Well, granted, I am not shaking in my Keen sandals over this, but it seems the elves over at the ELF have been stepping things up. First there was the KRKO radio tower, resulting in millions of dollars of damage. Senator Val Stevens warned this could lead to escalation, and a new threat purporting to be from the ELF says likewise.
Like many extremists, the ELF hates the rule of law, and wants to push their views on everyone else regardless of how many votes are against them, or whose rights they violate. Their press release from the KRKO crime included this insanity: "When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet."
Their childishly spraypainted message on buildings in Maltby last week read: "If you continue to risk killing children, mother earth and her creations, all your holdings are targets. Rise up earth children, ever, ever, ever, ever so carefully."
Then it went from merely idiotic, to a little creepy: "Authentic ELF? Ask ATF/FBI about restricted water mains. Little water, better burn." It seems to me they are claiming that they encourage out-of-control fires.
It's a generally good rule of thumb that if someone values trees or fish more than human life and livlihood, they aren't playing with a full deck.
Sure, we can make fun of their low intelligence, including the fact that their own press release on their own web site points to the wrong web site (using .com instead of .org). But they cost us all millions of dollars in intentional damage, they lack any serious sense of morality, and sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt. We can only hope they hurt themselves, rather than an innocent person.
Stevens said, "They don't care about what harm they do. We need a state law that recognizes these people for the monsters they are." She pushed for tougher sentences -- right now many of these crimes are punishable by only a year in jail -- and a state registry for convicted terrorists.
I don't know what the law should be, or whether it should be changed, but I do know these people should be found and locked up for a very long time. Such sociopaths, when they've proven to be a danger to society, should not be allowed in society, obviously; this includes those providing aid to the terrorists, such as Jason Crawford and Tomas Peterson, with their work for the ELF Press Office. And every nation should be willing to prosecute or extradict them, just as most would with other terrorists.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 28, 2009 09:18 PM | Email ThisI wonder what kind of people make up such a group that has demonstrated its presents in such a benevolent manner? Do you think the people could all be Liberals? Just, a thought. Do you think we could call them the Nazis of America? Naah...That would be too strong of a Term.
Not too strong, no. Too stupid.
Posted by: pudge on September 28, 2009 10:41 PMNo, but rational people kinda sorta believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Knock down towers, light houses on fire, torch SUVs... you get arrested, you're convicted, and you do the time under the law.
But hey, if wingnut conservatives like Val Stevens think folks that commit crimes driven by ulterior political motives should be convicted of additional crimes and registered with the state, try to pass that! Of course, I'll look forward to that same support for hate crimes laws related to violent crime. And hey, I'd also push to have anti-abortion protesters placed on that same terrorist watchlist if they're convicted of any property crimes, too...
(No, pudge, I'm not commenting on your statements directly. Despite our falling out lately, I know you're at least consistent about such things.)
Posted by: demo kid on September 28, 2009 10:44 PMYes, that's the point here, finding a punishment that fits the crime.
if wingnut conservatives like Val Stevens ...
Coming from you, "wingnut conservative" is a compliment.
... think folks that commit crimes driven by ulterior political motives should be convicted of additional crimes and registered with the state ... I'll look forward to that same support for hate crimes laws related to violent crime
You're a bit confused. The two are not the same. The difference is that most "hate crime" laws punish motive ("I beat you up because you're gay") rather than intent ("I beat you up to send a message to gay people").
The latter is terrorism. It is threatening. It is a crime in and of itself. And it should be punished as such. This is what Stevens is asking for, as I read it. You talk about their political motives, but it is more than mere motive, as their intent to terrorize has been made quite clear.
Normally, motive is not an element of a crime: it can be used, even required, to demonstrate guilt, but it is normally not used beyond that. And this is the problem many of us have with hate crimes laws. For example, the federal hate crime definition adopted in 1994 is, "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim ... because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This is motive, not intent.
I heard Dan Savage say, "The pro-hate-crimes-legislation argument is about pluralism, really, and about how our democracy functions, because when someone targets a person because of their faith, or their sexual orientation, or their race, it's really an attack not just against that person as an individual, but an attempt to terrorize the entire group, to make all African Americans feel insecure, to make all gays and lesbians feel at risk. ..."
But in prosecutions under such laws, the government does not actually have to prove the intent to terrorize. This is the problem. This violates our constitutional right to due process, because it takes the motive (hate) as de facto evidence of intent to commit a crime (terrorizing). By taking motive as evidence of intent, you are engaging in perpetrating thoughtcrime.
Granted, the RESULT of the crime can be as though this were the intent, even without intent being proven. But we also must consider the fact that the intent might not have existed in the first place, and it is a travesty of justice to pretend it did just to soothe our social conscience.
If instead, the law were written to include only crimes where the intent was to terrorize people -- for any reason -- then you'd find few objections. The problem is that intent is hard to prove, so people try to skirt our constitutional rights by making motive evidence of intent. It's wrong.
I am not in favor of "hate crime" laws. I am in favor of -- and my guess is that Senator Stevens would agree -- punishing people who terrorize others, whether it's regarding race or the environment or abortion or anything else.
Anyway, even if you still think motive should be punished, it's not the same as what Stevens is calling for, because she's talking about intent, which is obviously a different thing. So you really can't say that this is the same as (most) hate crimes laws.
Property destruction represents the taking of part of a person's life.
The total destruction of the Urban Horticulture Center a few years back represents not just property loss, but the loss of millions of man hours of valuable research.
Some of which would directly have been supported by the ELF members if they weren't too ignorant to understand what they were doing to themselves as well as to the rest of us.
The punishment for such acts should be severe enough to deter such future crimes.
But I know the maximum penalty will be a few years of free room, board and medical with a living martyrdom upon their release back into their adoring terror cells.
Win,win for the idiot miscreant.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on September 29, 2009 01:00 AM"The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole,' because the 'good of the whole' is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.
The raison d'etat, in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency -- the suitability of the particular act for the end in view. And what the raison d'etat affirms with respect to the relations between different countries applies equally to the relations between different individuals within the collectivist state.
There can be no limit to what its citizen must be prepared to do, no act which his conscience must prevent him from committing, if it is necessary for an end which the community has set itself or which his superiors order him to achieve."
Posted by: gulliver on September 29, 2009 01:05 AMELF is a domestic terrorist organization, and to call them anything else is a lie.
Media: YOU LIE!
Posted by: JoeBandMember on September 29, 2009 04:36 AMRight, not to mention millions of dollars to the tax-payers of Washington. And because this crime was conducted against the state (i.e. government) run university, this is even more evidence that it should be treated for what it is, a domestic terrorist group.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 29, 2009 06:23 AMWhile I not generally a pro-death penalty person (due to a few reasons, major one being the unequal application), I almost do agree with Duffman. Terrorism and treason are two crimes (along with serial killers) where the death penalty may be appropriate.
Posted by: tc on September 29, 2009 07:05 AMYou're right.
gulliver: good quote.
Daniel: The only reason that I can come up with in dealing with your horror of calling any Liberal a Nazi, no matter, how egregious their belief and conduct is, is because, your position is emotionally based.
Riiiiight. Despite the fact that they are NOT Nazis, and despite the fact that they do not condone and would not engage in the most egregious behaivors OF the Nazis. You only compare them to Nazis because you are either dumb enough to think the comparison actually makes sense, or you are just trying to emotionally, rather than intellectually, link them to the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.
It's fundamentally wrong and dishonest.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted by: pudge on September 29, 2009 10:39 AMDid you just relate Obama to Hitler to Stalin through Ice Cream?
I think I am speechless.
Posted by: Chris on September 29, 2009 01:01 PM