<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Closer Look at Court Ruling on Applying &#8220;Terrorism Enhancements&#8221; to Activists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/22/te-may-apply/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/22/te-may-apply/</link>
	<description>Reporting on "Eco-Terrorism" Witch Hunts, Blacklists and the Green Scare</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Center for the Common Interest &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Animal Rights is Terrorism ?</title>
		<link>http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/22/te-may-apply/#comment-122754</link>
		<dc:creator>Center for the Common Interest &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Animal Rights is Terrorism ?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/21/kkk/#comment-122754</guid>
		<description>[...] were charged with property crimes that didn’t harm anyone, like vandalizing SUVs, and hit with “terrorism enhancement” penalties. And November 16 marked the first year of incarceration for most of the SHAC 7 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] were charged with property crimes that didn’t harm anyone, like vandalizing SUVs, and hit with “terrorism enhancement” penalties. And November 16 marked the first year of incarceration for most of the SHAC 7 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Thieme</title>
		<link>http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/22/te-may-apply/#comment-64893</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Thieme</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 14:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/21/kkk/#comment-64893</guid>
		<description>I have just posted on this same topic and linked to your post. I appreciate your analysis, although I am not certain the decision is as internally consistent as you make it out to be. I found her use of "intimate" for "intimidate" troubling in particular, as it suggest she may have been rationalizing a decision that was basically political, placating the executive branch and law enforcement. While she may not be increasing any of the sentences in these cases, she is setting a precedent for future law enforcement actions against environmental activists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have just posted on this same topic and linked to your post. I appreciate your analysis, although I am not certain the decision is as internally consistent as you make it out to be. I found her use of &#8220;intimate&#8221; for &#8220;intimidate&#8221; troubling in particular, as it suggest she may have been rationalizing a decision that was basically political, placating the executive branch and law enforcement. While she may not be increasing any of the sentences in these cases, she is setting a precedent for future law enforcement actions against environmental activists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
