Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

[russ_watters]

In referring to a wide brush, I think he is saying property damage is property damage, and what one person sees as revolutionary (or a "freedom fighter"), another sees as terrorism.

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not terrorism.

The definition of terrorism has been debated many times in PF. If you want to argue that there are such things as eco-terrorists, then I can argue that the US is a terrorist state.

By all means, feel free...

If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

 

[SOS2008]

Refer back to the post by loseyourname on page one; do you disagree with his definition of "terrorism" or how he applies it here, and if so can you give a better one?

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

...Other acts, which are nonviolent in nature, cannot be properly referred to as "eco-terrorism" even though they might be annoying or disruptive to others. However, some definitions are raising controversy and civil rights issues by using an all-encompassing definition that could be interpreted to include virtually all environmental protests, even those that would otherwise be legal.

The brush is becoming too wide, and obviously used by certain folks with a certain agenda.

 

[Art]

Big business in the US has decided environmentalists are bad for their interests and so they have used their clout to persuade (or bribe) the US gov't to attack the environmentalists' structures.

Proscribing their organisations as terrorism allows the gov't massive leeway in smashing what was becoming a very popular movement by seizing their assets and being able to arrest and detain people without them having recourse to the courts. In fact as they are now labelled terrorists they can even be shipped off to Guantanamo bay for torture and indefinite detention.

Apart from allowing corporate America to dismantle the existing environmental groups it also scares away any potential new members as they are afraid of being labelled terrorists and so becoming subject to the provisions of the Patriot Act. (One wonders how many people realized that this act was going to be used in this way?)

On an international level the corporate powers have successfully stalled any attempt at US involvement in international environmental protection laws even going so far as to still deny the existence of global warming through greenhouse gasses despite the fact that respected publications such as New Scientist have said they will no longer publish letters from the crackpots who try to argue this case.

 

[Informal Logic]

But as others have noted, which it is depends mostly on the intent of the crime. One thing that Skyhunter is right about is that property destruction simply for the sake of property destruction is not terrorism. By all means, feel free...
If you want to talk about things like the atomic bomb of WWII, I'm comfortable with defining that as a terrorist act. Calling the US a "terrorist state" is a little different (it implies that terrorism is an essential component of our existence), but regardless - you won't find the double-standard you hare hoping to find with me.

I do not hope to find double standards, and this is the point of such labeling. And to that point:

State terrorism is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition (see below). Depending on definition it can include acts of violence or repressions perpetrated by a national government or its proxy. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the speaker considers the action justified or necessary, or whether it is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It may also depend on whether the speaker supports the government in question.

State terrorism, where it is considered to apply, may be directed at the state's own population or at others. It may be carried out by the state's own forces (such as army or police) or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.

United States
A number of critics have labeled actions of the United States of America as terrorism. For instance, the U.S. has taken sides in various foreign civil wars and conflicts, notably siding with Israel against other Middle East countries. Also the U.S. is often accused of working with and supporting countries, political organizations, and juntas with questionable human rights practices and intentions. The CIA, in particular, has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations in other countries. (See also: Operation Condor, Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#United_States

One such critic has been the highly respected Noam Chomsky, excerpt from:

The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
An Interview with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian

...There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm

And this was before recent scandals regarding prisoner treatment, secret prisons, rendition, and so forth.

I do not completely agree with these definitions, and this is the point. As with any civil rights issue, one must understand the motive and direction of the term eco-terrorism. Acceptance of pejorative terms for one group opens the door for misuse toward other groups…perhaps one day a group or cause you support or participate in that someone else is against and wants to suppress.

 

[SOS2008]

BTW, in reading definitions of terrorism in Wikipedia and the various types, under religious terrorism the KKK is included as "A group of racist Protestant Christian organizations with a history of violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics."

Getting back to Bill O'Reilly and a recent broadcast on FOX News with Jerry Fallwell and claims there is a "war on Christmas," some education officials of targeted public schools have received hateful mail of all sorts, as well as guest Rev. Barry Lynn, including death threats. And then there is Pat Robertson...

I'll take a left-wing environmentalist over these blockheads any day. Hmm, or should I say Evangeli-terrorism? Well you get the drift (maybe)...

 

[rachmaninoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
As opposed to:

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning. Reread your own quote (now with my emphases):

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism [recently created ("coined") by Ron Arnold, an executive at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise] which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism. As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legally-protected forms of nonviolent protest by environmentalists, which is generally seen as an attempt to associate this activity with other more contentious acts that can legitimately be labeled as eco-terrorism.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

I will not advocate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who describe non-criminal protesters as "terrorists".

I think you are confusing me with Rush Limbaugh again.

 

[SOS2008]

Selective boldfacing of quotes doesn't change their meaning.

I am well aware of the entire text, all of which I included with intent. The portions in bold are made bold in accordance with my point that the term is being misused and blown out of proportion.

If you're trying to attack what Rush Limbaugh's followers say, that's entirely besides the point:

Providing an example of how such terms could be used in regard to other groups (Evangeli-terrorism) is completely relevant. Causing divisiveness, or even inciting people to violence (e.g., Robertson’s call for assassination of Chavez) is damaging. But like environmentalists, it is not what we all know real terrorism is, and at least in the case of global warming, the environmentalists have a worthy cause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You people have got to be joking. Environmentalists who destroy property are not terrorists. As stated above (by edward) they are breaking the law like any other arson, vandal or what have you.

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?
If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

A right-wing fundamentalist who bombs an abortion center resulting in death and/or injury—is that a terrorist?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be charged and punished?

Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

 

[SOS2008]

As stated by me above the circumstances of the crimes are not of the same nature as just any other vandal or arsonist.
Considering the position you are taking do you think it is wrong to charge people with "hate crimes" or charge them differently when they are engaging in illegal activities that are a part of organized crime or gang activity or some conspiracy that is more complex than the singular incident?

If you do think that the augmentation of charges to appropriately reflect such things as motive and being party to a larger more complex organization of criminal activity then why would you fail to agree when it comes to a certain group of people?

YES! And why would I think otherwise? Why would you?
Do you think that people here who are anti-abortion may side with anti-abortion "terrorists" and say that their actions aren't a form of terrorism just because you would do so with the people whose aims you agree with? And even if they did then would you agree with them to hold hypocritical beliefs on how people should be punished?
Lets use your change up of scenario then.
I think that people who bomb abortion clinics should be charged with committing a terrorist act. If you don't agree please explain to me why.
Or better yet...
An environmentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
An Anarchist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Christian Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
A Muslim Fundamentalist bombs a building to make a political statement.
Tell me here, in all seriousness, what the hell is the difference aside from their ideological alignments?

I just wanted to point out that this definition is not a very appropriate one. When someone uses tactics outside "conventional warfare" and the "laws of war" that would usually mean that a war is going on and such combatents are referred to as a Guerillas. Terrorist generally is not used in reference to people engaged in a war but those engaged in violent political protest outside of war.

Exactly. My position is that a line needs to be drawn between merely breaking the law (arson, vandalism, inciting people to violence, even when resulting in murder, even assassination, etc.) and terrorism--regardless of motive. Terms such as arson, murder, etc. exist for this reason.

To the contrary, unconventional war is a very good way to differentiate.

Unconventional warfare (UW) …is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict. On the surface, UW contrasts with conventional warfare in that: forces or objectives are covert or not well-defined, tactics and weapons intensify environments of subversion or intimidation, and the general or long-term goals are coercive or subversive to a political body.

...Unconventional warfare seeks to instill a belief that peace and security are not possible without compromise or concession. Objectives include war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war; hopelessness to defend against assaults, fear, depression, and disintegration of morale. The ultimate goal of this type of warfare is to motivate an enemy to stop attacking or resisting even if it has the ability to continue. Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional invasion.

For more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare And in which unconventional warfare and terrorism are cross referenced.

IMO, Al Qaeda is conducting an unconventional war. Furthermore, recent terrorist acts in Jordan are a very good example of “coordinated attacks” characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.

On the spectrum of things I cannot see environmentalists, or any of the other groups you listed in the same classification.

 

[Skyhunter]

I never said it was. You are the one trying to cut-down the definition of terrorism while simultaneously condoning the actions that are wrong whether they are terrorism or not! It's almost like you think that if you can show that it isn't terrorism, then it isn't wrong. Sorry, but it's still wrong either way.

You are the one who said that my statement that arson is not vandalism was factually wrong. I never condoned the violent actions of ELF or ALF, saying that I did is an outright lie and you know it. My point is, and has been, that to characterize these people as terrorists is an exaggeration.

It is also a double standard since the people bombing abortion clinics are not considered terrorists by the FBI.

Can you explain to me exactly how spiking a tree saves it without the threat of bodily harm to the logger trying to cut it down?

If a tree has a spike, it is of no value since there is no easy way to remove the spike or tell if there are any more. The cost to replace a saw blade at the lumber mill makes the it economically unfeasible.

Now, that's just irrational. There isn't anything to argue if you are just going to choose to believe everything is a big conspiracy. And don't forget, you started this thread: The 'we can't be sure of anything' argument is useless for you to try to get people to agree with you. If you can't support your point with a logical argument and facts, there must be something wrong with it.

Excuse me. Your the one who brought up tree spiking. So I will defer to your opinion about supporting an argument with facts.
The rest I won't respond to because it is ad hominem. And unlike a "super mentor", I can't get away with it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Exactly. My position is that a line needs to be drawn between merely breaking the law (arson, vandalism, inciting people to violence, even when resulting in murder, even assassination, etc.) and terrorism--regardless of motive. Terms such as arson, murder, etc. exist for this reason.
To the contrary, unconventional war is a very good way to differentiate.
For more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_Warfare And in which unconventional warfare and terrorism are cross referenced.
IMO, Al Qaeda is conducting an unconventional war. Furthermore, recent terrorist acts in Jordan are a very good example of “coordinated attacks” characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life.
On the spectrum of things I cannot see environmentalists, or any of the other groups you listed in the same classification.

Ofcourse they are crossreferenced because they are related. Guerilla warfare should also be crossreferenced with the two. On the whole Al Queda is fighting an "Unconventional War". They are fighting that war with "terror tactics". You can call someone who fights an unconventional war a terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, spy, assasin, ect. You can even call a guerilla a terrorist or insurgent or vice versa. All of these tactics fall within "unconventional warfare" and criss cross one another.
"Terrorism" is a tool. It is a tool that can be used by all sorts of organizations paramilitary or not and whether they take life or not.
Long before 9/11, and this idiotic craze over what a terrorist is, "terrorist" was already accepted to mean those who use violent methods to make political statements. Under this definition we have heard of kidnappers, plane hijackers(just hijackers, not necessarily people who crash them into buildings), people who bomb buildings(vacant or occupied), people who send letter bombs, ect ect ect... all being described as terrorists. The people were not paramilitary. They did not necessarily harm anyone or kill any one. They were not necessarily fighting any sort of "war", unless you want to apply that term with a wide brush. Why all the sudden do we want to make the term mean only those like Al Queda?

 

[SOS2008]

Ofcourse they are crossreferenced because they are related. Guerilla warfare should also be crossreferenced with the two. On the whole Al Queda is fighting an "Unconventional War". They are fighting that war with "terror tactics". You can call someone who fights an unconventional war a terrorist, guerilla, insurgent, spy, assasin, ect. You can even call a guerilla a terrorist or insurgent or vice versa. All of these tactics fall within "unconventional warfare" and criss cross one another.

"Terrorism" is a tool. It is a tool that can be used by all sorts of organizations paramilitary or not and whether they take life or not.
Long before 9/11, and this idiotic craze over what a terrorist is, "terrorist" was already accepted to mean those who use violent methods to make political statements. Under this definition we have heard of kidnappers, plane hijackers(just hijackers, not necessarily people who crash them into buildings), people who bomb buildings(vacant or occupied), people who send letter bombs, ect ect ect... all being described as terrorists. The people were not paramilitary. They did not necessarily harm anyone or kill any one. They were not necessarily fighting any sort of "war", unless you want to apply that term with a wide brush. Why all the sudden do we want to make the term mean only those like Al Queda?

So perhaps the terms revolutionary, guerilla, insurgent, etc. will continue to be used in global politics, and perhaps the terms arson, vandal, murderer, etc. will continue to be used for domestic crime -- all part of a rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios, regardless of some commonality of tools and/or motives.

To use blanket terms inferring all these activities are one in the same is absurd, and in the case of environmentalists it is being done to discredit a cause.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So perhaps the terms revolutionary, guerilla, insurgent, etc. will continue to be used in global politics, and perhaps the terms arson, vandal, murderer, etc. will continue to be used for domestic crime -- all part of a rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios, regardless of some commonality of tools and/or motives.

The point of the term "terrorist" being applied is part of that "rich language that provides nuances applicable to varying scenarios" you mention and as I mentioned earlier it's part of the varying sorts of charges that can be leveled against someone depending on their motives and the situation(pretty much the same thing you just said).
So if we don't charge them with taking part in "terrorist type activities" as the law likely reads then what are we going to charge them with? If we are to reflect in the charges against them that they are not just some person who set something on fire then what do we call it?

To use blanket terms inferring all these activities are one in the same is absurd, and in the case of environmentalists it is being done to discredit a cause.

For one thing it's just a term. The term does not discredit anyone. People who participate in activities that could be described as "terrorism" discredit themselves and the organizations they belong to or claim to belong to because most people do not think it is right to do such things. Every organization that has been accused of "terrorism" and the people who agree with them say they are not "terrorists" and those who call them such are just trying to discredit them.

Secondly it is not a blanket term. The term is meant to describe the motives of the actions not the actions themselves. A person can not just be charged with "terrorism" just as they can not be charged with "hate crime". A skin head who beats up a black person is charged for the assault and "hate crime" is attached to the charge to put the incident in proper perspective. A person can kidnap a child and it can be labeled a "hate crime" if that was the motive.
The only thing that is covered in the supposed "blanket" is all persons who possesses the particular type of motive for their criminal activities.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about some actual legal definitions...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4) In this section-

(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.

Putting everything together now, one might come up with this core legal definition of terrorism: the employment by states, groups or individuals of acts or threats of violence or use of weapons deliberately targeting the civilian population, individuals or infrastructure for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

 

[russ_watters]

You are the one who said that my statement that arson is not vandalism was factually wrong.

Please reread our exchange more carefully. They are related, but they are not the same. It is factually wrong to say they are equivalent.

I never condoned the violent actions of ELF or ALF, saying that I did is an outright lie and you know it.

When you continue to speak in generalizations and argue that it isn't worth the FBI's time to investigate this stuff, you make it sound like you condone such actions.

If your entire point were in the usage of the word terrorism, all the rest would be moot - but you are making statements sympathetic to the cause that these acts are being comitted to further. That makes it difficult to reconcile your statement that you don't condone these actions with your support for the cause and your belief that these actions don't warrent such treatment by the FBI.

My point is, and has been, that to characterize these people as terrorists is an exaggeration.

Fine. I disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an important issue to the FBI, does it?

It is also a double standard since the people bombing abortion clinics are not considered terrorists by the FBI.

That's wrong: http://www.disastercenter.com/birmingh.htm

A cursory read of that and a few other sites implies that the FBI used to not call any domestic act terrorism. But I'm not certain. Either way, abortion clinic bombings are terrorism.

If a tree has a spike, it is of no value since there is no easy way to remove the spike or tell if there are any more. The cost to replace a saw blade at the lumber mill makes the it economically unfeasible.

Interesting perspective, but that is no more valid than saying 9/11 was purely an economic attack. Any terrorist attack is going to cost money, but that isn't why these attacks are carried out. Tree spiking is done for the purpose of scaring people to stop them from cutting down trees.

Excuse me. Your the one who brought up tree spiking. So I will defer to your opinion about supporting an argument with facts.

Heh - no. Tree spiking is the fact. You supported your argument with less than all the facts, ie comparing arson to painting cars, and leaving out the other forms of terrorism that ecoterrorists commit. That's kinda like arguing that the KKK is ok because they are a Christian organization (they are) and leaving out the fact that they also commit crimes. Argument via omission.

I simply brought up a fact that you have ignored because it doesn't fit your argument.

The rest I won't respond to because it is ad hominem. And unlike a "super mentor", I can't get away with it.

It is not ad hominem to point out that an argument based on speculation is not logically valid.

edit: a few other points that you ignored (that you called ad hominem?)

-You did not address the definition issue - the fact that a threat alone can be terrorism.
-You did not address the question of whether changing the word the FBI uses would make investigating/fighting these acts not worth the FBI's time.

 

[Informal Logic]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm
http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

Good information, and according to it I would not classify environmentalists as using weapons "for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience." I am far more afraid of a lone maniac shooting everyone in a McDonalds than I am environmentalists.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm
http://i-p-o.org/terrorism-legal-definition.htm
Here's a lengthy discussion which eventually leads to the authors summery suggestion of a legal definition in absence of an official definition from the UN.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
Some more proposals...

In regard to legal definitions provided:

Despite some commonalities, I will continue to see differences--sometimes huge differences. For example, it angers me that Bush refers to insurgents as terrorists. The two are very different, and we know referring to insurgents as "terrorists" is propaganda.

And still yet in other incidents there is no consistency. Individual(s) who bomb abortion clinics fit the description of terrorists far more than environmentalists, but are not referred to as terrorists.

It should be apparent that the term "terrorist" is being selectively applied to environmentalists for propaganda purposes. If you choose to be naive, suit yourself.

 

[edward]

It appears that truth is terror to Enron mogul Kenneth Lay:

CBS/AP) Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay launched an impassioned plea for former employees of the bankrupt energy company to defy a "wave of terror" by federal prosecutors and help him battle criminal charges.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/13/business/main1124214.shtml

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Good information, and according to it I would not classify environmentalists as using weapons "for the primary purpose of spreading terror or extreme fear among the civilian population in relation to some political or quasi-political objective and undertaken with an intended audience." I am far more afraid of a lone maniac shooting everyone in a McDonalds than I am environmentalists.

I guess this is my fault for keeping myself honest by including definitions that don't entirely correspond with the definition I have been using but if you take a look more than one of the definitions I quoted and were discussed in the links included references to not only the civilian population in general but "groups" and "persons" aswell. While you may not care what they do the persons who work at and own the sites that they bomb and set fire to may well be rather uneasy with what happened. More than one also cites attempts at coercion or forcing a state group or persons to conform to their aims or demands aside from just the general attempt at inciting fear.

Despite some commonalities, I will continue to see differences--sometimes huge differences. For example, it angers me that Bush refers to insurgents as terrorists. The two are very different, and we know referring to insurgents as "terrorists" is propaganda.

Who Bush does or does not refer to as "terrorists" and what ever reasoning he has for doing so has no bearing on the actual definition of the term. Why would you give Bush or any other such person the power of influencing the legitimacy of any particular term. Arguing that the way any such person uses a term and their reasoning for doing so effects it's legitimacy is inane. You are discussing with me whether or not it is appropriate so please refer to my definitions and usage and the definitions I have sourced instead of others whom I do not endorse or agree with please. I'm tired of people side stepping my argument.
Also if you read the first link in my last post it seems that UN members agree that regardless of the nature of the organization (insurgent, state, guerilla, what have you) it's modus is what should be considered to determine if they are guilty of "terrorism" by international law. Do you not agree with the way the UN seems to be leaning with it's own definitions?

And still yet in other incidents there is no consistency. Individual(s) who bomb abortion clinics fit the description of terrorists far more than environmentalists, but are not referred to as terrorists.

Unfortunately I can't read this because of the internet filter here at work but the head line on google reads...
Anti-Abortion Escapee Joins bin Laden on FBI List
This might be the same thing but I can read it...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200205/ai_n9020463
This links refers to several forms of "Domestic Terrorism" emphasizing "right-wing terrorism"...
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WaronTerrorism/terrorism01.htm
The FBI aparently has classified abortion clinic bombings as "terrorism"...

On the domestic front, despite hundreds of violent attacks against abortion clinics by anti-abortion groups since the late 1970s, the FBI did not classify such violence as terrorism until the mid-1990s
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Jenkins1103.htm

These are just the some of the first few references I have found on Google.

It should be apparent that the term "terrorist" is being selectively applied to environmentalists for propaganda purposes. If you choose to be naive, suit yourself.

I think that certain people such as Bush&Co are selectively not referring to certain types of terrorism as such, or simply ignoring them, due to their political alignments and hypocracy. If not being a hypocrite means I'm naive then I'd rather be naive thanks.



You've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

 

[Skyhunter]

I didn't say they were equivalent. In response to rachmaninoff, I said...

Arson is a form of vandalism, ie destruction of property, but I understand your point. I was not trying to diminish these acts, but to make the distinction between persons and property.

And now you agree.

They are related, but they are not the same. It is factually wrong to say they are equivalent.

But before you said...

No, but there is factually accurate and factually wrong. Ie, the post above...

When you continue to speak in generalizations and argue that it isn't worth the FBI's time to investigate this stuff, you make it sound like you condone such actions.

I did not say it was not worth the FBI's time, I said it I don't believe it should be their #1 issue.

If your entire point were in the usage of the word terrorism, all the rest would be moot - but you are making statements sympathetic to the cause that these acts are being comitted to further. That makes it difficult to reconcile your statement that you don't condone these actions with your support for the cause and your belief that these actions don't warrent such treatment by the FBI.

My point is that the threat posed by 'ecoterrorists' is being exaggerated by the FBI. As for the word ecoterrorist, my point is that it is being used in such a way as to characterize environmentalists as terrorists.

That's wrong: http://www.disastercenter.com/birmingh.htm
A cursory read of that and a few other sites implies that the FBI used to not call any domestic act terrorism. But I'm not certain. Either way, abortion clinic bombings are terrorism.

Alright let's call them "Pro-Life Terrorists"
From the article:

MALICIOUSLY DAMAGED, BY MEANS OF AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE, BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH RESULTED IN DEATH AND INJURY

Here we have a political movement that is killing people, yet the FBI does not consider them to be as great a threat as a political movement that for the most part, goes out of their way to avoid hurting people.

Interesting perspective, but that is no more valid than saying 9/11 was purely an economic attack. Any terrorist attack is going to cost money, but that isn't why these attacks are carried out. Tree spiking is done for the purpose of scaring people to stop them from cutting down trees.

Is that so?
http://ragette.org/treespike/enter.htm

Tree spiking helps ensure the woods/trees that you spike will not be cut for lumber/pulp and that the forest will move towards (or remain in) a climax, old growth state. The spike can damage both the value of the wood and the equipment used to 'harvest' and process the tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking

Some tree spikers tend to mark the spiked trees, ostensibly to deter the harvesting of the spiked trees. Some sawmill operators check trees with metal detectors prior to milling. In turn, Foreman advocated the use of ceramic spikes which would be impossible for the metal detectors to register.

While Foreman claimed that injury to humans was an unlikely consequence of tree-spiking if the spiking was made known to authorities or logging companies, the tactic was condemned not only by the companies themselves, but by labor interests and, eventually, other members of Earth First!.

In 1987, Californian mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by a tree spike. While both the County sheriff and Alexander's employers, Louisiana-Pacific, blamed environmentalists for the spiking, when Earth First! activist Judi Bari obtained the sheriff's files on the incident some years later, she discovered that one of the suspects for the spiking was Bill Ervin, a 50 year old property-owner, unconnected with Earth First. While Ervin freely admitted spiking trees on his own land to prevent Louisiana-Pacific from taking timber on his side of the property line, he was never charged with spiking the tree that injured Alexander.

Tree spiking is the fact. You supported your argument with less than all the facts, ie comparing arson to painting cars, and leaving out the other forms of terrorism that ecoterrorists commit. That's kinda like arguing that the KKK is ok because they are a Christian organization (they are) and leaving out the fact that they also commit crimes. Argument via omission.
I simply brought up a fact that you have ignored because it doesn't fit your argument. It is not ad hominem to point out that an argument based on speculation is not logically valid.

I wasn't writing an essay, you brought up tree spiking and exaggerated the effects. Like you tend to do with all your arguments, like comparing my statement that spiking a tree to save it is like arguing that 9/11 was just a purely economic attack. Not only is it factually wrong, but they are not even related.

edit: a few other points that you ignored (that you called ad hominem?)

This is what I called ad hominem;

Closing you eyes, singing lalalalalalalala, and being willfully ignorant isn't going to change that.

-You did not address the definition issue - the fact that a threat alone can be terrorism.

It has already been discussed here how the word and it's definition is very broad. And the definition is not really central to my point, which is the exaggeration of the threat.

-You did not address the question of whether changing the word the FBI uses would make investigating/fighting these acts not worth the FBI's time.

Of course the FBI should investigate. But with limited resources, should it be devoting such a disproportionate amount of it resources to non personal injury crimes?

 

[Skyhunter]

IYou've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html

Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);

http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/news/2003/feb/patriot2draft.html

The broader the definition the more people and organizations will fall under it.

Have you checked to see if you are in the pentagons database?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf

[edit]

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The Quaker religion strictly prohibits violence. Pacifism is synonymous with being a Quaker.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.

As I've already pointed out there are laws and classifications for crimes other than "terrorism" referring to things such as gang activity, organized crime, and hate crimes. These are added to charges like arson, vandalism, and the like to properly reflect the nature and motive of the particular incident. If you do not think that such activities that fall under the general legal definition of "terrorism" should be called "terrorism" then what should they be called? If you do not agree that such an addition to the charge to properly reflect motive should axist then would you support getting rid of such added charges as "hate crime" aswell?
Secondly I have already expressed that I do not support the idea of protesters being charged with "terrorism" unless they fall under the definitions I have been using in which case they wouldn't just be protesters. Further I do not endorse the suspension of habius corpus which the PATRIOT Act does. Just because I do not agree with the manner in which people charged with terrorism are being handled does not mean that I will disagree with the way in which they are being charged.
You have a problem with people being executed I believe.
Do you not want people being charged with murder simply because you don't want them to possibly be executed? Or do you think it makes more sense to fight against the practice of execution?

 

[SOS2008]

Who Bush does or does not refer to as "terrorists" and what ever reasoning he has for doing so has no bearing on the actual definition of the term. Why would you give Bush or any other such person the power of influencing the legitimacy of any particular term. Arguing that the way any such person uses a term and their reasoning for doing so effects it's legitimacy is inane. You are discussing with me whether or not it is appropriate so please refer to my definitions and usage and the definitions I have sourced instead of others whom I do not endorse or agree with please. I'm tired of people side stepping my argument.

Also if you read the first link in my last post it seems that UN members agree that regardless of the nature of the organization (insurgent, state, guerilla, what have you) it's modus is what should be considered to determine if they are guilty of "terrorism" by international law. Do you not agree with the way the UN seems to be leaning with it's own definitions?
Unfortunately I can't read this because of the internet filter here at work but the head line on google reads...
Anti-Abortion Escapee Joins bin Laden on FBI List
This might be the same thing but I can read it...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3861/is_200205/ai_n9020463
This links refers to several forms of "Domestic Terrorism" emphasizing "right-wing terrorism"...
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/WaronTerrorism/terrorism01.htm
The FBI aparently has classified abortion clinic bombings as "terrorism"...
These are just the some of the first few references I have found on Google.

I think that certain people such as Bush&Co are selectively not referring to certain types of terrorism as such, or simply ignoring them, due to their political alignments and hypocracy. If not being a hypocrite means I'm naive then I'd rather be naive thanks.
You've yet to explain to me what you think "eco-terrorists" should be charged with if not "terrorism".

Skyhunter has already answered many of your questions nicely (thank you Skyhunter). I refer to Bush to illustrate the misuse of the term terrorism. And since he is the president (unfortunately) of the most powerful nation in the world (though not as powerful as it was before he was elected), it does matter how he uses the term--unlike you or me.

In regard to the UN, you make a distinction that I made earlier, which is that of international law versus domestic law. I feel this is one reason for different terms. But to answer your question directly, these definitions mean little to me. As a member of the civilian population, which do you fear most? Being killed/injured in a terrorist attack or global warming? Terrorism in general is pretty far down on my list of worries, but for many Americans fear mongering with the term "terrorism" has provided an effective distraction from real problems (like global warming).

As for those who bomb abortion clinics, a term such as "pro-life terrorists" probably does not exist because those in the medical community who may be affected don't have the same marketing/lobbying power as large corporations (e.g., that currently want to buy public land cheap to make big profits from mining). Ultimately, for both pro-life or environmental protestors, the same concern for civil liberties exist (as Skyhunter points out in regard to the Patriot Act--which has just been renewed by the House. ).

 

[edward]

How about Arson, vandalism, trespassing, transporting hazardous materials, etc. Classifying them as terrorist gives the government sweeping new powers to go after protesters.
With the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act II, they don't need to be charged, just suspected, and they can be held indefinitely. At least that is my reading of it.
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html
http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/news/2003/feb/patriot2draft.html
The broader the definition the more people and organizations will fall under it.
Have you checked to see if you are in the pentagons database?
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/DODAntiWarProtestDatabaseTracker.pdf
[edit]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/
The Quaker religion strictly prohibits violence. Pacifism is synonymous with being a Quaker.

And the military tracking of protestors is also nationwide, the following describes what the California National Guard is doing:

SACRAMENTO - Three decades after aggressive military spying on Americans created a national furor, California's National Guard has quietly set up a special intelligence unit that has been given ''broad authority'' to monitor, analyze and distribute information on potential terrorist threats, the Mercury News has learned.
Known as the Information Synchronization, Knowledge Management and Intelligence Fusion program, the project is part of an expanding nationwide effort to better integrate military intelligence into global anti-terrorism initiatives.
Although Guard officials said the new unit would not collect information on American citizens, top National Guard officials have already been involved in tracking at least one recent Mother's Day anti-war rally organized by families of slain American soldiers, according to e-mails obtained by the Mercury News.

Shades of tricky Dicky Nixon, our cup of paranoia overfloweth.

 

[edward]

Regarding eco terrorism , as far as I can determine ,it does not exist within the CFR (United States Code of Federal Regulations). It is included in domestic terrorism in general laws. Which means that as I have stated before the eco people are stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

A big change came along with the Patriot Act when (B) intentional, became (B) appear to be intentional. And subsection (i) was added . These changes are critical because "Intention" is a major factor in any crime and must be proven in court. Now only the appearance of intention needs to be present. It is also difficult for a jury to
rationalize exactly what a civilian population is.

This is very important especially in cases of eco vandalism because a prosecutor can easily convince a jury of "appearance of intention". A person's presence at a certain location can establish that, even if the person only was a bystander.

On the other hand defense attorneys are complaining because it is difficult to dis- prove appearance of intention.

Regardless it is all a big gum ball of hyper paranoia and political favors for the elite that will do nothing to protect this country from real terrorists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Skyhunter has already answered many of your questions nicely (thank you Skyhunter).

No, he has only rehashed all of the things I have already responded to. Responses which I have not received any feed back on except for references that have nothing to do what what I am arguing. You seem to be ignoring everything I say while putting up the apearence that you are having a discussion with me quite artfully.

I refer to Bush to illustrate the misuse of the term terrorism. And since he is the president (unfortunately) of the most powerful nation in the world (though not as powerful as it was before he was elected), it does matter how he uses the term--unlike you or me.

I'm sorry but I was under the distinct impression that I was discussing the appropriateness of this term based on my definitions and those of particular sources that I respect and agree with (perhaps I am unimportant but is the UN and british law unimportant as well?). If you think that I am misusing the term or you would like to question the appropriateness of the definitions I have cited then by all means give me that argument (which I have been waiting and asking for) instead of disrespecting me by ignoring and glossing over my thoughts and sidestepping my points to talk about your dislike for Bush. If you simply have no interest in discussing this with me please let me know in a polite fashion. Thank you.

In regard to the UN, you make a distinction that I made earlier, which is that of international law versus domestic law.

Obviously the UN is not concerned with our domestic laws and only with international law since they are an international body of government. It is up to any individual nation to make their own laws in regards to "domestic terrorism" since the UN will not be having anything to do with it.

But to answer your question directly, these definitions mean little to me. As a member of the civilian population, which do you fear most? Being killed/injured in a terrorist attack or global warming? Terrorism in general is pretty far down on my list of worries, but for many Americans fear mongering with the term "terrorism" has provided an effective distraction from real problems (like global warming).

I'm sorry but I don't see how asking me a question to distract from mine and pontificate on "fear mongering" yet again answers my question at all. I should look back to make sure but I really don't see where you have given me a direct answer to any of my questions at all what so ever.
I'm sure that such things as petty theft and and minor traffic violations are pretty low on your list of worries as well but these things are defined in law books somewhere so that law enforcment agencies can do their jobs. This thread is about whether or not the term terrorism is appropriate for a particular sort of crime and the things that the FBI are doing in regards to that. If these things are well below being worthy of your attention then why are you pretending to have this discussion with me?

As for those who bomb abortion clinics, a term such as "pro-life terrorists" probably does not exist because those in the medical community who may be affected don't have the same marketing/lobbying power as large corporations (e.g., that currently want to buy public land cheap to make big profits from mining). Ultimately, for both pro-life or environmental protestors, the same concern for civil liberties exist (as Skyhunter points out in regard to the Patriot Act--which has just been renewed by the House. ).

This is where I really begin to wonder if you are paying that much attention at all to the discussion you are pretending to have with me. Did you read any of those links I provided? Do you want more? Did you not see that the FBI classifies the bombing of abortion clinics as a terrorist act? Are you paying any attention at all to any of the points I am making here?!


I like you SOS and I think you are an intelligent woman. I think that you are far more intelligent then the show you have put on here. I would like the respect of being treated to that intelligence when you discuss something with me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is included in domestic terrorism in general laws. Which means that as I have stated before the eco people are stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism.

It's also a good idea to realize that when they are charged they will be charged with terrorist acts as an addition to the charges. That is to say that someone who murders people in the process of their act of terrorism is going to be receiving the punishment for commiting murder with what ever extra penalties attached for it having been in the progress of an act of terrorism. If a person is charged with a terrorist act of arson they will not receive the same penalties as someone who murdered while in the same circumstances. The way you say "stuffed into the same, one size fits all monkey suit of laws, that apply to domestic terrorism" you'd think that no matter whether you sent an envelope of white powder in the mail or killed a dozen people with a bomb you're going to receive the same penalties.
The PATRIOT Act may bring in all sorts of other issues aside from the actual penalties one receives for the crime they commit but this has to do with the suspension of habius corpus and other such things that hold up the process of charges and sentencing. In the case of the PATRIOT Act it would be rather disgusting for someone to just complain that it's not right that eco-terrorists should have to deal with it's consequences. It's wrong that ANYONE has to deal with it's consequences regardless of the crimes they have commited.

 

[Skyhunter]

As I've already pointed out there are laws and classifications for crimes other than "terrorism" referring to things such as gang activity, organized crime, and hate crimes. These are added to charges like arson, vandalism, and the like to properly reflect the nature and motive of the particular incident. If you do not think that such activities that fall under the general legal definition of "terrorism" should be called "terrorism" then what should they be called? If you do not agree that such an addition to the charge to properly reflect motive should axist then would you support getting rid of such added charges as "hate crime" aswell?

Since these groups are not targeting people I do not believe they should be charged with terrorism. Whether or not it is legal to do so is not the point.

The term ecoterrorist is not a legal term, it is a propaganda term meant to associate environmental activists with real terrorists that do target people. Like anti-abortionists who bomb clinics and shoot doctors. When it was just Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million ditto-heads it was bad enough. Now the FBI is has declared 'ecoterrorists the #1 domestic threat without providing any real evidence to support the contention. I believe this is another step by corporatists to stifle any opposition to their access to the worlds resources.

 

[SOS2008]

I like you SOS and I think you are an intelligent woman. I think that you are far more intelligent then the show you have put on here. I would like the respect of being treated to that intelligence when you discuss something with me.

Thank you for the compliment (I like you too ). I have answered your question, which was that definitions don't mean much to me. I am more interested in debating the effects and direction of definitions (the bigger picture).

Other than that, I feel members (I'm speaking in general here) often just don't like answers provided so continue to demand answers. Other members are not obligated to respond at all, and may not because the volley is consuming a lot of time and effort with nothing being accomplished.

 

[edward]

It's also a good idea to realize that when they are charged they will be charged with terrorist acts as an addition to the charges. That is to say that someone who murders people in the process of their act of terrorism is going to be receiving the punishment for commiting murder with what ever extra penalties attached for it having been in the progress of an act of terrorism.

This has been my point all along.

You seem to be hung up on murders and violent acts against people. But even so, as I stated before, those people should get whatever punishment the laws subscribe. But I can never agreee with applying the "terrorist" criminal sentence to a young person who has dented a freaking front loader.

A previous: up to one year, vandalism sentence is now: up to six years in prison. A twenty year sentence is now life imprisonment.

But the majority of the eco people are not violent and they are a separate group entirely from the right wing extremists. People like Rudolph and McVeigh, have predominantly been the perpretators of violent true terrorist acts.

Eco protestors tend to commit acts of a vandalism nature. Many of them are young. Throwing them into the same bag with people like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, strictly at the behest of special interests, is an abomination of American justice.