«
»

Environmentalist Sentenced to 21 Years as a “Terrorist”; Violent Racists Receive Half That

Feb 5th, 2009 by Will Potter

Marie Mason

Marie Mason

I’ve written a lot of articles like this, when prison sentences are handed down to activists who have been labeled “terrorists” for property crimes, and instead of getting easier it just keeps getting harder. It’s getting harder to write about this rationally, calmly. These cases are getting worse, folks. The government is growing increasingly aggressive in its prosecutions, and increasingly transparent in its tactics.

Marie Mason, a longtime environmental activist and mother of two, was sentenced this afternoon to 21 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” for non-violent property crimes in the name of defending the environment. It’s a historic sentence, the longest yet for any of these Green Scare cases.

In the lead up to her sentencing, the FBI took their “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering to a new level. Mason’s friends and family were prepared to attend the sentencing hearing and support her at such a terrible moment in her life. So what did the FBI do? Agents had the audacity to warn the press that “terrorists” might be attending Mason’s sentencing. They said they “expect members of the eco-terrorist groups, the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front to gather and protest.” This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Any FBI agents worth their salt knows that clandestine organizations like the ALF and ELF do not protest: they are illegal, underground groups. This was a calculated scare-mongering move meant to make normal, everyday people afraid of showing up to a public court proceeding, lest they be labeled as members of the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Let me reiterate this: The government made a concerted effort to demonize not just the defendant, but anyone who supports the defendant by attending a public court proceeding. Regardless of how you feel about Marie Mason, or the Green Scare more broadly, moves like this are antithetical to any semblance of a democracy. Intimidating citizens to keep them from attending a politicized court date is a defining characteristic of an out-and-out police state.

If that isn’t enough, let’s look at Mason’s sentence. Twenty-one years for arson that caused about $1 million in damage to genetic-engineering research at Michigan State University and didn’t harm anyone.

By comparison, on Monday the FBI put out a press release patting themselves on the back for the guilty pleas of four men who assaulted three African-Americans on the night of President Barack Obama’s election victory. [I've written previously about how the FBI is more concerned about environmental activists than presidential assassination attempts].

From the FBI’s news release:

Nicoletti drove the group to the Park Hill section of Staten Island, a predominantly African-American neighborhood, where they came upon an African-American teenager and assaulted him. Nicoletti struck the teenager with a metal pipe and Garaventa hit him with a collapsible police baton.

The expected sentences for racist, violent attacks meant to punish people for voting for a black man? Between 10 and 12 years. That’s about half of Marie Mason’s.

The government’s press release said that “this successful prosecution sends a clear message.”

What is the message that you think it sends?

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted in Legal Issues, Opposition, Prisoner Support

  • Flu-Bird
    ELF and ALF are terrorists groups and they should get prison and absolutly no movie offers from some hollywood twit director after all the movie HOOT was bad enough to encourage eco-terrorist SHE MADE THE MISTAKE AND NOW MUST PAY
  • Flu-Bird
    These people are terrorists and should be treated as terrorists they should get up to 25 years and no less then that we need to seriuosly punish these crinimals and not reward them with movie contracts and book deals
  • MikeH
    First off, arson is not a 'non-violent' crime. Fire is very far from non-violent. There could have potentially been people injured by the fire. Stealing property and throwing it away would be non-violent.

    Second, this was done to a university. A university with students. Young adults, just barely not kids. This was not done to a huge 'evil' uncaring megacorporation.

    I was supportive of your article until I read it is about people setting fire to a school. I could even see myself protesting in-person against a large prison sentence for non-violent civil disobedience like staging a sit-in. But setting fire to a school, no.

    It is hard to take an article seriously when it supports people setting fire to a school. If you had even included a condemnation of their actions (setting fire to a SCHOOL), while complaining about the over-large prison sentence, that might have worked. But this article does not include that. Without that, I cannot come to the conclusion that you are a rational person and able to discern between appropriate actions.

    Maybe I should point this out again: SETTING FIRE TO A SCHOOL.
  • "Setting fire to a school" is not accurate. It was a research lab.
  • Anonymous
    she got what she deserved
  • The picture is obviously photoshopped. No terrorist would cut her own bangs.
  • j3ff
    I am glad to see our justice system is still working.

    Sadly this woman was not put to death, at least we can make sure she is raped and killed the day she is released.
  • Wolfie
    How is it that all of these people who are opposed to ALF/ELF "violence," are ok with the torture, terrorizing and killing of animals.

    VIVSECTION = VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
    THE MEAT INDUSTRY = VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
    THE FUR INDUSTRY = VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
    THE DAIRY INDUSTRY = VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
    THE ZOOS AND CIRCUSES = VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
    THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE ABOVE SUPPORT VIOLENCE & TERRORISM
  • waitress
    I would like to point out that although Marie was charged with the arson, Frank admitted he was the one who actually set the fire. That is was the FBI and Feds have put out in the news anyway.
  • Reality Hall Pass
    The next 22 years of her life she will now spend wasting away. As we've learned from dictatorships like the Nazi party, or the followers of Jim Jones who drank the juice; Any social idealistic pressure that is charismatic and powerful enough, and the weak willed and impressionable, but often the good hearted will make decisions that are irrational and dangerous to themselves or others, out of some false, self aggrandizing sense of martyrdom. America will not be deterred, and the collective consciousness of our country will always triumph over extremist action. The only thing seperating this woman from Ted Kacyzinsky is that the physical violence he caused was implicitly deliberate.
  • Not Mr. GreenJeans
    I am not an environmentalist, but I do follow activist blogs because they are fun to read.
    Arson is a serious crime of violence with the potential to kill. Read the law: terrorism includes acts of violence directed at people or property with the intent to force changes in behavior. Mason admitted to years of arson attacks and property damage in excess of $4 million specifically to intimidate people.
    Mason's crimes are referred to as "crimes against property". What has not been recognized is the related damage to people's work, research, careers and the threats to their personal security not knowing where the arsonists may strike next.
    Aside from environmental activists, there is very little public support for groups like ELF, ALF, SHAC et al because of the violent criminal activities that discredit the goals they profess to support. Just read the papers. Rather than being an "excessive deviation", Mason's sentence should establish a precedent.
  • Cryptic
    I think 10 years would be the historical average for arson without injury and this maybe a high estimate. Disproportionate sentences can become weapons to be used against social / political opponents. It, however, is almost impossible to win in an appealate court by arguing that a sentence is disproportionate

    A close study will reveal that politically motivated arsonists (Environmentalists and Anti Abortion activists) appear to have received sentences that are significantly longer than merely criminal arson.
  • Meagan
    To "no";
    Using a derogatory argument like "even a monkey understands it" in regards to your logic behind arson being a violent crime, instead of backing it up with actual reasons, is typical of anyone who upholds the moral highground without actually knowing why. Every situation is NOT fundamentally the same; arson in one case could be violent, while in another case be not at all. In this case, whether or not she knew she would be hurting nobody, she clearly did not. Breaking a pencil in half is not tatamount to snapping the leg of a rabbit in half, or breaking somebody's spine. Your argument of violence against inanimate objects is perverse, in that it upholds the fascist ideal of corporations or man-made sites being citizens in their own right, with protected status. Corportations and the gov't do NOT have a monopoly on radical actions, or even violence. People are far too concerned with whether or not actions taken by activists will lobby support from those not already submersed in culture-jamming, and not concerned enough about the actual, concrete reaction created. Move past symbolism; symbolic actions yield symbolic changes. We need an abolitionist movement, not a liberal reformist one. My support goes out to every Environmentalist locked up because they wanted to hold corporations accountable for their actions, regardless of their actions.
  • Winslow Theramin
    Perhaps the author of this article show state what he thinks the proper sentence should have been? How many years in prison (if any) should the arsonist have been sentenced to?

    In a comment that author states "Terrorism was not involved in any 'base definition of the term,' because this arson did not involve violence against civilians in order to influence government conduct."

    But that is not what the judge was basing the application of "terrorism" on; according to the original article, it was because the people who worked in the organization attacked felt the threat of violence. This does not seem unreasonable to me. If someone burned down my place of work because explicitly because of what I was doing, I would feel physically under threat also. I believe that was the entire point of the arson: to frighten those doing the work into doing something else.
  • @Winslow Thermin:

    See the response in comment 30 by John Minock, Mason's attorney: The sentences in similar ELF arson cases has been 3-13 years. The terrorism enhancement increased this by 7 times.

    And no, the judge was not asked to apply the terrorism enhancement based on whether or not the people in the organization attacked felt the threat of violence. (For much more on that, see the link in this post on the terrorism enhancements and how they work).

    Finally, the point of the arson, as stated in the communique after the crime, was to sabotage the GE research.

    It stated:
    “The E.L.F. takes credit for a strike on the offices of Catherine Ives, Rm. 324 Agricultural Hall at Michigan State University on Dec. 31, 1999. The offices were doused with gasoline and set afire. This was done in response to the work being done to force developing nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa to switch from natural crop plants to genetically altered sweet potatoes, corn, bananas, and pineapples. Monsanto and USAID are major funders of the research and promotional work being done through Michigan State University. According to local newspapers, the fire cost $400,000 in damage. Cremate Monsanto, Long live the E.L.F. On to the next G.E. target!”
  • Mother Grizzly Bear
    let's focus: the point of the article is not that she was put in jail, but the length of the sentencing.

    As for violence:
    Violence is a part of life. If you disagree, consider yourself one of the lucky ones who have been able to avoid it so far. Millions of people (and many more non-humans) don't have it so good. To say you are "against all forms of violence" is like saying you're "against death". Sure, nobody likes it, but it's a fact of life and to pretend it's not is to bury your head in the sand.
    What would you do if you saw someone beating a child to death? What if violence was the only way to stop it...would you do whatever it took? Or would you let your "moral purity" take precedent, better to let the child die than to ever consider using violence? Inaction is a choice and it too has consequences.
  • What a stupid woman
    @42 you are a sanctimonious tard
  • Anti-Violence Means Anti-State
    Okay. So, you are 100% opposed to violence. I imagine than you are really active in opposing for example - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    My point is...

    What ground do you stand on? If you are to be so sanctimonious about violence, I hope you practice what you preach.

    I hope you so vigorously oppose both wars and occupations and all previous ones; domestic violence; vivisection; poverty; police brutality and all other forms of violence that is status quo in these United States.... I hope the recent bombing and attacks of the Gaza strip has infuriated you as much as Marie Mason has.

    PERIOD.
  • What a stupid woman
    Thanks for making us all look bad you stupid VIOLENT woman. Enjoy prison because you are now on the same moral level as the vile racists.
  • Arson = Violence
    Arson = Violence PERIOD. I have no sympathy for this moronic woman OR the racists. They should ALL rot in prison.
  • Only
    Wow. This has already been said, but many of these posts are indeed disturbing.

    For all the "I'm just as much as an evironmentalist as the next person" comments - it needs to be understand that whether or not you find ELF tactics morally acceptable or not - ELF actions are a huge part of the reason that the concept of environmentalism is so popular right now. Any strides that this culture has made in addressing the current ecological crisis can no doubt be attributed to actions done in the name of the ELF that helped to raise the profile of environmental issues. History will reflect this.

    Trace the history of any social movement and you will find that it is those seemingly marginal yet extremely courageous people who have broke the law, risked and given their own freedom for the eventual benefit of society at large. When people like Marie started doing environmental work - mainstream discourse would laugh in disbelief at issues like global warming and climate change - it is largely because of actions taken by ELF in concert with other grassroots efforts - are THE reason why these issues have begun to see more attention in mainstream culture.

    Marie's action and beliefs run contrary to the agenda of the entire state apparatus -- and that is why she has received the sentence she has. We can see clearly from the cases of Eric McDavid and the SHAC 7 that these prosecutions are not about the specific crimes being prosecuted - this are ideological prosecutions. The environmental movement poses a threat to the status quo - because this exploitative system benefits from environmentally destructive behaviors. They do not want to stop these behaviors, because they do not want to give up power.

    We live in a system where those who create and maintain the laws actually carryout, perpetuate and ensure the committing of the most atrocious and violent acts. Remember that next time you reference what is legal and illegal.

    If any of us want real social change - we need to forget about the law as we know it. The law is nothing more than a tool of our masters to control us. They use it when it works for them and completely disregard it the rest of the time.

    Finally, for all of us on the right side of this fight (and yes, there is a right side) -- Marie needs to hear from us. Let's get some letter's in the mail! Send her support campaign $$ money if you have it!

    Will, thanks for all you do with this site. It's a light in the dark. We need more people doing this important work.
  • no
    Violence is not defined by the object. Non-humans and non-living entities can be the objects of violence. It's so simple even a monkey understands.

    Arson is a violent act. I don't care how you twist it.

    The sentencing does appear to be extreme. Her admittance to being involved in other acts is probably what really sealed the deal for a longer term. No matter the paranoid hyperbole one reads here. Terrorism was involved by the base definition of the term and the admittance of the defendant.

    It's the sentencing where the issue lies. Seven years I assume with the possibility of parole sounds more reasonable. Stating that she doesn't belong in prison at all is just scary to think about the collective mentality among my fellow Americans. Quite frankly, stating this crime was not an act of terrorism is no different than stating that a klansman burning down an African American church is not terrorism. Ridiculous.

    In the meantime.......Cory Maye still sits in a prison cell.
  • @"no":

    No, what "sealed the deal" is the government pushing for "terrorism enhancement" penalties which drastically increased the sentence. Terrorism was not involved in any "base definition of the term," because this arson did not involve violence against civilians in order to influence government conduct. In fact, the entire reason the ELF says it uses arson and other crimes is that government conduct can NOT be influenced, and that reform is not possible. There are myriad definitions of terrorism used by branches of the U.S. government, and this does not fit any of them.
  • haloka
    because, at least inasmuch as it matters whether an act is violent or nonviolent as opposed to effective or ineffective, typically violence requires somebody to be, you know, actually hurt in some way.

    always the case with condos. never has been the case with an ELF action.
  • sam
    how is arson "non-violent?"
  • Joe
    Arson is not a non-violent crime. She caused over 4 million dollars in damage and put the lives of the fire fighters who had to respond to her fires in danger. She is where she belongs....prison.
  • whatever
    Kristin; the savior of the world - lol.
  • John Minock
    I am Marie Mason's lawyer. I have read all the comments. I am reluctant to post on this, but I believe a couple observations are in order.

    Marie Mason pled guilty, accepted responsibility, and expressed remorse. There was never any question but that there would be a substantial prison sentence. Her ex-husband, who taped conversations with her for the government, was sentenced to 9 years.

    Application of the terrorism enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines increased the advisory sentencing range 7 times over what the range would have been for arson without the enhancement. (However, she was facing a mandatory 7 year minimum sentence because of the danger to firemen.) The terrorism enhancement makes no distinction between intent to murder or, as in this case, property destruction, and because of its inflexibility provides little guidance.

    There have been about 20 other similar cases in the country where property was destroyed but there was no intention to commit murder. The sentences in those other cases have been from 3 to 13 and a half years, principally because in those other cases the government recommended downward departures of twice as much as in this case. Comparing the facts of those other cases and the backgrounds of those defendants, the sentence in this case is more than double what it would have been.

    The purpose of federal sentencing law is to achieve sentencing uniformity throughout the country, so that there are not vast differences from place to place. 22 years is the average sentence for murder in federal court. The average sentence for arson in federal court is 7 years. In this case, a considerable sentence was inevitable. 22 years is excessive and disproportionate.
  • Thanks very much for posting that, John.
  • Anonymous
    John Walker Lindh got 20 years and he carried a gun for the women hating Taliban. Sick effing country we live in.
  • Interesting. According to Ryan's post, all of the research was backed up at other locations. Kristin's post refutes that.

    But I agree with Will. The point of the post is about the ubiquitous "terrorist" label.
  • Mark
    Yes, this was a property crime, and technically, with no human being injured, you can say that it was "non violent", but it did create enormous potential for harmful consequences.

    I do understand the point being made about the link between this and terrorism though. Do I think this should be considered terrorism? I don't think so. I think the Government also has fun throwing around the word terrorist, especially post 911. I do think it's a control/fear tactic to lump any and all form of disidents together.
  • Kristin
    Silly indolent psychos. Here is another prime example of sensationalism in its most amusing. Mason not only destroyed over a million dollars worth of university research (where I have participated, this research facility that she destroyed was involved in creating crops able to withstand lower nutrient soil levels while keeping maximum nutrients in vegetation in AFRICAN regions such as Congo, Sudan, and Tazmania), in addition to fields dedicated to growing sprouts to be transferred to regions of deforestation. WAY to go, ELF! This IS environmental terrorism in its worst form, created by miscreant douchebags. I am a very dedicated environmental researcher at MSU, and I am PROUD of the accomplishments we've made. Too bad you morons can't make sense of the GOOD her and Ambrose have DESTROYED and set back YEARS of progress. Please take care to conduct your own research before bringing out your M80s.
  • lolwob
    I hear a few people here in the UK complain about her arson charges as if that was the only political thing she ever did. she's also a long-time community and union activist whose work spans far further than environmentalism, let alone a few acts of arson when she was much younger. She deserves our support and all our respect for being so much more than 'just' an environmentalist.
  • Norah
    I don't mean to be the "can't we all get along?" person here, but despite our disagreements on whether or not what Marie did was right or if she should've gotten a lighter sentence, I am pretty sure we all agree on one thing: We are sick of seeing the environment destroyed and want to do something to stop it. And while we are arguing on here, the damage is getting worse and worse. Let's stay positive and active.
  • Jimi
    The bottom line is the use of ternm "terrorist", in any form. It puts her on the same playing field as any muslim terrorist group that they have used to have us all running scared. What she did was wrong only if you agree with Big Brother. If that lab had killed some kids, all of you who disagree would be on her side. What you don't understand is that everything they do, (government, capitalism, corporations) is killing not just you, but your kids, your grandkids, your planet, your landbase. Without destruction their system simply does not work. What they need to call her, if they feel to put a label on her is "rebel" but they never will, they could even call her just "criminal" since her actions violated "their laws" but they never will. Time to wake up folks, we are entering a time in this country where just getting together in an organized manner will allow them to arrest or detain you based on the patriot act because of the word "terrorist" that has been shoved down America's throat starting on 9/11/2001. Free? You are not free.
  • Marie Mason - maybe she will be for America what Nelson Mandela was for South Africa.
    American justice - the best that money can buy.
  • tofu pup
    Who am I to question a man of your literary brilliance, but I have to say it since I've seen it used twice in your blogs lately:

    I believe the more correct term is "bald-faced lie," not "bold-faced lie," although the common misuse of the term as the latter is making it more acceptable in modern times.

    But the former is really more correct, as I understand it.
  • lil
    it seems marie received such a disproportionate sentence because she refused to inform on fellow activists. it has very little to do with her actual actions, considering that other non-politically motivated arsonists have received much smaller sentences for causing much more property damage than marie.
    while it is incredibly saddening that marie has received such a long sentence, her courage in the face of such a threat (to her and her family) is incredibly admirable. free marie!
  • Great post. I regularly check my local police blotters, both in my university town and my hometown. My grandfather was the Judge that sentenced Jeffrey Dahmer to 13 consecutive life sentences and my cousin recently graduated from law school, so I've always had a peculiar interest in criminal law and sentencing. Since working with a Catholic Worker hospitality house and various women's organizations I've heard more stories about "people getting off light" than I would care to. These people tend to be multiple DWI/DUI offenders, serial rapists, chronic domestic abusers, assaulters, and batterers, and even homicide perps.

    IMHO, I think this sentence is insane. While I respect a diversity of tactics, even those that are by law illegal, I know that those that undertake them often understand the risks. But when a growing development, like the Green Scare, finds new ways and new legislation to clothe themselves in, it is often difficulty to gauge when an "arson" or "criminal property damage" law is going to get trumped up to "domestic (eco/animal enterprise)terrorism", which in this post 9/11 Empire, is going to be prosecuted to its full extent.

    Hypothetically, if you were a law enforcement officer, why would you ever want to solve a "criminal property damage" case when you could get brownie points with the press, state, and fed, not to mention you're department boss, for scoring big on a "terrorism" case? Personal incentives are to great, along with the entire machine of the Green Scare pushing for and in some cases (like "Anna") actually providing the means for these charges to even be possible to allege. Crazy.
  • Great points Jonathan, particularly about law enforcement incentives and motivations...
  • Missy
    nonsense. How many years in prison will the researchers get? I hope untill they die. She shouldn't just set up one building on fire but she/they should have set on fire the whole world. then i will die happy. people are useless beasts.
  • ryan
    Monsanto only gave two thousand dollars, and that was for students. The rest was from MSU and its contributors. In no way were they destroying the environment with the research they were doing there. She obviously didn't research what she was doing because any data she destroyed was backed up in several other locations, and the reseach facilities continued on as normal. So the only thing she damaged was a building that was part of a university that was started more than 100 years ago, which I am prety sure has done more for the world than her liberation front ever did or will ever do. Also, MSU spends million of dollars on organic farming research. Fucking Idiots
  • she wasn't trying to get public support, she was trying to stop the destruction of the environment and cost companies money.
  • Stephen
    Here's a question: What is the average sentence for arson? Here is Oz (the one with the kangaroos, not the wizard) we are in the midst of Bushfire season, and as usual some dimwits think it's clever to light fires causing acres of damage, destoying homes, endagering lives, etc. What do they get? community service, a couple of months-sentence suspended, a stern talking to. Compare and contrast?
  • Enviro the Avenger
    You do not see the hypocritical connection between using harsh language on an entity you are critical of for using harsh language to describe something you support, and then turning around and employing coddling language on and entity you support and harsh language to describe one you oppose for using harsh language? You don't understand that? Ok.

    Anyway, that's great that elf INTENDS not to hurt anybody, and that it hasn't yet (I don't know if that's true, Ill take your word for it), but that doesn't change the fact that they are employing illegal means, and potentially endangering lives, to achieve their aims. Violence and self-help, whether against property to affect corporate profits, or against people (as I figure is embodied in the conventional definition of terrorism), automatically places the party employing it in the wrong. Sort of like the real life equivalent Godwin's law.

    And as far as that other commentator "x" is concerned: I think as soon as you lambast (even obliquely) another poster who is not just putting a string of swear words together, but rather commenting on the post, you make me feel good for ignoring all the other text you took the time to place on the internet. I am glad you provided a clear and easily applicable justification for ignoring everything you have ever thought.
  • haloka
    "You can’t burn down a building because you disagree."

    That's a total red herring. Nobody burns down buildings, or commits any act of sabotage (whatever the people who write laws want to call them), because they disagree with somebody. They act because the planet is being killed and other forms of protest aren't doing shit to fix the problem. Among many other reasons that have a much more sophisticated political analysis than "I disagree."

    And I'd like to say this to mandy: you may be turned off by such acts, but I'm turned off by holding signs and chanting, then going home knowing that another condo is still going to go up next door.

    This sentence is bullshit. Organize, organize, organize. And if you don't like a particular tactic, well, you don't have to work for the state to work for the state. If you're unwilling to stand in solidarity across tactics, well, you're going to be facing prison next, and history will leave you in the dust.
  • Enviro the Avenger
    Don't you think it is a little hypocritical to accuse the government of demonizing the woman as a terrorist, and then to benignly label what she did as "non-violent property crimes?"
    She couldn't know for sure there weren't people in the building; arson is a real problem. She should count herself lucky that she isn't staring down a criminally negligent homicide sentence. And anyone thinking of following in her footsteps should wisely heed the folly of her actions, how little she accomplished for so high a cost, and how easily that cost could be far greater.
  • @Enviro The Avenger:

    What, exactly, is hypocritical about that? I'm not following your logic as to why it is contradictory to be critical of the government smearing activists as terrorists.

    As to your other point about the risks, you are absolutely correct. However, it is not an accident that no ELF action has ever harmed anyone. That's not a lucky coincidence, it's a reflection--as stated in the communiques--that the intention of these crimes is not to harm life but to protect life by harming corporate profits. That is a far cry from any conventional definition of terrorism.
  • x
    i love it when people preface their comment with stuff like "i'm just as much of an environmentalist as anyone else..."

    it's almost like their begging to be lumped in with the rest of the other "trolls".
    you know, the kind of people that are aching to cause more division within the movement.

    especially when they purposefully ignore the premise of the blog.
    Will isn't squabbling over whether or not arson and evading arrest is "pretty illegal".
    Will has pointed out that many violent hate crimes receive FAR LESS severe sentences.

    after working in social work for so many years, you realize how insanely ridiculous it is to watch people like the SHAC7 do more time than many serial rapists.

    the message is clear: our government (and the many related forces) cares more about big business and money than it does about you, your loved ones, and anything/anyone that doesn't affect them.

    Will didn't post this blog as a pity party for anyone.
    he is helping remind us that no matter how you practice your activism, you will never have a level playing field.

    the cops don't care about the clipboards you sign, the organic produce you buy at your local co-op, or the energy efficient light bulbs you bought.

    however, they do care about people causing financial damage to corporations.
    theres a reason for that.
    it's a powerful, direct blow.
    the threat is real.
    hence the disproportionate sentences.
  • Enviro the Avenger
    You can't burn down a building because you disagree. Before committing arson, a term conspicuously missing (or at least, disguised) from this article, a mother of two should consider the potential ramifications of her actions. Laws are not designed to come in and out of effect based on whether the intended victim is "bad" - and while this might not happen in practice, I can bet the consensus is that "the man" would already be biased against someone it labels as an eco-terrorist. I sincerely hope that she did not believe that, after committing arson, she would be carried around on the government's collective shoulders.
    "Oh, you burned a building down, we ALL see now that you are right. Please, return to your family unpunished and with our blessing, only to return with that potent, and only, vehicle of change: gasoline, whenever you feel that our system needs changing." -Judge Fudge
    There is a term for this sort of thing, and it is not eco-terrorist. It's arsonist. Before you support her, consider whether you support or oppose criminal sanctions for intentionally burning down a building.
    Even if you are 'like really sure' no one is inside.
  • @Enviro The Avenger:

    "Before you support her, consider whether you support or oppose criminal sanctions for intentionally burning down a building."

    That's irrelevant. Opposing the labeling of non-violent property crimes as "terrorism," and opposing outlandish and disproportionate sentences in political cases, does not mean you SUPPORT arson or any other illegal tactic. That's buying into the "with us or against us" rhetoric of the War on Terrorism that the government has tried to push since day one.
  • Jon
    Though her actions may be "non-violent," I agree with #3: razing a building is not the answer. You cannot fight fire with fire-- when doing something such as this, both sides just up the ante until there's nothing even left to fight over.
  • The FBI obviously cares more about sentencing nonviolent activists than it does children growing up without a mother as well.

    How sad. I've only been alive 5 years longer than her sentence. That is horrible.
  • mandy
    hey guys, i'm just as much of an environmentalist as anyone else, but this lady set fire to a building and then evaded arrest for 8 years. that's pretty illegal.

    her husband went to jail for a MUCH shorter time because he cooperated with authorities. like it or not, arson is not getting the environmental movement anywhere - that's the kind of tactics that just turn people off from the message.
  • Hi Mandy, thanks for your comment. As clarification, Marie Mason didn't evade arrest: she was a prominent environmental activist. The FBI just couldn't do their job well enough to solve the case until a dumpster-diver found a box of evidence. Also, I think most people would take issue with the implication that Frank Ambrose somehow "did the right thing," and confessed. He was caught because he threw away a bunch of incriminating materials, and he turned informant and spied on lawful activists as well as Marie Mason.

    The most important point here, though, is that I don't think it matters one bit whether or not arson is a smart tactic. The real question is whether or not the government should be singling out people, who have never harmed anyone, and labeling them as a terrorists in order to push a political agenda and silence dissent.
  • Stephen
    "What is the message that you think it sends?"

    I try to put a hopeful spin on this. The government/big business is sending the message "We're running scared. We've been caught out one too many times and the people are getting wise to us"

    Stand strong, fight the power.
blog comments powered by Disqus