SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-activism-become-terrorism dept.
I was saddened to hear that two individuals who released fur animals and vandalized fur farms across America were busted: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/fbi-arrests-activists-accused-of-releasing-mink/article_6c169b5d-dbbc-5dd1-adb0-534ee46af88b.html
But the arrest is sort of beside the point and there are two interesting tidbits in there. First and less interesting, is the ridiculous charge of terrorism under the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" -- seriously, what they did is just plain old crime. Before you know it, going 10 over on the freeway will be considered an act of terrorism.
More intriguing, despite a lack of details on how they got busted, is this tidbit:
The indictment states that they covered their tracks by avoiding phones or logging into known online accounts and email. Instead, they used public Internet computers and encrypted email and cash for purchases while traveling. They would allegedly withdraw hundreds of dollars while back home in the San Francisco Bay Area before another trip.
The FBI states that they drafted communiques and posted them online to publicize their actions on websites associated with "animal rights extremists."
I'm going to guess automatic license plate readers were involved. Pure guess.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by schad on Monday July 27 2015, @11:39AM
These people slashed tires, glued locks, and in one case attempted to flood a guy's home. That's pretty much the definition of "vindictive, destructive asshole." Releasing the animals is, or should have been, enough. If the response is that they're trying to intimidate people into not working in this industry, then guess what -- the label of "terrorist" is actually appropriate.
As a practical matter, these animal releases tend to produce outcomes not desired by anybody. Can the local ecosystem support the sudden release of so many mink all in one small area? Or will the mink basically kill everything and then starve to death, screwing the food chain up for years? What about that bobcat they released? Is this a heavily-populated area? Do people there now have to worry about a half-starved bobcat killing their pets or children? If these are "farm-raised" animals, do they carry diseases for which wild animals have no resistance? Do they have genetic problems, perhaps due to captivity-related inbreeding, which we don't want passed to the local population?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @11:56AM
If the response is that they're trying to intimidate people into not working in this industry, then guess what -- the label of "terrorist" is actually appropriate.
Then the word "terrorist" is overbroad. It used to be we'd just call people criminals. Now everything is about the terrorist bogeyman, with extremely shallow justifications for why it's reasonable to use it all the time.
There are few people who have no motive whatsoever. You can interpret just about anything as terrorism.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Oakenshield on Monday July 27 2015, @02:12PM
While I do not disagree that the definition of "terrorist" is overbroad in modern language, I will state that the term "eco-terrorist" does predate 9/11. It used to be in common use in regards to Earth First, ELF and GreenPeace back in the 80s.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maliqua on Monday July 27 2015, @02:47PM
this is the one use of the word terrorist that was popular before everyone was a terrorist.
eco terrorists have been around and deserving of the term since before i was born
and i'm old
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @03:09AM
if they're using violence in pursuit of their political goals, then they're terrorists. that's literally what the word means [merriam-webster.com]. intimidation - assault - is a violent act, using it and/or outright violence in pursuit of their political goals is, in fact, terrorism.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 28 2015, @05:27PM
By that definition every single solder in every single military the world has ever known was also a terrorist. As is nearly every government the world has ever known.
Personally I'm kinda inclined to agree with that, but that's pretty clearly not what the word means in law...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday July 28 2015, @06:27PM
legal definitions often do differ from the general-usage definitions. take "treason" for example, in general it just means to betray your country, but under US law it means to betray your country specifically by waging war against it or aiding its enemies. generally, every person, especially government employees, who seek to undermine, subvert, or render useless the constitution could be called treasonous (for government employees, this is specifically illegal [cornell.edu], but not called treason), as could anyone who actively works to make sure their country fails [pbs.org], but thankfully the legal definition is specific enough to allow people methods to fight against their rogue, corrupt government without being thrown in a hole for treason (especially because, in reality, its the rogue government that is treasonous here - in democracy, the power lies with the people, so when the peoples' delegates turn against them and work to fulfill anything other than the will of the people, they are betraying their country).