The New War on "Terror"

[CrazyRock 0]

http://www.counterpunch.org/potter05292004.html


RFC

-Seth

-Seth :)

[Kennedy 0]

How about we re-write that from another point of view.

They're a bunch of eco-freaks advocating and taking part is serious crimes agaisnt people and property

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

From a two year old editorial in the Philadelphia Enquirer

They're the ones going after Huntingdon workers in the United States and abroad - at the workplace, at their homes. At least two workers have been attacked, 11 cars firebombed, homes smashed, labs destroyed.

The spotlight of suspicion falls on the New Jersey-based animal rights group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC).

SHAC leader Kevin Kjonaas says the group uses only legal means. Yet its Web site, according to a Sunday Inquirer story, reports acts of violence, publishes the names of company executives, and urges activists to "go get 'em." The Web site recently featured a photograph of a car that was damaged and overturned in the driveway of a Huntingdon executive's home in Princeton.

Quote

Another from an "Independent Newspaper" featured on what I think might be the home page for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty

Between January and March, there were 46 recorded incidents, including 34 attacks on vehicles mainly involving corrosive fluid, shows research by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Intimidation techniques included 32 visits to the homes of company directors, up from 10 in 2003, and 24 "blockades" by phone, fax or e-mail, aimed at disrupting communication, compared to seven last year.

Quote

And yet another article regarding SHAC - this time from a site dedicated to "Debunking the animal rights movement" AnimalRights.net

In February animal rights extremists posted on a web site the names and addresses of two British judges involved in animal rights cases. And, for good measure, the extremists added the names and addresses of family members of the judges.

Justice Hallet, 54, was targeted because she granted an injunction preventing protesters from harassing Chiron employees, while Justice Owen, 59, has made a series of rulings in favor of Huntingdon Life Sciences and against animal rights activists harassing its employees.

The web site included a veiled threat that the judges are, "not immortal -- they do not live in fireproof houses."

These are extremists who are willing to go well outside the bounds of the law, or even civil disobedience. I have no sympathy for them at all. None.

By the way - it took about two minutes on Google to find these references, I didn't have to dig at all. The point is this, if this were a responsible group working within the bounds of the law, or even advocating simple civil disobedience, it would have been a bit more difficult to dig up the dirt.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[CrazyRock 0]

Quote

By the way - it took about two minutes on Google to find these references, I didn't have to dig at all. The point is this, if this were a responsible group working within the bounds of the law, or even advocating simple civil disobedience, it would have been a bit more difficult to dig up the dirt.

Jim

True.. I should have looked b4 i posted.. pretty interesting.

So, would you call these people terrorists though? Or their acts as terrorism? when i think of terrorism i think of people killing many people in an explosive way. In these ariticles i haven't seen anything about them killing anyone.... Is stocking terrorism? how about vandelism??
Theres no question i think what they are doing is wrong (which is really too bad, b/c i don't like animal testing either.) but is the label of terrorism going overboard?

-Seth :)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

These are extremists who are willing to go well outside the bounds of the law, or even civil disobedience.

I agree, but there needs to be a distinction made between groups like this, and those who would like to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. Their acts are criminal, and wrong. But by grouping them with Al Queda, it diminishes the importance of stopping AQ.

Ashcroft also used the patriot act to go after a strip club owner in Vegas. I thought the point of that act was to target terrorists, but the gov't is expanding the scope of the patriot act and the terrorism label. We need to be very wary of what the gov't does with its new power to investigate and prosecute or we could easily slip down toward an authoritarian state. It almost happened during the depression, the fascist party won many local and state elections and almost took the white house. When extremists keep their true motives hidden until they have the power they seek, it's too late.

[Kennedy 0]

So would you say ELF and ALF are not terrorists?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So would you say ELF and ALF are not terrorists?

Yes. But we implemented a whole new set of rules and delegated a whole bunch of effort to respond to the threat that AQ poses. I just think it would be a mistake to take away from that effort to go after these other terrorists. I consider a group that wants to anhilate as many civilians as possible much more of a threat to me and the general population than a group that destroys logging equipment.

Yes, they're both terrorist acts, but there's a world of difference.

[Kennedy 0]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that we need to do everything we can to thwart AQ on American soil. Does that mean that we should stop investigating other groups plotting violence, destruction, and disruption of commerce?

AQ needs law enforcement, nat security/intelligence, and military response.

POS like ELF and ALF need law enforcement and maybe some intelligence (message interception, etc).

Dealing with one should not leave us vulnerable to the other.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree with you 100%. I'm just saying that we need to provide additional resources to battle foreign terrorists. But at the same time, we need to be careful that we don't let those additional tools and powers be expanded because once you group domestic environmental terrorists with AQ, then it's much easier to group people practicing non-terroristic civil disobedience with them, and then protestors, etc.

It's like the whole "racially motivated" tag to crime that was discussed on here a few days ago. If we allow that tag of "terrorist" to be expanded to greatly to encompass other criminals, then it loses the power it could have over battling AQ while infringing on the rights of US citizens.

All I'm saying is, we live in interesting times, and we need to be careful how we react to the challenges that we are facing.

[Kennedy 0]

Well, there's the sticky thing about law enforcement.

LEOs need powers to get the job done.
People want them to get the job done.
But people don't want those powers used on them.
So they say "you can have powers against them, but not us."
Then "them" becomes "us."

Final answer - don't give cops powers you wouldn't want them to use against you, because otherwise there's every chance they will.

....I was just trying to think of an example where a good person is screwed because cops do their job on the info they have...
Then I remembered who I'm talking to.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Yeah, I think we're in agreement on this one. We have to be vigilant not only against terrorists, but what the fear of them can do in terms of the harm that we cause ourselves.

[Kennedy 0]

Yup.

More and more I am reminded of that little quote about trading freedom for security.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

They're the ones going after Huntingdon workers in the United States and abroad - at the workplace, at their homes. At least two workers have been attacked, 11 cars firebombed, homes smashed, labs destroyed.

Sounds like terrorists to me.

[newsstand 0]

First off I do not agree with the means these people are taking to get their point across.

Second point. History is written by the victors. What would we have called the founding fathers if they had lost and we were still British subjects?

Thirdly all of these wonderful new legal powers and we have seven AQ associated terrorists inside the country. How the hell did they get in?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I agree, but there needs to be a distinction made between groups like this, and those who would like to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. Their acts are criminal, and wrong. But by grouping them with Al Queda, it diminishes the importance of stopping AQ.

Update: The SHAC folks have been indicted. Looking over the indictment I don't think that they're being charged with anything having to do with, or related to, the Patriot Act. The indictment is posted here.

Looks like they're being charged with Animal Enterprise Terrorism (43) (which seems to have been around since '92), Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States (371), Interstate Stalking (2261A), and Interstate Violation of a Protection Order (2262). All are covered under Title 18 of the US Code.

Kevin, do you still believe that the prosecution of these groups detracts or distracts from our search for Al-Queda and other foreign terrorists?

Thanks to Lawrocket for clearing up how to read the indictment.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

True.. I should have looked b4 i posted..

Does that really break from your usual pattern?

. . =(_8^(1)

[CrazyRock 0]

Quote

Quote

True.. I should have looked b4 i posted..

Does that really break from your usual pattern?

whats that suppose to mean?

Quote

I agree, but there needs to be a distinction made between groups like this, and those who would like to detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. Their acts are criminal, and wrong. But by grouping them with Al Queda, it diminishes the importance of stopping AQ.

Ashcroft also used the patriot act to go after a strip club owner in Vegas. I thought the point of that act was to target terrorists, but the gov't is expanding the scope of the patriot act and the terrorism label. We need to be very wary of what the gov't does with its new power to investigate and prosecute or we could easily slip down toward an authoritarian state. It almost happened during the depression, the fascist party won many local and state elections and almost took the white house. When extremists keep their true motives hidden until they have the power they seek, it's too late.

Quote

LEOs need powers to get the job done.
People want them to get the job done.
But people don't want those powers used on them.
So they say "you can have powers against them, but not us."
Then "them" becomes "us."

Final answer - don't give cops powers you wouldn't want them to use against you, because otherwise there's every chance they will.

I agree with both of those. personally, i think the patriot act and ones like it are a little scary in the broad powers that they give.

Quote

More and more I am reminded of that little quote about trading freedom for security.

I'll post it for anyone who doesn't know it.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
* Source: Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

-Seth

-Seth :)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Kevin, do you still believe that the prosecution of these groups detracts or distracts from our search for Al-Queda and other foreign terrorists?

Nope. I'm glad tehy were charged that way. Fortunately there were existing laws in place to cover their crimes. My fear is that new laws will be used more broadly then they were intended.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

My fear is that new laws will be used more broadly then they were intended.

I don't doubt that will happen, not at all. I think that history shows us that that always happens.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[bodypilot90 0]

you mean this

Quote

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

by Ben Franklin