Oakland woman pleads guilty in eco-terror attacks

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(06-16) 16:59 PDT TACOMA, WASH. -- An Oakland woman has admitted taking part in a radical environmental group's arson attacks on a University of Washington research center and a Northern California corral, in a plea agreement calling for a four-year prison sentence.

Briana Waters, 35, pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court in Tacoma, Wash., to arson and related charges in the May 2001 firebombing of the university's Center for Urban Horticulture in Seattle.

She also acknowledged acting as a lookout for arsonists who set fires at a government corral for wild horses and burros near Susanville (Lassen County) in September 2001.

Waters, a violin teacher with a 6-year-old daughter, served 31 months in prison before an appeals court overturned her conviction in the University of Washington arson, said her lawyer, Dennis Riordan. He said she would spend about 11 more months behind bars, with time off for good behavior, if a federal judge accepted the plea agreement.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/16/BACE1JUJ2E.DTL

[ixion]

1. the phrase 'eco-terror' can go to hell

labeling environmentalists as 'terrorists' is wrong. If they vandalize something, then charge them with vandalism. Leave the whole 'terror' thing out of it.

[hack89]

2. "Environmentalists" don't firebomb buildings

terrorist do.

Are you seriously equating firebombing and destroying research labs with vandalism? Really?

[Xithras]

3. Fine. Charge them with arson.

They're still not terrorists.

[hack89]

7. So RW anti-choice groups firebombing Planned Parenthood clinics

are not terrorists as long as no one is hurt? Really?

[slackmaster]

27. THAT'S DIFFERENT!

:dunce:

[slackmaster]

31. Try writing your thoughts out in E-Prime

I believe you will discover the emptiness of your post.

http://www.angelfire.com/nd/danscorpio/ep2.html

[saras]

4. Yes. Absolutely.

There were as many as twenty bombings a day in the sixties, and the bombers were consistent about being sure people weren't involved to be injured - choose a time and place the building will be empty, and warn people ahead of time so they can evacuate.

I wouldn't call it vandalism, as it has a political purpose.

And I wouldn't call it terrorism, as terrorizing people is not part of its goal or motivation.

Depending on the 'research', destroying some research labs isn't even vandalism, it's merely a moral necessity.

[tjl148]

5. Careful

I'd be careful using the phrase "moral necessity."

[LanternWaste]

20. As much as I'd be careful using the word 'research'...

As much as I'd be careful using the word 'research'...

[hack89]

6. The IRA used to phone in warnings before they set off bombs

they were still terrorists.

Of course terrorizing people is a goal - why are we to expect that someone capable of firebombing a building for ideological reasons isn't capable of murder? It is not normal or rational behavior - violent irrational people scare people.

[plumbob]

15. Violent irrational people scare people. That's why it's our official US foreign policy since

1945.

And we have a jealous monopoly on that behavior. If anyone besides the government does it, they must go off!

Only wish this was the least bit sarcastic. It's the literal truth - the US government is the biggest terror organization on the planet.

[slackmaster]

28. The road to Hell is paved with "moral necessity"

Every terrorist believes in the righteousness of his or her crimes.

[NickB79]

36. If you worked in an industry where your office was repeatedly firebombed, you won't be afraid?

The thought would never go through your mind that maybe you'd have to work late one night, and the firebombers would strike thinking the lab/office/business was deserted? That they hadn't killed anyone YET, but maybe you'd be the first? And that even if you didn't die, all the work you'd done, years of sweat and labor, would go up in smoke in a few short minutes?

That is terrorism, no matter what you want to call it.

[ixion]

8. I'm saying it's a crime, and should not be lumped into the already problematic definition of terror

because as soon as you do that, you're just one short step away from eliminating what's left of posse comitatus and turning the military on the citizens.

If someone commits a crime, charge them with a crime, and try them in a court of law. Calling them 'terrorists' clears the path for all sorts of unconstitutional hog wash that needs to stop.

[hack89]

10. But if it is a coordinated plan to target a specific group of people

in support of a particular ideology then it does fit the definition of terrorism. They weren't firebombing random buildings - they had the goal of intimidating a certain group of people to stop their research.

[ixion]

13. nevertheless, it is a criminal offense, not a military one

and designating it 'terrorism' makes it a military issue because of the Bush Doctrine. Are you saying you support the Bush Doctrine?

[hack89]

16. No - there are domestic laws regarding terrorism

terrorism only becomes a military issue when it is in a foreign country and their government refuse to cooperate with US law enforcement. It is the FBI that works with all the European countries, for example, to track and arrest suspected terrorists that are based in Europe.

[ixion]

18. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect.

the unPATRIOTic Act applies to anything 'terror' related, and the person charged with a 'terror' crime can be declared an enemy combatant and denied the right to due process.

The denial of the right to due process was a changed that occurred after 911, and again is founded in principle by the Bush Doctrine.

[Bragi]

21. Yes, eventually all forms civil disobedience will be called "terrorism"

Once everyone gets used to confounding vandalism done to make a political point with real terrorism, I'm sure the "law-and-order" crowd will move on to the next logical step, which is declaring any type of civil disobedience intended to make a political statement as "terrorism".

Personally, I think this is inevitable in the forging of the new American police state, which already has widespread support.

I would expect that, eventually, Americans will come to believe that the 60s civil rights movement was "a type of terrorism" because they "broke laws" to force political change.

First they came for the animal rights activists -- but I wasn't an animal rights activist, so I said nothing.

etc., etc.

Drip, drip, drip.

- B

[ixion]

22. exactly...and why I opposed it back in 2001

when everyone was so hot-and-heavy to declare a 'war' on terror, which is unwinnable by definition, and which will be used to label any subset chosen by the state to be 'terrorist'

They've also made in-roads at connecting the failed 'drug war' with terror.

It's a slippery slope, with the bottom being totalitarianism.

[Bragi]

25. "a slippery slope, with the bottom being totalitarianism"

I agree. What depresses me is that I cannot imagine at this point how America does NOT become a complete totalitarian state, given: the corruption of the political system; the conversion of every public information system into propaganda outlets; an education system in tatters; steadily growing social and economic inequality; the steady building of a militarized public and political culture; the triumph of ideology and religion over reason, etc. etc.

All these things make it difficult for me to see how one can stop the emergence of some new, hybrid, uniquely-American form of fascism and authoritarianism. I think the present reality is that if the Bill of Rights didn't already exist as part of the U.S Constitution, there is no way right now that you'd get a majority of Americans to support enshrining those kind of near-absolute civil rights into law.

In fact, I'm not even sure you could get majority support at DU (!) for enacting something like the First Amendment anew!

Sigh.

- B

[hack89]

23. Are you denying that there have been domestic terror trials?

Trials that did not involve the military? You can have your own opinion but not your own facts - in this case the fact say you are wrong.

[NickB79]

37. I don't see the Marines invading Idaho or Michigan to go after terrorist cells there

Because those are DOMESTIC terrorists, dealt with by the FBI, just as the groups mentioned in the OP are.

Designating it terrorism does not make it a military issue.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Not until after 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act.

"In the wake of 9/11, federal prosecutors had some new legal tools at their disposal. Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the State Department defined terrorism as "premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants." But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.

Several Republican members of Congress didn't want to stop there. In a letter sent to eight mainstream environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Colorado Rep. Scott McInnis and six other congressmen demanded that respectable environmental organizations "publicly disavow the actions of eco-terrorist organizations." In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which imposes severe punishments on anyone who "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise." "


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/27/briana_waters

[The Stranger]

34. The taboo against violence is often cited by those empowered who wield power through extraordinary

violence.

Case in point, the indignance many assign to "violent" anti-war protesters. Suddenly, when opposition to those who wield power through extraordinary violence becomes anything less than absolutely peaceful, those in opposition are demonized? Oh, the horror.

Come on. You can see through that. Don't let them do that to you.

[hack89]

38. So you view fire bombings as legitimate forms of protest?

Is it ok for an anti-choice group to fire bomb Planned Parenthood clinics as long as no one was hurt? They are, after all, merely opposing those who wield power.

[The Stranger]

39. Your reply isn't responsive to my post.

Did you understand what I posted?

[hack89]

40. You are trying to justify violence

I am just curious as to how far you are willing to take.

[Zax2me]

11. Definition of eco-terrorist

This woman.

[ixion]

14. no, she committed a criminal act, and should be tried in a court of law

as soon as you invoke the word 'terror' you make it a military issue, which it is not.

[hack89]

17. That is not true

there have been plenty of terrorism prosecutions in civil courts.

[ixion]

19. have been, yes, but the point is that they can be negated

at the will of the state.

[hack89]

24. But since that hasn't happened, I don't see your point. nt

[slackmaster]

33. I didn't know that Zax2me had the power to call up a military strike

I'm in the presence of greatness!

[slackmaster]

26. LOL!

:rofl:

[ck4829]

9. Oh, now all of the sudden the media has no problem with calling someone a terrorist?

Weird.

[Zax2me]

12. What a complete idiot eco terrorist

Rare plants destroyed in her attacks.
Door knob dumb this woman - who obviously loves her pet cause more than her own child, who she won't see for four years now.

"She put lives at risk, caused millions in damages, and destroyed rare and endangered plants."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/16/BACE1JUJ2E.DTL#ixzz1PXJ0g4YT

[Uncle Joe]

29. An eco-terrorist is someone that hijacks an empty airplane.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

[FLPanhandle]

32. This woman is an idiot

She destroyed endangered plants!?! Fuck her.

[haele]

35. Firebombing an Urban Horticulture research facility ?

Doesn't really sound like she's all there, if firebombing a research facility that is - from all indications - focused on being eco-friendly, gives her points being an "eco-terrorist".
The government corral could possibly be seen as similar to test labs in the eyes of some radical groups, but then, those groups also see the Humane Society facilities as headquarters for facist pigs.

Haele