Will, Mcdavid was found guilty, he was not "railroaded".

Joe:

In a rare move, a juror actually filed a declaration to the court calling the FBI and prosecutors an “embarrassment”:

"…specifically by allowing this case to develop the way it did using Anna and providing all of the essential tools for the group; the cabin, the money, the idea, the books, everything, and by letting Anna “string Eric along” when she should have terminated the relationship clearly with him."

If that's not being "railroaded," what is?

More on the details of this are here:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2008/05/09...

it's funny, i wrote a paper for my undergrad 'terrorism' class arguing that terrorism doesn't exist, precisely because it cannot be defined; and therefore, it must obviously be used as manipulative language by whoever uses the term. unfortunately, it's embarrassingly terrible, so i wont post it.

I encourage everyone to read this essay by Steven Best and Anthony Nocella, which shows the many uses of the term "terrorism" and how it is used to serve those with power:
http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/Journ...

dt: very good points, all. And Will, I have no idea what you thought I was referring to when I wrote "Al-Qaeda Scare," it seemed pretty obvious to me that it meant what it means, that the phrase "Al-Qaeda" is being used to punish people merely by association. And, dt, if you re-read the part of my post where I say "peace will be restored" you will see that I was talking about people who promote violence. The full quote was "They think if I can just destroy this one thing, or scare this one person, or kill this one world leader (isn’t this how the Bush administration thought), then peace, yes PEACE will be restored."

dt: I think pacifists know perfectly well that we have never lived in a time of peace. Pacifism is not a load of crap, the load of crap is when people assume that they can treat other people poorly - wrongly imprison activists or abuse women or children or engage in religious or racial wars - and that somehow at then end of all that bad behavior as we pull ourselves out of the pools of blood we'll join hands and walk away as brothers. That is the load of crap. It will never happen THAT way.

If I want people to walk with me as my brother or sister I have to extend the hand of friendship - nothing else will work.

I also have to correct something that I wrote earlier. I get disappointed with myself when I don't think through what I post before I hit the submit button (but that button is so tempting... it beckons me still.)

When I wrote "I also agree with Cerulean that Marie should be sentenced for what she did not the politics behind why she did it (of course, that holds true for the Al-Qaeda guy as well)." I was wrong.

In my defense I have to say that I got caught up in the spirit of what Cerulean was writing and I just did not spend enough time thinking about the consequences. The truth of course is that the politics is important to what motivates each of us to act. It sucks when the politics of our actions are used to further vilify us and the people who think like us. But we don't want a politically blind court system because as I wrote very early on "burning something for a social good is not the same as arson for fun or arson for profit or arson just to terrorize the neighbors." We always want the courts to make that distinction. What motivates us to act should be an important consideration in how we are treated in the legal system. Someone who breaks down a door to save a puppy from a burning house should never be charged with breaking and entering.

The difficulty is that once we accept that what motivates us to act needs to be considered how does the legal system then work around the problem of "guilt by association." So, Will, I have now once again gotten back to the topic of your blog.

Joe: Eric McDavid didn't have any plans to blow up the Nimbus Dam. The government did not allege in their case that there was a specific target picked out. Indeed, all they presented was people brainstorming ideas and touring things in California - and, given that they were prodded to do that in part by an FBI agent, in my opinion their acts not only weren't criminal (as no conspiracy was formed), but if you believed that there was a conspiracy then I think there's a very strong argument for entrapment. In short, he's not guilty.

John: I think that pacifism is a load of crap, and you say that "peace will be restored" but in this racist world I've yet to know peace and in my history books I hear nothing of peace. Restored? What exactly are you planning on restoring? I firmly believe there cannot be peace until there is justice.

Will, others: There is something to be said about the "al-Qaeda scare." Middle Eastern (especially Arab), South Asian, and Muslim people are all facing repression far, far worse than white green activists, at the hands of the US government. Not just the war, they're experiencing it domestically: trumped up charges, interrogations, immigration holds, extraordinary rendition, enemy combatant status... Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago on just the idea he was "conspiring" to do something. People from all around the world have been held at Guantanamo on questionable evidence, and in some cases the government admits they weren't doing anything wrong but still refuses to release them. And far, far more people languish in ICE detention facilities.

The whole "war on terror" is a joke, not just the war on "green terror."

You unquestioningly cite the FBI as your source that Abdul Malek / Christopher Paul has *conspired to do* all sorts of bad things. Then you're critical of what the FBI is claiming Eric McDavid was conspiring to do. You're right to be critical in the McDavid case, and that's because the FBI is full of shit - but you also need to be critical about Abdul Malek. Just because the FBI says he's a "bad guy," that doesn't make it so.

dt:
I completely agree that the War on Terror has wrapped up countless people as terrorists, many for nothing other than their appearance or religious beliefs. I'm always very clear about that in speaking events and longer articles on this site, that I'm not arguing, in any way, that what is going on in the Green Scare is more important than anything else. Perhaps I should have made that clear in my response to those comments, but I frankly didn't see the "Al-Qaeda Scare" comment as referencing anything like that.

As to your second point, I am not "unquestioningly" citing the FBI. The difference between this case and Eric McDavid's is that Abdul Malek admitted his guilty, and McDavid was railroaded in trial.

tell Kim that i wear that apron seriously when im shaking her dogs paw in Chicago. i modified it to "Domesticated Terrorist". i also fed the dog un-popped popcorn kernels.

I really enjoyed the posts by Cerulean and I(A)ntz. Cerulean, I agree that there is no justice in the justice system and I(A)ntz is correct that the prison industry is big business. I also agree with Cerulean that Marie should be sentenced for what she did not the politics behind why she did it (of course, that holds true for the Al-Qaeda guy as well). And I agree with I(A)ntz that we should abolish the prison system completely. I also agree with I(A)ntz that most, if not all laws, are designed to protect the wealthy elite. Which is why I agree with that post that the prison system should be abolished.

But none of this, as correct as these points are, justifies acts of political arson. I'm sorry, arson is still violence. And I am not saying this because I am devoted to property or believe that property should be protected. Personally I believe in the destruction of Capitalism and the elimination of private property. I agree completely with Ryan Remains' early post that property is a construct and that none of us owns anything.

But lack of property and lack of ownership does not mean that destroying things is not violent. Native Americans did not have the same sense of ownership and property that Europeans brought to this country but they still felt remorse and loss when their villages were destroyed and they were kicked off their lands. Their culture may not call their artifacts "property" but native people's continue to struggle for the repatriation of pre-historic native artifacts. Not because they feel like they "own" these things but because they place a value for their culture and their heritage in these things. Humans form attachments to things, whether or not they consider these things to be owned.

So, one could argue that destruction of property is not an act of violence but I think all you have to do is look into the face of someone who just lost their stuff to see how wrong that argument is. And, of course, when big corporations run bulldozers through low income neighborhoods we shout about the violence being done. When the Israelis level a Palestinian settlement the violence being done is obvious. When the American government launches a cruise missile and takes out a bridge it is violent - even if no body dies.

Is prison the right solution to handle Marie and the guy from Al-Qeade, of course not! Right now, however, we don't have a reformed society and prison is what society will demand of them. As activists we know that when we risk arrest we risk prison. So while we can have prison reform or prison elimination discussions those discussions won't help our situation if one of us is arrested tomorrow. We have to live in the world we have and struggle for the world we want. We have to act in ways that we believe are right and true to our cause and the world we want to create. As I said in my initial post, arson won't produce the desired results.

This is why class war comes first and our furry friends second. Now, I'm not saying we need to stop any activism concerning animals' rights (I do believe quite the opposite is in order), but as long as power structures are the way they are, nothing will truly change.

Taking into account that we are taught from a very young age that our relationships and roles in society are vertical, it is easy to see why so many see themselves as superior to other animals.

Were we to live in a truly egalitarian society (talkin' anarcho-communism peeps), people would have a better perspective on such affairs. Truly malevolent arsonists would be dealt with and odds are arson in the name of social justice would no longer exist.

But, we live in a republic. The laws do not bend or take notice of special circumstances (to be fair, the law does look the other way if money is involved) and never will. Law is not justice.

For those of you who think nonviolence is the only way to achieve goals, I highly recommend "How Nonviolence Protects the State."

The book persuasively argues that pacifism is a self-serving strategy employed by privileged (white, upper/middle class 1st worlders) people who can attend a protest or a march, then go back home feeling good about themselves when, in fact, they will accomplish very little with only this activity. To advocate pacifism is to tell someone already suffering violence that you know better how they should liberate themselves, and furthermore to deny the violence that is already occurring on behalf of our "leaders" and is suffered by less fortunate humans and also countless nonhumans.
He also argues that pacifism has in fact not worked in the past and is, without violent elements, ineffective.

I am not saying arson should be legal under any circumstances, nor am I advocating violence, but I think it's worth considering whether the ends justify the means in some cases, as opposed to flatly rejecting violence in all cases. Our forefathers who built the United States realized that pacifism would not win freedom, and our right to organize militias comes from that knowledge as well.

Keep in mind that the underground railroad was a crime in that it was a loss of "property" but we certainly don't consider them, or the US colonies, as "terrorists."

@ l(A)ntz, so nobody belongs in prison? Tell you what I will call the DOJ and have a 10 of the worst murders in the US sent to live at your house, maybe you can rehab them.

i'm not savvy with this sort of thing, but maybe a graphic design for a t-shirt or image for the website could be something like one of those mock-old-u.s.-propaganda posters:
when you support fbi witch-hunts on animal rights and enviro-activists, the terrorists win!

or:
hitler loved unfounded witch hunts on domestic dissent.

@dave m:

Love the t-shirt ideas! Especially the "The terrorists win" element. I think that's one element of this that makes sense to non-activist folks: that resources are being wasted going on these political witch hunts when groups like Al Qaeda are clearly alive and well. Thanks for posting!

My boyfriend's dad burned down my grandmother's house and never went to jail. Perhaps if he had loved the planet more, he would have had his life in handed to him in a small box. As it is he got to continue to raise his boys as a bad parent. It appears that Maria was not sentenced for arson but for terror. Why? If the people are passionate about what they want, what are the channels they can go through and have a voice? The media? Does a sentence like this one help silence that passionate voice? I think the court system might hope for that. I have hope, but I won't be monkey wrenching. Still, it was a statement to burn the lab. Expression in an extreme medium, smoke and ash. Why did she feel she had to go to this extreme for her voice to be heard? I wonder. Some kids in a punk band burned up a police car where I used to live and the court allowed them to use the footage in their punk rock video. If they had done the same act to speak for the planet instead of their fame, would the same thing have happened. Let's lesson her sentence to what she did not what she was trying to express by doing it. Say, how would one go about doing that?

First off, all this talk of prison is for the birds. Prison is big business. Prisons operate the way any other business does - spend less, produce more, make more profit. That's why prisons in the United States are so cramped; it's not that anyone is "paying the price" or being rehabilitated. There are people in prison that have never committed a violent crime, and there are people on death row that have never been proven guilty. Even in Guantanamo Bay, people were/are being held for months or years without even having charges brought against them. I don't think anyone belongs in prison (not even the cops that murder, nor the former president and his administration). I think prisons are a waste of time and resources. Let's talk about grassroots rehabilitation and working with perpetrators to regain the trust of their communities instead of putting money into rich peoples' pockets. The power is ours, not theirs.

Second, the "laws" that these people have violated are made to protect the interests of the wealthy elite. Thus, the "crimes" that have been committed have directly posed a threat to the wealthy elite, to their power and/or their profits. If someone burns down an empty building, that's not terrorism. If a firefighter dies while trying to extinguish the fire, it's still not terrorism, it's not even a crime. It's a consequence of their job, and an unfortunate one. But the firefighter also knew the risks, and maybe on some level even, "had it coming." But it's no more a crime than "suicide by cop" is actually suicide.

Third, in this society, the fact that property is given so much priority over living, breathing things - whether it be humyn, animal, or the earth - is disgusting. Whether or not you choose direct action as a catalyst for change is your own business. But what we don't need is a divided movement; we need to recognize that all tactics are just tools in a toolbox. There is a need for aboveground and legal activism, and also a need for underground, militant direct action. One supports the other. One struggle, one fight.

Don't forget that it was once illegal for black people to eat in the same places as white people, or to sit at the front of the bus. It was once illegal for women to..well, do anything but be subservient to men. Breaking pointless laws that have no use other than to perpetuate a class war and a capitalistic society is not terrorism. It may be the only shot we have.

You know what else we don't need? Agent provocateurs. But while we have them, we may as well feed them...

Not taking sides, just pointing out, that firefighters die all the time fighting fires, and water runoff poisons nearby waterways. I'm not a legal expert but arson can be manslaughter or higher

Have you ever heard of this group?
Tucson H.A.A.N.D." or "Hooligans Attack at Night, Duh,"
Arizona - Fringe group of enviros vandalizing homes, cars:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/282283

Hi Barb,
Thanks for the link. I saw that, and was thinking of posting something about it. It looks like one crime was claimed to be in response to the AETA arrests in California.

arson is not violent. murdering people, causing physical injury to others, that's violence. arson is property destruction, not violence. arson is sabatage, not violence. you can not and will not change my mind on that.

Will, Eric Mcdavid wanted to blow up the Nimbus dam and considered the people there as collateral damage. How is he any different than Christopher Paul?

I agree with John.

And maybe I don't get the point of the website either . . . I thought I was worried about the "green scare," but the more I read here, the more I'm seeing that [i]most[/i] (albeit not all) of the people who have been convicted did commit crimes, and I guess I don't see the outrage in them being convicted for something they knew was illegal. They had it coming, and they knew it.

stmml02:
You're right, you don't get the point. My criticism of any of the cases where someone has broken the law and been labeled a "terrorist" is NOT, in any way, arguing that something like property destruction isn't a crime. It is. The problem in cases like this, though, is that some crimes are selectively being elevated to the level of "terrorism" in order to push a political agenda.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the content on this site is related to labeling First Amendment activity as "terrorism," and the coordinated campaign to silence dissent by making people afraid to use their rights. Criminal cases such as Marie Mason's are unfortunately just one part of the Green Scare.

Will, long time reader first time poster: keep up the good work.

John, if tactics are used for the movement that you don't agree with, fine. It's your job to offer support to those who are part of the movement and who fight on the front lines. These people deserve our support and solidarity. NOT condemnation via pacifism.

Please read Pacifism as Pathology and How Non-Violence Protects the State, if you still feel as though you're a pacifist, that's fine. But don't hold it up as a morally superior way of thinking. It is one idea among many, a very good idea, but like all good ideas it is problematic on many levels.

We need a wide range of tactics. And above ground/legal tactics only go so far. Without an underground or people willing to do defend the planet/species/environment by any means necessary, the movement will never win this war. And it is a war, the culture has a death wish, it will not voluntarily change. The only thing that matters is whether or not we do do something to stop it.

I've walked clear cuts in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Alaska. I've worked on streams so poisoned by "progress" and "technology" that salmon can't swim them to spawn. All the letter writing and blog posting in the world won't change either of those facts, and to be honest, all of my walking around and working didn't do much either.

Again, it is our duty to offer our fellow warriors and activists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their tactics. The tactics don't need to be your own, but don't condemn them. PROPERTY is a construct. We all believe Hunington or Weyerhause owns things. They don't. They are thieves and liars. We just agree to agree that they have the right to do what they're doing. They don't.

Believe what you want, but when you agree with the state on what constitutes violence, I'd be very, very wary. The state has a wonderfully awful track record on what is and isn't violence.

On the topic of burning property and killing people, both for political aims, there is a difference in degree but not tactic. They both rely on violence to accomplish their goals.

And Will, what is so ridiculous about "Al-Qaeda Scare?" Are you not aware of the loyalty oaths that government employees must now sign? If not check out my blog http://burnedbookspublishing.blogspot.com/2008/...

The phrase Al-Qaeda is used to just the same effect to blind the American public to the acts of violence that our government is now engaged in to "protect" us from these "terrorists." The "threat" of Al-Qaeda has been used to pass most of the draconian laws and extreme sentencing which are now being used to harass environmentalists. If it were not for 9-11 would the US government under Bush's leadership have been able to pass the Patriot Act? Maybe, of course, but 9-11 made it easier with the majority of the population willingly handing over their civil rights.

Al-Qaeda is just one scare tactic in our government's arsenal of scare tactics. Are you kidding me that you don't get that?

I'm a pacifist too, John Storhm.

And I STILL see the difference between conspiring to murder people and burning property.

I know it is easy to say Al-Qaeda and get people to immediately think horrible acts of terrorists violence. But I thought you were using this blog to speak out against such branding and knee jerk reactions. "Al-Qaeda Scare" OK, "Green Scare" Bad. Hmmm.

So you are suggesting that if a member of Al-Qaeda burned up genetic engineering materials at a State University he/she should be sent away for 22 years but if anyone else does it they should not?

@John:

He was planning on using a weapon of mass destruction to murder people. I'm sorry, but I just can't take you seriously if you honestly think that destroying an empty building is anywhere near the same thing.

And "Al-Qaeda Scare"? Congratulations, I've seen plenty of absurd emails and comments sent my way, but this is one of all-time top 5 most idiotic attacks I've ever seen.

I don't think I have, Will. The point as far as I can tell for this post is that Marie was treated worse than a member of Al-Qaeda. While that may make some people step back and think "hmmmm... why was that?" I ask myself how do the tactics differ? If Al-Qaeda is willing to blow things up and burn things down to advance their political agenda how can we as activists claim the moral high ground when we engage in the same tactics. It seems odd to claim that we deserve special treatment if we blow things up or burn them down because we are environmentalists but accept that members of Al-Qaeda should be sent to jail for decades for their own brand of political/religious violence. Besides, did the Al-Qaeda guy do anything besides get training, fight in some foreign conflict, and attempt to recruit people? He got 20 years just for that? Did the Al-Qaeda guy actually burn anything down for his sentence? If he did nothing more than what is written up here then if you ask me it was the Al-Qaeda guy who got the raw legal deal out of our national anti-Al-Qaeda hysteria. Imagine the sentence that Marie would have gotten if she had been a member of Al-Qaeda and not an environmentalist.

My point was arguing over the politics of her sentence is not very substantial because the tactics she used should be rejected if they are used by Al-Qaeda or environmentalists - they were wrong!

@John:

"I ask myself how do the tactics differ?"

Weapons of mass destruction, taking hostages, murder... that's just a start. Oh, and that minor difference called September 11th. Give me a break.

I have nothing against the laws which prohibit arson. Certainly burning something for a social good is not the same as arson for fun or arson for profit or arson just to terrorize the neighbors. However, if you go into a building and dump gasoline all over the place and set the place on fire, one certainly expects that the penalty, if caught, will be time in jail.

We can all argue and discuss among ourselves if the jail time in this case was excessive or not. We can spend weeks and months arguing, posing what-if scenarios, and name calling. We can expound our own personal legal theories to the case and denounce the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorneys and witnesses. It will be a lot of fun!

After we denounce all the legal tactics that put Marie in jail for so long we MUST recognize that we don't want arson to be legal.

Now, as activists we need to always consider what kind of world we are trying to create - one built on love or one built on anger, hatred and/or violence. The tactics we choose, NOW, will determine our future and the kind of world we give to our children to protect. Arson is not a good tactic if we want to create a different world! The people who oppose a different world see the full arena of violence and coercion as being acceptable. We need to look beyond those tactics because if we buy into their tactics - if we agree that anything in the name of peace and justice is an acceptable strategy - then we have already lost and they have already won.

I am a pacifist and I know that many who read this blog may not be. This is why change comes so slowly, because there are those who resist living in a different way. They are afraid to let go of the crutch of violence. They think if I can just destroy this one thing, or scare this one person, or kill this one world leader (isn't this how the Bush administration thought), then peace, yes PEACE will be restored.

But it does not work like that!

John:
You've spectacularly missed the point of this point, and the entire website.

While I don't agree with the sentences for the two, I do agree that this woman should be in prison for a long time. She destroyed something that is essential to our society as it is and has been: property. Not just any property, but a state university research center (So the claims of protecting a company's profits is just bogus). Research centers like these are the kinds that have allowed our society to reach the point it has today, allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Despite all the backlash against genetic engineering (and I'll admit there is much room for debate as to the morality of this kind of research), it is merely the latest in a long line of humanity taking nature and improving it, whether it be building on natural compounds to create medicine, or using pesticides and nitrogen fertilizer to increase yields and decrease diseases that are spread in "natural" fertilizer (manure), labs like this have helped build the lifestyle we are accustomed to. I don't know what was being researched in that lab, but just because it was a genetics lab doesn't mean they were doing something "evil", more likely they were working on something that would benefit us.

I'd wager that 'conspiring' but not actually doing anything is not as bad as actually setting fire to a building (carrying out a terrorist attack). How does burning a building (which may or may not be constructed with hazardous materials) help the environment exactly?

@Ben:

No, that's not the case. Conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill human beings is not the same as conspiring to damage property, yet the Al Qaeda operative received the same sentence as Eric McDavid. It just doesn't add up.

The message from the government with such skewed priorities is clear. They care first and foremost about defending property and corporate profits; no threat to capitalist hegemony will be tolerated. Those who commit acts of violence against innocents but don't disrupt the economy are low on the priority scale.

Most politicians are puppets of corporate interests. The few who care (like Dennis Kucinich) have no significant power to change anything.

That's really not the point, John Storhm.

Arson will not produce the desired results.

I, for one, am very discouraged that tax dollars coming out of my paycheck are being spent by the government on tracking down environmental "terrorists" and then their incarcerations. Most of these "terrorists" know enough about potential threats to the environment that they would be benefiting the country far greater by advising federal agencies on energy policy than by spending years behind bars. Especially as a New Yorker who lived here on 9/11, it's just offensive that people like Marie Mason are receiving sentences longer than true-to-definition terrorists.
I'd be really interested to find out how much money the FBI has spent on rounding up environmentalists in the last five years and sentencing them.