Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday July 27 2015, @10:23AM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 27 2015, @12:15PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Monday July 27 2015, @12:15PM (#214250) Homepage Journal

    Releasing "wild" animals into the wild can be considered cruelty to animals. These mature animals being released into a world which they didn't grow up in, and they don't understand, is cruelty. Most of the animals will either starve to death, or become victims to predators very quickly.

    You're right that captive species that would normally learn skills in the wild whilst young or from parents will often be at a great disadvantage if released and may suffer and die disproportonately.

    The question of whether that is more cruel or unethical than confining them in the minimum standard of living conditions permitted by the law for a short life before being slaughtered skinned might be a difficult call for some people. You're right that releasing them can be considered cruel but it's a step too far for me to say it is cruelty.

    Consider the fact that survival in the wild is almost always (in the short term) more dangerous and sometimes yes more uncomfortable or painful than survival in captivity, even for animals born and raised in the wild. That doesn't mean it's automatically immoral or wrong that wild animals should remain wild. Consider also that some of the released mink have bred very successfully in a number of countries. In some cases this has even threatened native species which complicates the ethical issues further, for sure.

    This stuff isn't black and white though, that's my point. You do seem to consider that the law is a substitute for moral judgements. There are many regimes where many laws would not be considered remotely ethical by a majority of sane people.

    I'm certainly not saying that all of the actions of these activists are definitely ethically justifiable in my own opinion. The legal system is supposed to create a fair moral framework, idealistically speaking, but my point is that legal systems can get things very wrong and people's behaviour should not automatically be dismissed as unethical just because it is classed as criminal in a given regime. Equally, one shouldn't rely on laws as the only limit on their behaviour. I'm not saying that you do this, but your concept of a "CRIME" does seem to override all other considerations. You haven't said whether that logic applies under all circumstances.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 27 2015, @12:33PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 27 2015, @12:33PM (#214266) Journal

    Destruction of personal, private property is deemed a crime in all societies with which I am familiar. So is theft, murder, and rape. Different societies tend to define these crimes somewhat differently, but they all agree that the acts are criminal. There are few circumstances in which any of these crimes can be justified, with military combat being one of them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @12:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2015, @12:40PM (#214271)

      Destruction of personal, private property is deemed a crime in all societies with which I am familiar.

      No one cares about whether it's legal in this case. We get it; it's a crime. Big deal.

      There are few circumstances in which any of these crimes can be justified

      And I would argue that stopping animals from being skinned unnecessarily is justified, even if the legal system does not agree.

      Though they should not have slashed tires and such.

      with military combat being one of them.

      Military combat is not always justified.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:36AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @12:36AM (#214623)

        A statement of disagreement without reasoning is worse than silence. It takes time away from others without justifying why nor injecting anything new. People disagree with each other. You have an opinion. Great! Now tell us why.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2015, @11:31PM (#215115)

          Odd how you didn't raise the same objection t Runaway's comment, then. I explained about as much as he did. Essentially, his entire comment was, "It's illegal. There are few times it can be justified, with military combat being one such case." Yeah, great reasoning there; so much to respond to.

    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 27 2015, @01:11PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Monday July 27 2015, @01:11PM (#214286) Homepage Journal

      In general I agree with what you're saying here, with the possible exception of the comment about combat. I didn't have much of an issue with your anger at their vandalism or with those particular acts being illegal.

      My issue was with your stance on their releasing the mink and it seemed to me that your disdain for these people and gladness that they had been caught had as much to do with those acts and beliefs as it did with the vandalism and damage to property.

      These people obviously believe that the end justifies the means. You, and the law (if the law as an inanimate entity can be considered to believe things) do not. Personally I'm not willing to cast judgement one way or the other and I think you are wrong to do that also.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?