Comment post #2

Over at The Core 4, a post linked to an article in Salon about the trial of a woman supposed to be an "eco-terrorist." The article focused on how the definition of what constitutes "terrorism" has been expanded since 9/11, in some ways specifically to include environmental and animal rights activists, and raised questions about the government's conduct in the particular case, suggesting other defendants may have been pressured into naming a possibly innocent person.

In response, a commenter, after saying "I know I run the risk of having my moderate-liberal membership card revoked here," wrote:

Why is calling the destruction of property in the name of eco-protest NOT a terrorist act? ... Aren’t the real scumbags in this case ... the other eco-protesters who appear to have randomly chosen Ms. [Briana] Waters[, the woman the article discussed,] to throw under the bus as a way to “cooperate”?

[A]sserting that just because the justice department is using the new terrorism provisions to hunt down destructive protesters it will lead to persecution of non-violent protesters ... is paranoid sophistry. ...

I am all for stiff penalties for anyone engaged in the destruction of life or property, or putting life or property at risk, for the sake of their cause. If this frightens the environmentalists, good! They should keep better track of who they are associating or collaborating with....

Seeing concern with government coercion and threats to civil liberties labeled "paranoid sophistry" certainly didn't sit well with me, so I replied.

Okay, your card can get revoked right along with mine in the “courteous discourse” society.

You are wrong on just about every single count.

You don’t see the connection? How about that the definition of “terrorism” has been changed and expanded dramatically so that things there were previously property crimes are now tossed into the “Terrorism! Terrorism! Be afraid! They’re everywhere!” pot? As the article noted, “terrorism” used to require “violence perpetrated against non-combatants.” Now all that’s required is for a crime to be “calculated to influence ... government.” By that definition, during Vietnam anyone who burned a draft card was a terrorist.

Or how about the fact that “intentionally damag[ing] or cause[ing] the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise” is now defined in federal law as “terrorism?” Or the fact that three states now say that, in the words of the article, “any act of destruction aimed at protecting animal rights or punishing ecological despoilers” is terrorism? Some radical members of the Humane Society break into a puppy mill one night, photographing and taping the horrible conditions there, which they publicize to advocate for stricter laws. They have broken the law to influence government, they have damaged personal property of the puppy mill, and they have done so to protect animal rights. They are terrorists three times over!

Which makes your sneer about “paranoid sophistry” as bogus as it’s possible to be. Not only because the designation of “terrorist” is already being applied to people who would not have qualified as such previously but also because it is hideously bad public policy to give increased power to government under the assumption that it will never be used. Or are you prepared to assume that only “the bad guys” will be the target of warrantless wiretaps and NSL searches?

As for the “scumbags,” the FBI’s own records say that [cooperating defendant] Jennifer Kolar named four people as accomplices - but it wasn’t until some weeks later, during the fifth or sixth “interview,” that Kolar was able to secure a plea bargain by “remembering” that Waters had been there. Note, too, that the feds had shown pictures of Waters to Kolar and that cooperating defendant Stanislas Meyerhoff was also asked about Waters by name. That reads to me that the feds were for whatever reason determined to get Waters and told Kolar, in effect, “you want the deal? You name Waters.” If Kolar threw Waters under the bus, then it damn well was the feds that dragged her to the curb and damn well the feds that drove the bus.

Finally, you’re glad that environmentalists are frightened that potentially, even nonviolent protests could be regarded as “terrorism?” You’re happy that people can be intimidated from expressing their views (which is exactly what “chilling effect” means) not because of what they say or do but because of what some people or groups they are “associating with” say or do? I find that appalling.

And a footnote, a separate point, a purely philosophical question not related to the above but prompted by your comment: You say “I am all for stiff penalties for anyone engaged in the destruction of life or property, or putting life or property at risk, for the sake of their cause.” What penalty, then, for soldiers in combat, who are most assuredly doing precisely that? Do they get a pass? On what basis? Or is it that what is done by governments gets a pass? On what basis?

I really would have liked to have gotten a discussion going on that last, independent point, but there was no response to it.

Footnote: Again, if you want to see the orignal post, the linked article, and all comments, this is the link.