Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Feds To Continue Politically Motivated Prosecution of Eco-Saboteurs
Monday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken gave the government the green light to attempt to brand 10 environmental and animal rights activists as terrorists, though they caused no injury to human life. Pursuant to Judge Aiken’s opinion that a “federal crime of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury,” the government will likely seek harsher prison sentences under the terrorism enhancement provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Aiken has retained discretion to determine whether the terrorism enhancement provision should apply to each individual defendant involved in arsons intended to stem environmental destruction and animal abuse. The ruling does require however, that the prosecutors prove that defendants’ actions were directed at the government itself and not just at private or corporate entities.
Civil Rights Outreach Committee
For Immediate Release: May 22, 2007
Contacts:
Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, 541-687-9180
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR, 503-295-6400, 202-491-6204
Feds To Continue Politically Motivated Prosecution of Eco-Saboteurs
Judge’s ruling opens door for activists to be sentenced for decades
Eugene, OR – Monday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken gave the government the green light to attempt to brand 10 environmental and animal rights activists as terrorists, though they caused no injury to human life. Pursuant to Judge Aiken’s opinion that a “federal crime of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury,” the government will likely seek harsher prison sentences under the terrorism enhancement provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Aiken has retained discretion to determine whether the terrorism enhancement provision should apply to each individual defendant involved in arsons intended to stem environmental destruction and animal abuse. The ruling does require however, that the prosecutors prove that defendants’ actions were directed at the government itself and not just at private or corporate entities.
“This decision broadens the definition of terrorism by not requiring a ‘substantial risk of injury,’” said Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center. “The question now is how the enhancement provision will apply to each defendant, so the prosecution must show that each individual intended to influence or affect the conduct of government, and not that of private companies. In this case, the court has set forth a very heavy burden for the government to meet.”
The ruling opens a Pandora’s Box that could result in additional politically motivated prosecutions by the Justice Department seeking to brand activists as “terrorists.” The court’s decision may also set a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by the federal government to seek greater prison time for political activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience.
“The government now has a larger hammer to wield against political activists engaged in traditional forms of civil disobedience,” said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the NW Constitutional Rights Center. “There is a very real possibility that prosecutors will use the threat of a terrorism enhancement and increased prison time to send a chilling message to political activists that may have engaged in unlawful but symbolic actions, even if they pose no substantial risk of injury.”
The court will hold sentencing hearings for each defendant starting today (May 22) through June 5 and will determine whether the terrorism enhancement applies to each defendant individually.
Copies of a press packet with current related articles, background information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history of F.B.I. repression of political activism are available.
###
For Immediate Release: May 22, 2007
Contacts:
Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, 541-687-9180
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR, 503-295-6400, 202-491-6204
Feds To Continue Politically Motivated Prosecution of Eco-Saboteurs
Judge’s ruling opens door for activists to be sentenced for decades
Eugene, OR – Monday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken gave the government the green light to attempt to brand 10 environmental and animal rights activists as terrorists, though they caused no injury to human life. Pursuant to Judge Aiken’s opinion that a “federal crime of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury,” the government will likely seek harsher prison sentences under the terrorism enhancement provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge Aiken has retained discretion to determine whether the terrorism enhancement provision should apply to each individual defendant involved in arsons intended to stem environmental destruction and animal abuse. The ruling does require however, that the prosecutors prove that defendants’ actions were directed at the government itself and not just at private or corporate entities.
“This decision broadens the definition of terrorism by not requiring a ‘substantial risk of injury,’” said Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center. “The question now is how the enhancement provision will apply to each defendant, so the prosecution must show that each individual intended to influence or affect the conduct of government, and not that of private companies. In this case, the court has set forth a very heavy burden for the government to meet.”
The ruling opens a Pandora’s Box that could result in additional politically motivated prosecutions by the Justice Department seeking to brand activists as “terrorists.” The court’s decision may also set a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by the federal government to seek greater prison time for political activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience.
“The government now has a larger hammer to wield against political activists engaged in traditional forms of civil disobedience,” said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the NW Constitutional Rights Center. “There is a very real possibility that prosecutors will use the threat of a terrorism enhancement and increased prison time to send a chilling message to political activists that may have engaged in unlawful but symbolic actions, even if they pose no substantial risk of injury.”
The court will hold sentencing hearings for each defendant starting today (May 22) through June 5 and will determine whether the terrorism enhancement applies to each defendant individually.
Copies of a press packet with current related articles, background information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history of F.B.I. repression of political activism are available.
###
For more information:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"gave the government the green light to attempt to brand 10 environmental and animal rights activists as terrorists, though they caused no injury to human life. Pursuant to Judge Aiken’s opinion that a “federal crime of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury,”
Should it? WHY should it? In other words, why should physical violence be a NECESSARY part of "terrorism"?
Let's try an example for discussion. One that has nothing to do with the merits of the current case (I am NOT trying to take a position about whether THAT is terrorism; just the proposition that "terrorism" REQUIRES physical violence to persons).
I live in a small New England town where we still decide things in "town meeting". Votes in town meeting are not by secret ballot but typically show of hands so you can know how people voted. Now let's say there was some contentious issue and the A's notified the B's "if we see any person's hand raised to vote NO on that question, they will get rocks through their windows, their barns will be burned down, etc.". Or how about this one, a notice to the Blacks of the town that if they are seen to vote thus and so, or even to show up to speak at town meeting, the same.
You wouldn't call THAT "terrorism" in spite of the lack of physical attack on persons? Discuss.
Should it? WHY should it? In other words, why should physical violence be a NECESSARY part of "terrorism"?
Let's try an example for discussion. One that has nothing to do with the merits of the current case (I am NOT trying to take a position about whether THAT is terrorism; just the proposition that "terrorism" REQUIRES physical violence to persons).
I live in a small New England town where we still decide things in "town meeting". Votes in town meeting are not by secret ballot but typically show of hands so you can know how people voted. Now let's say there was some contentious issue and the A's notified the B's "if we see any person's hand raised to vote NO on that question, they will get rocks through their windows, their barns will be burned down, etc.". Or how about this one, a notice to the Blacks of the town that if they are seen to vote thus and so, or even to show up to speak at town meeting, the same.
You wouldn't call THAT "terrorism" in spite of the lack of physical attack on persons? Discuss.
Mike Novack wrote;
"
"if we see any person's hand raised to vote NO on that question, they will get rocks through their windows, their barns will be burned down, etc.".
"
No, this comparison to animal/ecoactivist sabism does not qualify. The option to vote on whether a community wants a suburban sprawl development and/or animal research facility was probably never given. Nobody suggests to harass voters (except for Jeb & GW Bush regime 2X in FL!) if only the community was given a fair, balanced and informed vote! Since sabists target abusive corporations, not individuals (except those who work in upper management positions for said corporations!), the comparison is also lacking..
When further expanding our definitions of "terrorism" we can also apply the term to the US government and US multinational corporations that engage in economic terrorism against communities to force their profit driven projects onto people against their will. In these cases any and all resistance to these undesired corporate projects will be termed as self defense! Offering a struggling community a destructive project (ie., animal research facility, petrochemical factory, etc..) with the promise of jobs or nada is indeed a form of economic terrorism..
Since corporations frequently employ economic hitmen, it follows that corporations do indeed engage in economic terrorism against communities at home and abroad..
"AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that."
interview @;
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
"
"if we see any person's hand raised to vote NO on that question, they will get rocks through their windows, their barns will be burned down, etc.".
"
No, this comparison to animal/ecoactivist sabism does not qualify. The option to vote on whether a community wants a suburban sprawl development and/or animal research facility was probably never given. Nobody suggests to harass voters (except for Jeb & GW Bush regime 2X in FL!) if only the community was given a fair, balanced and informed vote! Since sabists target abusive corporations, not individuals (except those who work in upper management positions for said corporations!), the comparison is also lacking..
When further expanding our definitions of "terrorism" we can also apply the term to the US government and US multinational corporations that engage in economic terrorism against communities to force their profit driven projects onto people against their will. In these cases any and all resistance to these undesired corporate projects will be termed as self defense! Offering a struggling community a destructive project (ie., animal research facility, petrochemical factory, etc..) with the promise of jobs or nada is indeed a form of economic terrorism..
Since corporations frequently employ economic hitmen, it follows that corporations do indeed engage in economic terrorism against communities at home and abroad..
"AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that."
interview @;
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network