2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Your are confusing "international terrorism" with domestic "terrorism." International terrorism is defined under U.S. law as involving actions that:

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended?
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

The cases under discussion involve domestic terrorism, which is defined as follows (taking the time to actually look up the particulars, now):

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended?
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

There was no government policy being targeted that I can see. The only people affected were individual property owners, not entire civilian populations. And not mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping was involved. Thus, the key element of terrorism, the intent to create change in the government or in society at large, is not met. The acts in question are not terrorism and neither society nor justice are served by trying to stretch the definition of terrorism to encompass the crimes in question.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

According to the applicable U.S. law, "terrorism" involves criminal violence or acts that are dangerous to human life with the intent:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

The issue is not whether people are intended as targets given that the acts in question are criminally violent on their face. The issue worthy of question is whether the acts are intended to turn the government or an entire population of citizens against existing laws and policies or their enforcement. There does not seem to be evidence for such intent. In fact, one would be hard pressed to cogently state the specific laws or policies that the vandals or arsonists were intent on challenging, let alone which population or government bodies they sought to coerce to bring about such change. Thus, the charge of terrorism seems specious.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

In order to be an act of terrorism under U.S. law, there must be intent to:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

The commentators implied that there may have been some intent to change government policies or laws, but no laws or policies of interest were identified, nor is there any plausible connection between burning some SUVs or homes without any political commentary and the conclusion that these acts are intended to change laws or policies absent some expression of such a purpose.

Clearly kidnapping and assassination was not involved.

That leaves us with trying to influence an entire population of civilians. But without some sort of communication aimed at an entire population to tell them what is demanded of them, that definition is also unsatisfied.

The more likely purpose of the acts of vandalism in question was simply to destroy specific instruments of environmental destruction that the perpetrators found to be wrong and offensive in their view. That is a violent crime, but it is not terrorism.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

One should ask which laws the vandals set out to change or turn whole populations against, as the legal definition of terrorism requires. I don't think that was their purpose. Rather, it seems they set out to destroy specific housing developments, SUV sales, etc., as a means of stopping individual acts of environmental destruction through individual acts of destruction of the machinery of environmental degradation. That doesn't make their actions right or lawful, but it doesn't make them terrorist actions either. The terrorism charge is just a politically motivated bit of practical terrorism (in the common, not legal, sense of the word) on the part of a corrupt Justice Department with an anti-environmental agenda shared throughout the Bush administration.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

FBI spokesperson Steele characterizes her agency's approach to these cases as fair and impartial. I am finding that hard to swallow. Let us not forget that the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a key part, has been recognized as being corrupted from top to bottom by overt politicization at the hands of Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Meiers, and perhaps Karl Rove and George Bush himself. The choices of whom to hire, especially in prosecutorial positions, have been deliberately crafted to uphold the interests of a very right wing administration that has been openly hostile to the environment while promoting destructive business and lifestyle practices that are poisoning our air and water while threatening to dangerously destabilize worldwide climate systems. Ms. Steele is in the employ of an administration that has made the absurd claim that "eco-terrorism" is the greatest threat to domestic security--even though there were no acts of "eco-terrorism" being committed at the time. This is a politically motivated witch hunt, not unlike the politically motivated witch hunt for nonexistant WMD used to justify an illegal war and occupation in Iraq.

In particular, the charge of terrorism seems to be trumped up. The main issue is not whether or not one could imagine how someone might be hurt by acts of sabotage against machinery that harms the environment as a matter of course, as the broadcast commentators suggested. The main problem with the terrorism charge is that no one has been able to explain which, if any laws the acts of sabotage were meant to turn the government or the public at large against. Not once did any commentator offer any evidence that the acts of sabotage were meant to lead to changes in the enforcement or definition of any law.

It seems much more likely that the real and obvious purpose of these acts of sabotage was to directly stop acts of environmental destruction by destroying the machinery of destruction. That is still a crime, and not to be condoned, but it should not be construed as terrorism. Doing so not only leads to a miscarriage of justice for the environmentally motivated saboteurs but also warps our concept of what terrorism is and how to prevent it.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context