Extending The Limits of Terrorism
The recent announcement of indictment of 11 “eco-terrorists�, featuring Alberto (The Torturer) Gonzales and FBI director Robert Mueller, was more than a little scary. The scary part wasn’t the unveiling of a
conspiracy that goes back over four years and involves the destruction of millions of dollars worth of property. The scary part is how people who conspire to set lab animals and horses free, monkey-wrench power lines and meat processing plants are lumped in with the people who destroyed the World Trade Center. And coming from Gonzales, the guy who thought the Geneva Accords were “quaint� and could be ignored, this is serious. It means anyone who harms property in the name of ecological civil disobedience is subject to extraordinary rendition (kidnapping), indefinite imprisonment, torture, and death.
“Terrorism is terrorism,� said Mueller, “no matter what the motive.�
This is yet another example of mission creep on the part of the Cheney administration: first it was using an obvious and horrendous act of terrorism as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with
terrorism, killing tens of thousands of innocent people and trashing whole cities, next it was suspending the constitution and international treaties to pursue a permanent war, then it was illegally spying on
thousands of “terrorists� and other unpleasant people, like the ACLU, all the while turning a blind eye to Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, etc etc and their tangible crimes.
The problem here is that we seem to have lost perspective, when crimes against property are treated as far more serious than, say, hate crimes against people, or even the wonderful folks who kill, injure and
terrorize abortion clinics. They aren’t classed as terrorists.
An FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief, addressing the House Resources committee in 2002 provided the congressmen with the FBI’s definition of terrorism. “International terrorism,� he said, involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws. . .�
Domestic terrorism, on the other hand, “is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence. . .committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government. . .in furtherance of political or
social objectives.� The definition of international terrorism included human life, the domestic terrorism definition did not. One shudders to think what would happen now to the kids who brought the stump into Frank Riggs’ office in 1997 and locked themselves to it.
While I wouldn’t say that people who commit acts of vandalism, arson, or other property crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted, and certainly people like Ted Kosinsky should be given the maximum penalty for killing and injuring innocent people. But let’s not forget, folks, that setting animals free or cutting down billboards is a hell of lot different from crashing airplanes full of people into buildings, or blowing up trains
and subways."
Comments
I wonder what percentage of people in the world are honest and respectful of others. It seems like the vast majority are bad people, or is my vision being colored by the news media? What is meant by "breaking a law" and should all law breakers be punished? Punishment seems to be less of a deterrent than it should be. If you look at the punishments handed out in the handfull of cases published in Sunday's paper there is very little difference in the punishment received for vastly different crimes. Those punishments didn't seem to be very harsh for some convictions. Is 120 days of probation a big deal. I never tried it, so I really don't know, but it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. Maybe it's because we are all guilty of something and the judges don't want to treat someone unfairly just because they are the only ones that got caught. I'm sure the real reason is that the prisons are full and the prisons are not much of a deterrent anyway. What do we do now. Take away their birthday?
Posted by: Len Henell | January 31, 2006 05:00 PM
Can I add the St. Patrick's Day Four to the mix? These are the Catholic Worker activists who went onto a military base and threw their own blood on government property to protest the start of the carpet bombing of Iraq. They got a stiff dressing down from the judge who was "shocked" at their lack of respect for government property and sentenced them to - I think it was four months -in prison. Really this is no different than the reaction the Berrigan brothers got from their "property crimes" and "lack of respect for government property" during a previous war when they threw blood on draft files. It is not in the nature of fascists or totalitarian types to draw fine distinctions. Now if they wanted to drop some bombs on someone's private property, or maybe confiscate it for the benefit of some corporate entity, that would be different. All property rights are sacred, but some are more sacred than others.
Posted by: Mary | January 31, 2006 10:10 PM
Throwing your own blood on anything is pretty weird.
Posted by: Robb Willis | February 3, 2006 09:13 PM