Should eco-terrorists be treated like Al Queda?

[Count of Montesano]

Seattle's alternative weekly magazine just published an intriguing article on the US government's efforts at stamping out eco-terrorism.

For the past several years, a group of radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists have been waging a campaign of arson and vandalism against animal research facilities, housing developments bordering protected wildlands, and even SUV retailers. Now, the FBI has declared these guys are as dangerous as Al Queda, even though none of their acts of destruction have never injured or killed anyone.

In fact, federal prosecutors are pushing for the sentence of life without parole for 11 suspects arrested for burning down a ski lodge under construction and a meat factory that was closed for the night. Another suspected eco-terrorist received 22 years for setting three Hummers on fire - a sentence that would likely have been 5 years if he wasn't a member of a "terrorist" organization.

You can read more at the following link, but the writer does bring up three good points.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=29472

1. Are eco-terrorists really the same threat as Al Queda or other extremists bent on destroying mass human life? Eco-terrorists have never harmed anyone in their attacks and purposely take every precaution not to harm humans.

2. If common criminals only get 5-15 years for property destruction/vandalism, why are "eco-terrorists" facing life sentences?

3. In an America that refuses to acknowledge global warming or the Kyoto treaty, where consumerism is out of control in many areas, are extreme acts of property violence needed to bring people to their senses?

Here's my take - eco-terrorism causes millions in property damage and always puts firefighters lives at risk. For that reason, I think they deserve harsher penalties than common thugs burning a building over a couple of beers on a slow Friday night. I don't think they should receive life or that the government devote the same amount of resources hunting them down as should be devoted to stopping terrorists who would conduct suicide bombings in downtown NY or LA.

[Mangalore]

sounds strange. Why should anyone be treated differently than others. I'd think someone killing 3000 people should be sentenced with the same punishment regardless wether he belongs to Al Qaeda, some eco-terrorists or some bowling club. Similarily someone claiming to belong to Al Qaeda and not harming anyone but damaging expensive property shouldn't be treated any harsher or milder than anyone else who commited some extensive kind of sabotage/vandalism.

One could consider locking them up in some psychatric establishment however this should also be based on their psychological situation and not on their political agenda.

[Kanaric]

Depends, most Ecoterrorists just vandalise cars and dont cause anything that can do immediate damage to people. They should just be jailed or fined.

However ecoterrorists that use REAL terrorist tactics such as bombings should be treated like any other terrorist group.

Most ecoterrorists do not start fires, the majority of cases are vandalizing of cars in the form of spraying slogans on them with cans of paint. The biggest eco terrorism arrest in recent years were people who were doing this kind of thing.

The second most common form of it is when they burn hummers. People are never hurt in these but it causes trouble for firefighters, doing this should result in huge jailtime.

[imb39]

:sign_stup That is essentially my take on it. I have sympathy with their cause but loathe their actions.

I'm reminded of other groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front who freed mink from farms in England... The result was an ecosystem that was ravaged. Stupid, ignorant people, if you ask me.

[Kanaric]

heh, distracting firefighters is never good.

[Irishman]

Dirty, dirty little hippies.

They do more damage than they do good and should be shipped off to france.

[Sheep]

They do more damage than they do good and should be shipped off to france.

Yeah, if you are into burning cars, apparently France is the place to do it!


My opinion is that they should be treated as normal arsonists if they burn stuff*, normal saboteurs if they destroy stuff, normal street punks if they vandalize stuff. And if they happen to actually hurt or even kill someone by their actions, the :wub: should hit the fan.

Right now I don't think they do things designed to hurt anyone, with very few exceptions. One that I can think of is driving metal spikes into trees. That is designed to interrupt the course of a buzzsaw in a lumbermill, which is basically going to cause SOMEONE to get hurt. Another is slashing tires of logging trucks, which could result in an injury accident.


*With the exception of Hummers. Every time I see a Hummer I have the urge to set it on fire. That is just normal. If anything they should be presented with a medal of some sort!

[Kanaric]

most hippies i know just smoke weed, they dont bomb cars.

Oh and go to burning man, thats besides the point.

These people are just extremists that believe that everyone should act exactly to their dictation, like any other fascist group.

[Dirty Harry]

The US goverment is going after hardcore cells of ecoterrorists that actually do set off bombs and set fire to buildings, the amount of these people number in the dozens. Quite a difference between these guys and some 19 yr old kid in anthropology who listens to rage against the machine and then decides to burn a flag/smash cars at a WTO meeting. Just like there is a difference between a vandal who spraypaints and smashes lights compared to an arson who sets fire to schools and hotels. One will spend a night in jail and get some probation, the other faces serious charges. Those small amount of guys running around the pacific northwest bombing ranger stations and research facilities are dangerous fanatics on the same level as a moslom terrorist and need to be punished by the full extent of the law.

[Sheep]

Just like there is a difference between a vandal who spraypaints and smashes lights compared to an arson who sets fire to schools and hotels.

I think most people would agree that burning a meat processing plant or even (gulp) a Hummer dealership counts as arson, not vandalism. The question is whether it should there should be more severe punishments for it than for normal arson. I tend to think that, to discourage further action, maximum sentences should be handed out within the current arson guidelines, at the discretion of the presiding judge. But I would not support opening up a new category of sentences for it, nor would I support convicting so-called eco-terrorists under terrorism statutes unless they actually start going around trying to hurt or kill people.

If you burn down an empty building, that is arson. If you burn down an empty building and happen to kill a fireman, that should be manslaughter or murder. If you intentionally burn down a building with people inside to make a political point... now THAT is terrorism.

[Dirty Harry]

Like I said, there's a few small cells that even set off bombs at places like ranger stations. These are the ones that are being arrested under terrorism charges.

[Homi]

Like I said, there's a few small cells that even set off bombs at places like ranger stations. These are the ones that are being arrested under terrorism charges.

Do they actively try to kill people? if no, why should they be treated differently than ordinary arson commiters?

[Erik]

Do they actively try to kill people? if no, why should they be treated differently than ordinary arson commiters?

They sometimes do.
For example by setting fire to a home where people are sleeping.

Eco-terrorists are terrorists, so they should be treated like terrorists.
IMO government have been far too easy on them.

[Sheep]

Like I said, there's a few small cells that even set off bombs at places like ranger stations.

Link? Reference? Not that I am trying to hurt your credibility, I just haven't heard that before.

[Dirty Harry]

Link? Reference? Not that I am trying to hurt your credibility, I just haven't heard that before.

I originally read it in a wall street journal editorial about a month ago, print addition and I don't have access to the online edition, but a quick google search brings up a page with these facts on their activities:

http://www.furcommission.com/resourc...ectdenson1.htm

to the guy above, I'm sorry but your friend has probably not been engaging in 100% lawful activities and it's the FBI's job to investigate people like that as they may be dangerous. If he has just been throwing rocks he will not be carted off to gitmo, but I'm glad they're diligint and search his computer to make sure he does not have any more sinister connections and activities going on.

[hjernespiser]

The US goverment is going after hardcore cells of ecoterrorists that actually do set off bombs and set fire to buildings, the amount of these people number in the dozens. Quite a difference between these guys and some 19 yr old kid in anthropology who listens to rage against the machine and then decides to burn a flag/smash cars at a WTO meeting.

Actually... I used to work with a person who the FBI is now after for ecoterrorism. There really was no difference between him and some 19 year old kid listening to rage against the machine as you suggest. Several folks I know had their computers comandeered by the FBI. I refuse to give out details about this on a public forum because I don't need the FBI snooping in my computers either. You're welcome to believe me or not. It is my opinion that the government highly exaggerates. The government wants you to give up your liberty and this is one way in which they do it.

[Last Roman]

well, while I think that their goals are more "noble" than that of religious terrorists, if they use violent methods, they should be treated like any other terrorist

[the_mango55]

Should someone who commits an act of vandalism or arson in the name of terrorism be prosecuted differently than a normal vandal or arsonist? This is an interesting ethical question. It is like hate crime laws, some people claim that hate crimes are worse because the motives are more sinister, others say that if the crimes ended up with the same result they should be tried as the same crime.

I suspect that a person's answer to one may be the same as the answer to another. I for one think that all crimes should be tried the same, whether they are terrorist, hate crimes, or "normal" crimes.

[Erik]

Should someone who commits an act of vandalism or arson in the name of terrorism be prosecuted differently than a normal vandal or arsonist? This is an interesting ethical question. It is like hate crime laws, some people claim that hate crimes are worse because the motives are more sinister, others say that if the crimes ended up with the same result they should be tried as the same crime.

I suspect that a person's answer to one may be the same as the answer to another. I for one think that all crimes should be tried the same, whether they are terrorist, hate crimes, or "normal" crimes.

Yeah, that's a good one.
I think they should get the same punishment, but they should also consider the chances of them committing the same crime once they get out.
According to my psychiatrist all terrorists suffer from a mental disease, so maybe they should just be locked up in a psychiatric ward until they are cured (or for the rest of their lives).

My comments were realy aimed at how I think the government/police should "hunt" for the eco-terrorists.
IMO eco-terrorists should get higher priority: they should be stalked and hunted down because, like all terrorists, they are walking timebombs.
I get the feeling my government/police pays too little attention to them becuase they aren't labled as dangerous like other terrorists are.

Also: if you can prevent $10 million in damages by spending $1 million on police the community saves $9 million.

[Last Roman]

I suspect that a person's answer to one may be the same as the answer to another. I for one think that all crimes should be tried the same, whether they are terrorist, hate crimes, or "normal" crimes.

that is a very good point