Eco-Terrorism? Who in the hell are getting terrorized by these pranksters? IMO the Justice Department and FBI under the Bush Administration have their priorities f*cked up. We have much more seriously criminal and high-impact terrorizing acts committed by various groups that endangers millions of Americans in this country, which apparently are not highest on their list. To name a few: - anti-abortion clinic terrorism that's responsible for killing scores of legally practising nurses and doctors and still threatening many others; - vast corporate terrorism that rips off millions of hard working Americans of their retirement plans and pensions; - vast pharmaceutical and insurance terrorism that denies the poor, elderly and sick Americans their rights of getting affordable treatments Another revealing chapter in Bush's sorry presidency.
wnes, you're saying that acts of arson and sabotage should not be prosecuted? The abortion clinic bombings and "corporate terrorism" (I'm guessing you're talking about Enron, Worldcom, etc) are both being prosecuted. I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about with the "pharmaceutical and insurance terrorism". Could you provide some links and support for that? This thread seems to lack any content of substance.
I actually agree with bigtexx on this one. Eco-terrorists have done some serious damage to communities including burning down houses and cars and vandalizing and destroying businesses that aren't environmentally friendly enough. The Earth Liberation Front has been around for years and has systematically targeted civilians and businesses alike. They are at the very least equivalent to the abortion clinic bombings and considering the frequency of their arson and the fact that they have never been caught or prosecuted before, it certainly adds up to something more than most other crimes.
i rather take these guys out than al qaeda. im not quite sure where i stand on abortion, but you can't be killing the doctors. (but don't give me the crap about killing an innocent baby, because i'll just quote and reply with "blah blah blah and blah.")
Yep. They knew they were breaking the law and they knew that if they got caught, they'd do time. Oblige them. That said, it has been fairly well documented that the Justice Dept. under Bush has downplayed events and threats coming from the fringe right-wing. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_dneiwert_archive.html#107257032555368697
These acts, though harmful to a certain degree, never rise to the level of terrorism. For the head of FBI to claim "Eco-Terrorism" is on the highest of his agenda is just pathetic. The two said companies are the ones that got publicity -- the Justice Department had to do something to quell some public outcries. (Enron case is still pending, it's possible you could be singing the praise too early) There are many more Enron and Worldcom-like coporate scandals, typically with CEOs and top executives walking away with hefty severance pays while the regular employees were left in the dark. Nothing was done them. The direct impact of these events on affected American workers are no less than terrorist attack. Skyrocketing medical costs and insurance premiums in US have forced many seniors to avoid seeing doctors, skip and cut short medications, and cross borders to purchase the drugs that are far less expense than the same ones that are sold domestically. In a very real sense these folks are terroized by the concerted effort on the part of pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and corrupt Congresspersons (As an example, FDA, commissioned under the Congress goes all out to ban import drugs in the name of safty concerns).
Corporate irresponsibility is the Securities and Exchange Commission's job. They're the ones who investigate and enforce the law when it comes to corporate ethics. Also Congress has a role in this. Its not the FBI's job to prosecute corporate crime. You can have the FBI fight eco-terrorists and have the SEC cut down on corporate fraud. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I realize that we have a tendency to equate everything to "terrorism" because both terrorism and rising medical costs impact the lives of individuals. However, skyrocketing medical costs is a burden that Congress must deal with. It involves regulations and policy implementation, not FBI surveillance. Once again like the examples above, they're not mutually exclusive. Both eco-terrorism and rising medical costs suck. But one isn't an excuse not to pursue the other.
Wnes, sorry but I will have to disagree with you on this one. There is such a thing as "eco-terrorism". When a radical group like the ELF destroys property that costs millions of dollars in damages just to intimidate people who disagree with them, then they're radical extremist scum and should be targeted by law enforcement. As for the "priority" thing, it's the job of our law enforcement officials to prosecute all law breakers, regardless of whether or not there are seemingly more important things to do. This country is resourceful enough to be able to handle homeland security and the prosecution of "eco-terrorists" all at once.
ELF members are nuts. They give Greens a bad name and probably flush the toilet after only pissing twice...
So, if they're 'terrorists' (as Gonzales gleefully calls them) does this mean the PATRIOT Act applies?
But why avoid the meat of the matter to split hairs over some mild hyperbole? The Feds call it "eco-terrorism" - so, since 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are not defined in the PATRIOT Act, does that mean that these 'eco-terrorists' can be held under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act? What does it require for someone to be considered a terrorist in the legal sense? Does Gonzales just declare it so?
As far as I know, they aren't doing anything under the Patriot Act and their crimes were committed prior to the Patriot Act even existing. These types of groups have been called "Eco-Terrorists" well before 9/11. These criminals are being indicted under the law and, if guilty, I hope they are prosecuted as the law allows. I don't see what the "meat of the matter" is. These folks allegedly commited crimes. I don't see a story here. Also, based on the timeline, it appears that this Eco-terrorist group was being investigated while Clinton was still in the White House.
Terrorism? The only things damaged were the pocketbooks of corporate hucksters. You can't terrorize paper and coins. If guilty, the culprits should be thrown in jail for their actions. Arson is a crime. Sabotage is a crime. But they are not terrorists. It's terrifying that our government would lump them with idiots who target people instead of lab rats.
So arson can't terrorize people? Arson can't kill many people? rimrocker, care to disagree with Mr GreenVegan?
The Eco-Terrorist are as misguided as any in there violent actions and should get smacked and do some time in lockdown. Maybe someone should introduce these folks to some non-violent forms of protest. Maybe they have never heard of MLK and Ghandhi.
ANYTHING can terrorize people. Ignorant people in power terrorize me. Does that make neo-cons terrorists? Crime is not terrorism, no matter how easy it would be to label it as such.
Eco-terrorism is no less than a loaded political propaganda. It should be noted that these so-claimed arsons and sabotages were never targeted at human beings, probably as the results of merticulous planning and executions by ELF and ALF members to avoid the loss of human lives. Such can not be said about any other true terrorist groups and their operations. Ever heard of the terms environmentalist wacko and econazi? Yes, the Justice Department and FBI are acting as right-wing extremist Rush Limbaugh's political pawns. If you think only SEC and Congress -- which BTW are not the innocent parties in all of these -- should deal with corporate *irresponsibility*, then by the same token, it is the US Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and EPA's job to handle nature and animal defenders, aka misguided saboteurs/arsonists. Like GreenVegan said, we should not call a crime terrorism simply because we see it fits right into our political goal. Tell me about outcome on the bio-terrorism, aka the anthrax case.
I don't think your post is necessarily in line with your original post. Your original argument was about mixed up priorities of the FBI and Domestic Surveillance Organizations. My response was that this was flawed because the FBI's job isn't to police corporations or to worry about rising medical costs. Their job is to stop criminal activity which even you admit this activity is. Also your arguments about how the Department of Interior or Agriculture need to enforce this stuff is just silly. These are environmental groups targeting homes, vehicles etc.. Yes the Department of Agriculture and Interior may deal with plants and the ELF wants to help plants but this similarity doesn't mean that they have anything to do with criminal law enforcement. If you made an argument about how this distracts focus and resources from the war on terror dealing with the likes of al qaeda then maybe just maybe you have an argument but the way you structure it now makes no sense. Additionally, your post about the fact that arsonists don't target people is irrelevant. Fine, they don't target people. But that's still a crime and still should be targeted. Ok fine the Government shouldn't use the term "eco terrorism" but that doesn't matter. The ELF and ALF have been committing arson and targeted attacks for decades and have NEVER been caught. If a serial arsonist burns down hundreds of houses and cars, you put significant resources into finding him. The same goes with ELF which has done exactly that. Prove to me that there is a significant tradeoff but until then, you have no case. Ok, the FBI and DOJ spent quite a bit of time and money on this one and didn't find the result. That's not because they didn't have the money and resources to find the culprit. It's because the culprit did a good job of hiding his identity and fooling investigators.
