Posted on 05/15/2007 9:56:11 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
EUGENE, Ore. - Their guilt isn't in question. The six men and four women already admitted being involved in a series of arson fires that did $40 million in damage to research facilities, a ski resort and other businesses in the West. But are they terrorists as the government says?
A federal judge was set to hear arguments Tuesday on a motion by the government to add a so-called terrorism enhancement to their sentences.
Prosecutors want Judge Ann Aiken to declare the group terrorists — something defense attorneys argue has never happened in 1,200 arsons nationwide claimed by Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.
The defense argues that branding their clients terrorists is more about politics than sentencing.
"The Government has Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' political agenda to advance with this case, and nothing else to lose if the Court declines to impose the enhancement," wrote attorney Terri Wood, who represents Stanislas G. Meyerhoff.
Meyerhoff faces the stiffest sentence recommendation for his involvement in seven fires and the toppling of a high-tension power line. The terrorism enhancement question will be settled in his case and, under an agreement with all parties, applied to the remaining defendants. Each has pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and arson.
A ruling that the 10 are terrorists is not likely to boost the time they spend behind bars — the prosecution recommends three to 16 years — but it could land them in tougher prisons.
The fires targeted forest ranger stations, meat packing plants, wild horse corrals, lumber mill offices, research facilities, an SUV dealer and, in 1998, Vail Ski Resort. No one was injured, the defense notes in legal motions.
The case, known as Operation Backfire, is the biggest prosecution ever of environmental extremists, and has turned on its head the prevailing idea that arsonists have generally acted alone, said Brent Smith, director of the Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas.
"We thought these people operated for the last 15 years under this kind of uncoordinated violence approach, just like the extreme right was doing — leaderless resistance," Smith said. "That's why this case is so very different."
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.
This handout photo provided Jan. 20, 2006 by the U.S. Attorneys' Office in Portland, Ore., shows the firebombed Cavel West horsemeat packing plant in Redmond on July 21, 1997. A hearing is set in Eugene, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, for 10 people in connection with acts of ecoterrorism.(AP Photo/US Attorneys' Office Portland Oregon)
WTF????
They target civilians. That makes them Terrorists.
The use of violence and destruction of property to further a ideological agenda... sounds like terrorism to me.
my guess is, that this is in refererence to Clinic Bombings and Arsons ....
...also Terrorism IMHO....
I don’t care if they are the Tooth Fairy. Most states have laws allowing deadly force to be used to prevent an arson. If the right people were in the right place at the right time, there would have been far fewer attacks and many of these people would have remembered urgent business elswhere, and returned to drumming circles and Kumbaya sings.
Yes, they are terrorists. Firebombing legitimate businesses and the homes of citizens to make a political point is the very definition of terrorism.
I would hold that there is a distinction to be made between sabotage and terrorism, between attacks on property and attacks on people.
Mrs VS
In that case add PETA to this list.
I’d agree to a certain extent.
This aspect has already been decided by Judge Ann Akin the liberal Democrat politico, graduate of the very liberal U. of Oregon Law School, and a Clinton appointee.
To what degree is PETA simply the recruiting, fundraising, and PR front for ELF and ALF?
That's fine. For property damage, give the perps a year in prison for every $1,000 in damage. If anybody is killed, execute the perps.
And go after everybody who donates to their front groups as accessories
Hmmm. Terrorism for $50.00. Is the answer the Earth Liberation Front?
Terrorism is best defined as “violence and/or the threat of violence against non-military targets, where non-military targets are deliberately chosen, and where the purpose is to achieve political goals by changing public opinion as a consequence of the fact that the non-military public will perceive itself as the intentional target of said violence.”
I believe that radical environmentalists typically commit acts of violence 1) as a form of protest, 2) as a way to (perhaps only temporarily) stop the party who is the victim of their violence from engaging in the activity(-ies) they consider evil, and 3) as a way to make others afraid to engage in any activities that the radical environmentalists see as evil.
It is important that the second motivation (stopping someone from doing what the initiator of the violence considers to be evil from continuing to do evil) not be classified as terrorism. If any violent action against those doing evil were classified as terrorism, then policemen would be terrorists. There is not much utility in defining terrorism as violence against evildoers in cases where you don’t agree that the target of the violence is an evildoer. We already have a perfectly good term for those who commit violence that is not sanctioned by law: criminals. Terrorism should not simply be a synonym for violent crime.
But the last motivation (putting fear into others) satisfies the definition of terrorism.
“To what degree is PETA simply the recruiting, fundraising, and PR front for ELF and ALF?”
Not to a great degree; PeTA is not actually *run* by or affiliated with either of the other organizations - which, as your link makes clear, does not rule out their being *sympathetic* to the cause of eco-terrorism, or providing assistance to any ELF/ALF members dumb enough to get their asses in a sling...
Penn and Teller may have one of the most obnoxious shows on TV, but the “Bull$#|+!” episode on animal-rights activism was right on target.
Terrorism in the name of “liberation.” Brought to you by the same women who went on to found Code Pink.
Cuba’s a tropical paradise compared to what I would do to them...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.