http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/te-may-apply/237/ Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:05:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/te-may-apply/237/comment-page-1/#comment-181750 James Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:18:46 +0000 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/21/kkk/#comment-181750 Throw the book at them. I care deeply for the Earth and have been an environmentalist for years but this is beyond the pale. These people think they have the only answers and IT WAS just dumb luck that no one was killed or injured. AND the full story is not coming out. Jacob Ferguson is a liar and profiting off of this by lying about the planning behind it. I witnessed some of it, so I know of what I speak. Throw the book at them. I care deeply for the Earth and have been an environmentalist for years but this is beyond the pale. These people think they have the only answers and IT WAS just dumb luck that no one was killed or injured. AND the full story is not coming out. Jacob Ferguson is a liar and profiting off of this by lying about the planning behind it. I witnessed some of it, so I know of what I speak.

]]> http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/te-may-apply/237/comment-page-1/#comment-122754 Center for the Common Interest » Blog Archive » Animal Rights is Terrorism ? Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:44:41 +0000 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/21/kkk/#comment-122754 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/te-may-apply/237/comment-page-1/#comment-64893 Don Thieme Thu, 24 May 2007 14:40:40 +0000 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/2007/05/21/kkk/#comment-64893 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. 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.

]]>