A federal judge labeled property destruction in the name of the environment “terrorism” yesterday and sentenced the first of the Operation Backfire defendants to 13 years in prison. Activists around the country– and particularly the remaining nine defendants– had been watching the sentencing very carefully, because the judge’s tenor may foreshadow the remaining court dates.
Her decision may have much broader implications, though, in that it sends a clear message to prosecutors: if you bring politically-motivated prosecutions, toss around “terrorist” rhetoric in the press, and push for “terrorism enhancements” in the courtroom, there’s not much to stand in your way.
Stanislas Meyerhoff had been labeled a “snitch” by activists for offering to cooperate with the government just hours after his detention and interrogation, and before even consulting with his attorney. He has vigorously condemned his own actions, and those of his co-defendants, and he read a handwritten statement denouncing the Earth Liberation Front:
I was stupid; it was my mistaken understanding that the ELF’s ostensible aim was to initiate public discussion of issues highlighted by the dramatic occasion of crimes. The crimes were absolutely counter-productive to this goal. They cut off discussion. Meaningful discourse cannot be forced and fear cannot replace discussion. Transformation solutions will never be comprised of transgressions.
Meyerhoff’s political about-face might have helped during sentencing: his sentence is about 2 1/2 years less than the government offered in his plea deal. Without the deal, he faced 30 to life. And “had prosecutors pursued all possible charges, they earlier estimated he could have faced a minimum of 230 years,†according to The Register-Guard.
The government met Judge Aiken’s criteria for the “terrorism enhancement,†she says, because prosecutors argued that the crimes were all intended to influence government conduct (a key point in the “federal crime of terrorism†definition).
Here’s the reasoning:
- After the September 2000 arson attempt at a Eugene police substation, an anonymous communiqué dedicated the action to a group of anarchists that had been attacked by police. Police substation=government.
- After the March 2001 arson of 35 SUVs at Romania, a communiqué dedicated the action to Jeff Luers, and his prison sentence of 22 years, 8 months for an arson at the same spot. Prosecution=government.
- After a May 2001 arson at Jefferson Poplar Farm, a communiqué referenced new legislation. Legislation=government.
True, these actions are all in some way related to government conduct (just like nearly all legal and illegal activist conduct). But making such simplistic parallel constructions ignores the bigger picture: many crimes could meet such low standards, but these crimes are being singled out to push a political agenda.
“If, as defendants strenuously assert, the government is overreaching due to political considerations,†Aiken said in her opinion, “either the enhancement will not apply to defendants’ offenses or defendants will be eligible for a downward departure because their conduct is outside the ‘heartland’ of terrorism offenses.â€
Property crimes like this are outside of that “heartland.†To most people, the “heartland†of terrorism crimes are attacks against government like the Oklahoma City bombing, not actions calculated to destroy property but not human beings. The PR campaigns and War on Terrorism rhetoric are meant to expand that heartland, though, and envelop more and more illegal activity as “terrorism.â€
In this With Us Or Against Us War on Terrorism, it seems these activists were clearly in the “against us†camp, according to Aiken. They didn’t play by the books. Their hearts were in the right place, the prosecutorial cliché goes, but they choose the wrong path.
Aiken even took the opportunity to admonish Meyerhoff for hurting the environmental movement. From Jeff Banard of AP:
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Stanislas Meyerhoff for having the courage to “do the right thing” by informing on his fellow arsonists after his arrest, but declared that his efforts to save the earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.”
Environmentalists, rejoice! It’s all for your own good! Labeling activists as “terrorists†is certainly not about protecting corporate profits and scaring the mainstream environmental movement. Far from it. It’s about protecting your reputation!