)

[Vincardog]

22. I am not interested in the efficaciousness of the tactic. The question is of the dentition of Terror

[MilesColtrane]

27. Here's the FBI's definition of terrorism.

"the unlawful use of force or 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."

Surely you are not arguing that violence against a corporation's employees or property shouldn't be classified as terrorism.

Example:
Jack and Diane belong to a group that believes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is furthering the destruction of the United States by producing shows like NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, and Frontline.
So they set fire to the CPB offices.

You would prefer that they only be prosecuted for arson?

[Vincardog]

28. What is it with these red herrings? This thread is about eco-activists being sentenced for terror

for committing Property crimes. I am not surprised that the FBI is willing to go along with Big Brother. They ARE Big Brother.

[MilesColtrane]

29. The eco-activists are just that..

...up until the point they destroy private property in order to further an ideological agenda.

When they do that they become terrorists, because that is the definition of terrorism.

I can't make that any simpler.

The law varies in criminal charges, and punishment when convicted, based on the intent of the perpetrator.
For example, there are varying degrees of murder and there is manslaughter. In all cases someone is dead at another's hand, but the law takes into account the killers intent.

Accounting for intent can also lead to additional punishment if convicted. You've heard of hate crime laws?

I won't be responding to anymore of your posts because you can't seem to grasp this.

[etherealtruth]

8. If I bomb your clinic so that no abortions can be performed ...

Is there really a difference?

[realisticphish]

9. nope

sorry, but just because it's private property that you don't like doesn't make it somehow acceptable to destroy. Hey, stand in front of the dozers, chain yourself to a tree, that's fine; but destroying private property IS ALWAYS DESTROYING PRIVATE PROPERTY

[Vincardog]

16. Why ignore the Corporate interest has suddenly become = Government?

That is FASCISM

[realisticphish]

17. because thats not what i commented on

i said nothing about the OP, only about your statement. And you can type FASCISM all you want, but I don't know if it's necessarily true.

The WTC attack was against corporate property. I assume you don't consider that terrorism?

[qdemn7]

6. Well..

Since it ONLY private property that's OK. :sarcasm: Of course if they had actually KILLED someone, I'm sure there would be apologists for THAT, too. :puke:

What did Captain Terrel, the Kansas Redleg Officer in The Outlaw Josey Wales Say? "Doin' good ain't got no end."

[MadHound]

18. Long, long ago

Luddites are the first one to come to mind, but I'm sure that there are others earlier.

Hell, destruction of private property has been commonplace political and resistence tactic since our country began. Yet these tactics haven't been classified as terrorism and punished as such. Hell, if this sort of prosecution was handed down in the fifties or sixties, just think of who would have been jailed.

This sort of bonus charge allows a whole slippery slope to open in our legal system, and the vague definitions and points set out in relevant legislation such as the Patriot Act allow broad interpretations and much misuse.

Whether or not you like ELF or others, whether or not you agree with these sorts of tactics, this sort of legal precendent is not healthy for our country.

[realisticphish]

19. that's a perfectly good argument

I'll have to think about it. But i was more focusing on the idea that causing destruction is "stopping corporate greed," and thus tacitly approved of.

Which I do not, to clarify. I despise the ELF people and their ilk; I'm a big supporter of the Sierra Club and WWF, and I try to buy from humanitarian companies when possible, anything other than personal violence toward the CEOs will simply be inconveniencing the workers, or, ironically, result in another bulldozer being built (consuming natural resources) and the tree will come down anyway.

And no, I'm not advocating violence either.

Sorry for the rant, it's not really directed at you.

Anywho, I don't consider terrorism to be only terrorism if it's directed toward the government. That may be the legal definition in this case, but if Al Qaeda sets off bombs in a mall, we're sure as hell calling that terrorism.

[Sanctified]

10. There are people who believe if you own a home you are destroying

the earth, would you be OK with them burning down your home based on their beliefs? There are better ways to argue a position other than violence and destroying property is violence. I have no sympathy for these people, I can't walk into a Walmart and throw a molotov cocktail to make an example of free trade, why should they get a free ride for doing the same to some logging equipment.

[Onceuponalife]

12. I have a hard time getting worked up over these "terrorist"

activities. Reminiscent of the Monkey Wrench Gang, to be sure. I do think there is a difference between targeting humans and targeting property, private or otherwise. And why should private property be so sacrosanct? All the peops sportin' the Woody Guthrie avatars know what I'm talking about...

[BlooInBloo]

13. I bet a jillion bucks the christian terrorist gets a slap on the wrist.

[Redneck Socialist]

14. Interesting how...

destroying private property lands you in jail, but destroying public property lands you a fat paycheck.

[SteveM]

15. Nine years for these crimes is reasonable, but "terrorism enhancement?"....

Smells like War on Drugs stuff. DUers should be on notice that those of us who have been active in countering the WOD were warning YEARS ago that the crippling of the 4th Amendment and other protections of the constitution (and the enaction of penalty "enhancements" laws) were early blue prints for authoritarianism writ large. The Patriot Act provisions prove this.

It has come to pass. Welcome to the War on _____________

[michaelwb]

20. Founders = Terrorists!

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an administration that gives such lip service to Founders and the American Revolution - would make laws declaring such acts terrorism?

One of the key flash points was the Boston Tea Party (Sam Adams was a leader) which involved terrorizing officials who didn't support them by attacking them and their homes - and culminating with a massive act of property destruction.

All of which is still taught as Patriotic and heroic.

I'm surprised that cognitive dissonance doesn't cause their heads to explode...

[Crandor]

23. The Founders wanted independence from British rule.

These "radical environmentalists" want to force us back into the Stone Age. There's a bit of a difference, you see.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. We don't need to be forced

Our anti-knowledge, anti-science, warmongering, ultra-territorialist government is doing a fine job leading us back into the Stone Age, mostly with our consent.

[Crandor]

26. They might bring the U.S. down to third world status but I really doubt

that they would ever completely destroy civilization in the US, since that would mean they would be screwed as well so their greed would prevent that. How is this relevant to this topic, though?

[Raine]

25. ELF and

monkey wrenchers ... :thumbsup: