Defining Terrorism Down
On several occasions I've pointed out the extension of the PATRIOT Act to cover both ecoterrorism and narcoterrorism. Basically what this means is that the full force of the PATRIOT Act can be turned on environmental activists and drug criminals.
In this case, we don't know if elements of the PATRIOT Act were used during the investigation, but read the details of this case and tell me if these people are terrorists.
Now, I have to say, I don't really agree with the tactics and it does sound like they broke the law, but TERRORISM? I can't tell from this article the level of harassment, but sending black faxes, flooding email servers? Does this qualify as terrorism?
US prosecutors have just utilized terrorism statutes to protect the business interests of a private corporation.
Tell me that doesn't scare you a little bit.
(By the way, I'm not against animal testing, but if you don't know what Huntingdon does, they are indeed a house of cruelty. They are, without question, the worst actors in the animal testing industry. I'm not going to link to any of them, but there are undercover videos and documentaries on Huntingdon that will make you blanche. It's truly horrific.)
(I really haven't done enough for lily's Corruptco blogfest this week.)
In this case, we don't know if elements of the PATRIOT Act were used during the investigation, but read the details of this case and tell me if these people are terrorists.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A federal jury using an anti-terrorism law for the first time convicted six animal rights activists on Thursday for a campaign to drive a company out of business.
The jury in Trenton, New Jersey, found the defendants and their organization guilty of violating the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a federal law that was amended in 2002 to equate its offenses with terrorism. This marked the first trial and conviction under that law, federal officials said.....
Now, I have to say, I don't really agree with the tactics and it does sound like they broke the law, but TERRORISM? I can't tell from this article the level of harassment, but sending black faxes, flooding email servers? Does this qualify as terrorism?
US prosecutors have just utilized terrorism statutes to protect the business interests of a private corporation.
Tell me that doesn't scare you a little bit.
(By the way, I'm not against animal testing, but if you don't know what Huntingdon does, they are indeed a house of cruelty. They are, without question, the worst actors in the animal testing industry. I'm not going to link to any of them, but there are undercover videos and documentaries on Huntingdon that will make you blanche. It's truly horrific.)
(I really haven't done enough for lily's Corruptco blogfest this week.)
posted by mikevotes at
9:42 AM
1 Comments:
There have been many cases where it has been in our government's best interest in its mission to protect business operations versus the mission to uphold the rights of an autonomous citizenry- to liken environemtnal activists to terrorists. Their selective use of power serves as yet another example of a trinity gone awry- business, government, and the lobbyists.
Terror presupposes the use of a threat to a population much larger than the population that can reasonably and statistically be impacted by the actions of the group. So people in ten shopping malls worry about the potential for an attack on ONE shopping mall and seem to disconnect the relationship to probability. The fear is based on the emotional disproportion, which I posted about when I wrote on heuristics and referred to Friedman's work on the costs of homeland security. He points out in his writings that we are more likely to die from a car accident or the flu versus terrorism. The expense is not justifiable.
My point is that the mechanations of activists are not the same and should not be treated as the same thing. They act by seeking to impose a financial penalty on corporations that engage in wrongdoing. Now some cross the line, sure, but this is not terror this is called breaking the law. Laws can be borken peacefully, and groups can also seek legal remedies which are expensive and difficult to apply to a critical imminent problem.
What can somebody trying to stop a clearcut do? Seek an injunction? The REMEDY is not the same for activists. A n activist group tends to resort to lawbreaking when the need to interced is more urgent than legal remedies permit.
They might look a that. But they won't.
On Corruptco, I do appreciate the support and participation. I was not asking to hijack the blogworld for my own agenda, I was just trying to think up a creative way to tie corporate actions to the politics many of us write about. They are inextricably linked, and the solutions require not a change of party but in my opinion, a change in the role of government. Corporate lapdog, or in service of the people? Thanks Mike and keep in touch.
By
Anonymous, at 11:44 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home