Dividers to the right, please.

11 terrorists caught

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/20/ecoterror.indictments/


Im feeling safer already. now *that* was worth giving up the right to a trial for.

I wonder what we are going to get in exchange for the right to privacy....
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 22nd, 2006
Releasing lab animals is a very serious offense! They are right in charging them with terrorism and seeking the death penalty. Especially that Josephine Sunshine - she deserves to fry in the chair for her crimes!
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 22nd, 2006
"Im feeling safer already. now *that* was worth giving up the right to a trial for."

Don't be stupid JHC, US citizens charged with terrorism still get normal fair trials. Only non-US foreign combantants get the tribunal.
Permalink Phil 
January 22nd, 2006
> Only non-US foreign combantants get the tribunal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules

"A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks."
Permalink son of parnas 
January 22nd, 2006
"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

Whether it is Islamic nutballs or Green nutballs, the definition holds.
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
Something to turn everyone's thoughts away from Laden. And I thought Bush is a freaking idiot.
Permalink Vineet Reynolds 
January 22nd, 2006
I wonder if they'll pursue anti-abortion terrorists with the same energy...

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 22nd, 2006
"I wonder if they'll pursue anti-abortion terrorists with the same energy..."

I believe they did... and both of them were caught:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolf
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
Thanks KC, I never have the guts to state it so plainly.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 22nd, 2006
Damn she burnt down some buildings and you what to put het to death. She deserves to pay for her crimes against society but your theshold for the death penality seems a little low.

"Josephine Sunshine - she deserves to fry in the chair for her crimes!"

Josephine Sunshine Overaker, 31: charged in the burning of the Detroit Ranger Station in Detroit, Ore., Oct. 28, 1996; arson of Oakridge Ranger Station on Oct. 30, 1996; May 1999 arson of Childers Meat Co., in Eugene; toppling of a Bonneville Power Administration tower east of Bend, Ore. on Dec. 30, 1999; arson of Bureau of Land Management Department of Interior Wild Horse and Burro facility in Burns, Ore., Nov. 30. 1997; 1999 arson at a Boise Cascade office in Monmouth, Ore.
Overaker is a fugitive.
Permalink "Help, help! I'm being repressed!" 
January 22nd, 2006
"Thanks KC, I never have the guts to state it so plainly."

I think there's a pretty big difference between "those evil abortion bombers" and ALF, ELF, etc:

Kopp & Rudolf are out there on their own and *potentially* get support from the KKK and other nutball groups. I don't think anyone considers any of these groups "mainstream".

The ELF, ALF, etc on the other hand are actual groups with "politicaly wings" and have been funded by PETA, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.

To clarify for our reading-comprehension impared visitors: "The abortion bombers are criminals who are acting predominantly on their own while the envrio-terrorists are criminals who have support from 'legitimate' international groups."
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
"while the envrio-terrorists are criminals who have support from 'legitimate' international groups."

actually I thought that the legitimate groups tend to disown the criminal groups fairly regularly.

do you have a link to an article where they support the actions of one of the criminal groups?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 22nd, 2006
No, they [Sierra Club, PETA, etc] don't announce that they support the actions, yet they continue to fund such groups and many of the same people are involved:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/194
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm?headline=2563
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2003-08-25a.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA#Alleged_support_of_.22extremists_and_terrorists.22
http://www.huntingmag.com/peta_0519/

This is the one I love:
"But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities." "
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200203%5CCUL20020308a.html

So... we don't fund their activities, but we help them with the legal bills aftwards.
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
Yeah, PETA is like Hamas in that regard. Have to maintain implausible deniability.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 22nd, 2006
My apologies JHC, I was under the impression that authority to hold US citizens indefinitely was overturned, and only the non-US combantants were still effected. Although they have not said these people are being held under this authority, correct?
Permalink Phil 
January 22nd, 2006
"Although they have not said these people are being held under this authority, correct?"

no, they are not. which was actually rather the point.

since you entirely missed the point Ill spell it out for you:

(1) These people could have been charged perfectly well under the arsonist laws. Labelling them terrorists and charging them under terrorist laws has done nothing except allow the law enforcement people involved to do an end run around all the protections that we have built up in law over the years for people charged with crimes.

(2) If these people *are* terrorists, and charging people like these *is* the point of the new terrorist laws we have, then clearly we simply dont need things like the ability to lock up citizens without trial. the ability to torture them. the ability to track the communications of arbitary citizens without a warrant. the ability to force every individual to carry an ID and to show it on demand for travel and bank accounts (check out REAL ID) and so on.

ie, if these people are the terrorists we are worried about then they are hardly a threat sufficient to require such drastic law changes...and if they are not then wtf are we doing charging them with terrorist crimes?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 22nd, 2006
It's more like annoyancism. Terrorism provokes terror. ELF and ALF and ULF, etc, never threaten bodily harm, never provide hit lists like anti-abortionist terrorists do (who have not all been caught, btw). It's not to say that they shouldn't be jailed, they should. But should they get extra long sentences because their arson had 'ideological coercion' behind it rather plain old scam-the-insurance-company arson?
Permalink Spinoza 
January 22nd, 2006
"PETA's other financial support of terrorists includes a $45,200 gift to convicted animal-rights arsonist Rodney Coronado and a $7,500 payment to Fran Stephanie Trutt, who pleaded guilty to trying to kill a medical research executive."
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
"These people could have been charged perfectly well under the arsonist laws. Labelling them terrorists and charging them under terrorist laws has done nothing except allow the law enforcement people involved to do an end run around all the protections that we have built up in law over the years for people charged with crimes."

Yes, they could be - and have previously been - charged under existing laws concerning vandalism, arson, etc. Prior to 9-11, they were classified as the biggest "domestic terrorist groups" so it's not really anything new.

I agree that once something is illegal making it even more illegal is silly and redundant. If you pay close attention, you'll see that most environmental law is basically property law, most tax-fraud is based on perjury/false testimony rules, etc, etc.

Silly and redundant...
Permalink KC 
January 22nd, 2006
Arson would not be an appropriate charge. Arson is when a guy has a compulsion to set things on fire, or when someone burns down their grocery store to get the insurance money, etc.

This was a case of people with a political agenda who were trying to intimidate people and send a message by using violence. That's terrorism.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 22nd, 2006
"Arson would not be an appropriate charge. Arson is when a guy has a compulsion to set things on fire, or when someone burns down their grocery store to get the insurance money, etc."

sorry Art, do you have a link showing where the law is limited to those situations?

Arson is when someone sets something on fire.


"This was a case of people with a political agenda who were trying to intimidate people and send a message by using violence. That's terrorism."

no shit sherlock. its also arson.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 22nd, 2006
In Soviet Union, the one great umbrella thing that could send mostly anybody to Gulag was being accused of sabotage. Which meant that teenage girls were sent to work camps for stealing a pool of thread from the factory they worked in.
Permalink Mr. Wumpus 
January 22nd, 2006
thats the point isn't it. 

we have all these laws about how people who break the law should be dealt with.

and now we have another 'bypass all those laws' option...if the police can fit their arrest into that description of a terrorist then they can skip a heap of the relevant parts...they can not provide access to lawyers, they can hold them indefinitely, they can tape them without warrants and so on.

thats not a good sign.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 22nd, 2006
So blurs the line. Prosecute them, sure! I'm just not sure how comfortable I am with distorting property destruction and genreal acts of vandalism into being equated with acts of violence and murder.
Permalink I am Jack's major mundane Monday 
January 23rd, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics