Options

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

24

Posts

  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    redx wrote:
    I was under the impression that lumberjacks/millworkers have been fatally injured because of spiked trees.

    Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking
    In 1987, California mill worker George Alexander was seriously injured when the bandsaw he was operating was shattered by a tree spike. While both the County sheriff and Alexander's employers, Louisiana-Pacific, blamed environmentalists for the spiking, when Earth First! activist Judi Bari obtained the sheriff's files on the incident some years later, she discovered that one of the suspects for the spiking was Bill Ervin, a 50 year old property-owner, unconnected with Earth First. While Ervin freely admitted spiking trees on his own land to prevent Louisiana-Pacific from taking timber on his side of the property line, he was never charged with spiking the tree that injured Alexander. It should be noted that if a sawmill is operating under OSHA guidelines workers would be protected from a saw blade malfunction so that injuries such as Alexander's wouldn't be possible.

    Emphasis mine. Ignoring the OSHA stuff, it's not unlikely that the spiked tree was poached from Ervin's property and had nothing to do with radical conservationists.

    Doc on
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    So wait, this bill means that idiots who threaten to kill researchers at labs. destroy emperiments and such are no longer able to and can be prosecuted properly. A law like this has been LONG overdue.

    If this means these dickheads are no longer to camp outside a researchers house, throw shit (literally) at their family and do other things like that I'm all for this.

    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.
    Somebody is a little sensitive about their torturing of primates.

    Dynagrip on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Emphasis mine. Ignoring the OSHA stuff, it's not unlikely that the spiked tree was poached from Ervin's property and had nothing to do with radical conservationists.

    May he burn in Gitmo.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    It is already the law for the most part.

    Though the new wording makes it very explicitly protect the families of employees, this is not the how that shit should be handled. Harrassment and vandlaism should be dealt with as such, not as "eco-terrorism"

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    [It's called a "terrorism act," but those in violation are not considered terrorists due to this act.

    Which kind of begs the question of why the fuck would one even mention the word "terrorism" in the bill in the first place?

    So they can get it passed, or at least classify those who vote against it as "weak on terrorism?"
    Has the Christian Puppies Anti-terrorism Act been made yet?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
    Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!

    Get fucked, and then read this and this, and tell me who the real terrorists are around the environmental movement.


    Aegeri and others, it'd be nice if you'd try and distinguish between environmental protesting and rabid animal rights/anti-vivsectionist types. They're rather different.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    So wait, this bill means that idiots who threaten to kill researchers at labs. destroy emperiments and such are no longer able to and can be prosecuted properly. A law like this has been LONG overdue.

    [snip]

    If this means these dickheads are no longer to camp outside a researchers house, throw shit (literally) at their family and do other things like that I'm all for this.

    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    I don't know how you guys roll down in Kiwiville, but that shit's already illegal in the US. Like, way illegal.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    It is already the law for the most part.

    Though the new wording makes it very explicitly protect the families of employees, this is not the how that shit should be handled. Harrassment and vandlaism should be dealt with as such, not as "eco-terrorism"

    So wait, you have a problem with the concept of calling a group of extremist nutters (for the most part) who use intimidation, arson, breaking and entering, direct physical violence and even explosives (they threatend to firebomb Oxford University should it go through with the building of a new lab for example) as... what? The idea of calling people who use such tactics terrorists makes perfect sense to me.

    But maybe I live on the moon.

    Or maybe, because I've had direct first hand experience with such people, have known many researchers who have that I know for a fact all you going "ololz it's part of the law already" don't realise how OVERDUE such SPECIFIC measures really are.

    Again, I haven't seen a single post here beyond "OLOLZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY, I R SO WITTAY" that has any real relevance to opposition to this bill. The text of it that Salvation posted has nothing unreasonable about it. I've still yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Emphasis mine. Ignoring the OSHA stuff, it's not unlikely that the spiked tree was poached from Ervin's property and had nothing to do with radical conservationists.

    so he's not a terrorist, just because his rights were being violated?


    fucking hippy.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    So wait, you have a problem with the concept of calling a group of extremist nutters (for the most part) who use intimidation, arson, breaking and entering, direct physical violence and even explosives (they threatend to firebomb Oxford University should it go through with the building of a new lab for example) as... what? The idea of calling people who use such tactics terrorists makes perfect sense to me.

    But maybe I live on the moon.

    Or maybe, because I've had direct first hand experience with such people, have known many researchers who have that I know for a fact all you going "ololz it's part of the law already" don't realise how OVERDUE such SPECIFIC measures really are.

    Again, I haven't seen a single post here beyond "OLOLZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY, I R SO WITTAY" that has any real relevance to opposition to this bill. The text of it that Salvation posted has nothing unreasonable about it. I've still yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise.

    Okay - I get it. You don't like these eco-protestor types. Some of them are freaky, violent and destructive.

    The question is: what does this bill do that wasn't done previously?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Some people have died as a result of tree spiking.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    Probably not, as environmental groups usually don't take credit for attacks which result in human deaths.

    Animal rights groups are among the suspects in the 2000 bombing of a French McDonald's in which one employee was killed.
    Doc wrote:
    That's pretty dumb. I'd like an act that just makes it ok for me to punch people in the face who really think protesting accomplishes anything other than making you look like a useless twat.

    In some cases it works pretty well. One pet store here was driven out of business because the owner kept getting his dogs from puppy mills. Some people stood outside his store with signs and actually raised awareness.

    The people that do things like protest KFC aren't doing anything useful, though. I have to imagine that the people who go there already know what they are eating.

    Maybe KFC can get the same 15 foot buffer zones that abortion clinics do.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    It is already the law for the most part.

    Though the new wording makes it very explicitly protect the families of employees, this is not the how that shit should be handled. Harrassment and vandlaism should be dealt with as such, not as "eco-terrorism"

    So wait, you have a problem with the concept of calling a group of extremist nutters (for the most part) who use intimidation, arson, breaking and entering, direct physical violence and even explosives (they threatend to firebomb Oxford University should it go through with the building of a new lab for example) as... what? The idea of calling people who use such tactics terrorists makes perfect sense to me.

    But maybe I live on the moon.

    Or maybe, because I've had direct first hand experience with such people, have known many researchers who have that I know for a fact all you going "ololz it's part of the law already" don't realise how OVERDUE such SPECIFIC measures really are.

    Again, I haven't seen a single post here beyond "OLOLZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY, I R SO WITTAY" that has any real relevance to opposition to this bill. The text of it that Salvation posted has nothing unreasonable about it. I've still yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise.

    Let me try again

    There are already laws against this shit.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Some people have died as a result of tree spiking.
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    Doc on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Some people have died as a result of tree spiking.
    read threads much?

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri and others, it'd be nice if you'd try and distinguish between environmental protesting and rabid animal rights/anti-vivsectionist types. They're rather different.

    I'm not interested in one side of things, because here we have such a strong pro-environment government and general cultural attitude such a thing is irrelevant. We also don't have as much of a problem with the likes of the animal liberation front, but where we've had problems is with GE researchers being attacked, harassed and their experiments being utterly destroyed. I knew a PhD student who lost everything, 4 years of work in one night due to the actions of these kinds of idiots. The law is completely inadequate to prevent such actions in many cases and in Britain it can be even worse.

    Do you know how many researchers visit my University and comment at how amazed they are how freely we can do animal research compared to back home? I had a discussion for several hours with an American researcher about the fear and paranoia that some PhD students and such have due to threats of attacks from extremist animal rights groups and there is NOTHING they can do about it.

    Such a law as this does give them a chance to do something about it. My hope is legislation like this gives a stepping point for the likes of Britain to similarly increase the strength of their legislation on the issue.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Some people have died as a result of tree spiking.
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    BUT TEHY TOTALLY BLEW UP SOME SUVS DOC

    THATS LOTS OF DOLLARS

    ARE YOU A TERRORIST?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    What a shock. Some people on both sides take their ideology too far!

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    BubbaT wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    Probably not, as environmental groups usually don't take credit for attacks which result in human deaths.

    Animal rights groups are among the suspects in the 2000 bombing of a French McDonald's in which one employee was killed.
    Were Algerians and various Muslim groups also among the suspects, by any chance?

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    Aegeri and others, it'd be nice if you'd try and distinguish between environmental protesting and rabid animal rights/anti-vivsectionist types. They're rather different.

    I'm not interested in one side of things, because here we have such a strong pro-environment government and general cultural attitude such a thing is irrelevant. We also don't have as much of a problem with the likes of the animal liberation front, but where we've had problems is with GE researchers being attacked, harassed and their experiments being utterly destroyed. I knew a PhD student who lost everything, 4 years of work in one night due to the actions of these kinds of idiots. The law is completely inadequate to prevent such actions in many cases and in Britain it can be even worse.

    Do you know how many researchers visit my University and comment at how amazed they are how freely we can do animal research compared to back home? I had a discussion for several hours with an American researcher about the fear and paranoia that some PhD students and such have due to threats of attacks from extremist animal rights groups and there is NOTHING they can do about it.

    Such a law as this does give them a chance to do something about it. My hope is legislation like this gives a stepping point for the likes of Britain to similarly increase the strength of their legislation on the issue.

    Then legislation protecting those specific research types is needed. Not an attempt to blanket ban any environmetnally-related protest. This law means people protesting, say, a Wal-Mart they don't want built near a creek because it would destroy a section of remnant riparian vegetation could be declared terrorists. Not just vandals or disruptors of the peace, they'll be placed on the same legal level as Al Quaeda. Do you see how that is problematic?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    Some people have died as a result of tree spiking.
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?
    BUT TEHY TOTALLY BLEW UP SOME SUVS DOC

    THATS LOTS OF DOLLARS

    ARE YOU A TERRORIST?
    THIS JUST IN

    BLOWING STUFF UP IS OKAY

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    bone daddy wrote:
    BubbaT wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    Probably not, as environmental groups usually don't take credit for attacks which result in human deaths.

    Animal rights groups are among the suspects in the 2000 bombing of a French McDonald's in which one employee was killed.
    Were Algerians and various Muslim groups also among the suspects, by any chance?

    Eco-Muslims and Envir-Algerians, maybe

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    I'd like a better explanation of why the above isn't perfectly reasonable beyond OLOLOZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY!!!!1111oneone please.

    It is already the law for the most part.

    Though the new wording makes it very explicitly protect the families of employees, this is not the how that shit should be handled. Harrassment and vandlaism should be dealt with as such, not as "eco-terrorism"

    So wait, you have a problem with the concept of calling a group of extremist nutters (for the most part) who use intimidation, arson, breaking and entering, direct physical violence and even explosives (they threatend to firebomb Oxford University should it go through with the building of a new lab for example) as... what? The idea of calling people who use such tactics terrorists makes perfect sense to me.

    But maybe I live on the moon.

    Or maybe, because I've had direct first hand experience with such people, have known many researchers who have that I know for a fact all you going "ololz it's part of the law already" don't realise how OVERDUE such SPECIFIC measures really are.

    Again, I haven't seen a single post here beyond "OLOLZ ORWELLIAN SOCIETY, I R SO WITTAY" that has any real relevance to opposition to this bill. The text of it that Salvation posted has nothing unreasonable about it. I've still yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise.

    Let me try again

    There are already laws against this shit.

    And have you explained where they were adequate? This is why an American researcher said to me once "Wow, I wish I had the freedom to work with the amount of animals you do. If we tried to do this sort of thing back home we would be lynched or our experiments utterly destroyed by the likes of the ALF".

    It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

    By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    This law means people protesting, say, a Wal-Mart they don't want built near a creek because it would destroy a section of remnant riparian vegetation could be declared terrorists. Not just vandals or disruptors of the peace, they'll be placed on the same legal level as Al Quaeda.
    No it doesn't, you ignorant twat. Read. The. Fucking. Law.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    THIS JUST IN

    BLOWING STUFF UP IS OKAY

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    Yes, sal, that's exactly it. Property is a lie of The Man!

    Fuck you. I have a teeny problem[ with you asserting that breaking a few tractors is worse than 9/11. Perhaps you could actually acknowledge that you said something incredibly fucking stupid, o we can move on? I mean, your claim was on Ege02 levels.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    bone daddy wrote:
    BubbaT wrote:
    Doc wrote:
    Can anyone cite a specific case where ecoterrorism has killed a person?

    Probably not, as environmental groups usually don't take credit for attacks which result in human deaths.

    Animal rights groups are among the suspects in the 2000 bombing of a French McDonald's in which one employee was killed.
    Were Algerians and various Muslim groups also among the suspects, by any chance?

    Eco-Muslims and Envir-Algerians, maybe

    Honestly, it was probably just somebody who'd tasted the food. I swear, French McDonald'ses leaven their food with landry soap to punish anyone for daring to eat at them.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    Not just vandals or disruptors of the peace, they'll be placed on the same legal level as Al Quaeda. Do you see how that is problematic?

    Not legally, this bill is about terrorism in name only.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I don't think making things against the law twice will stop all that many people.

    Seriously, though, I have much greater sympathy for environmentalist groups than I do against, say, the people that fuck up our environment.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    THIS JUST IN

    BLOWING STUFF UP IS OKAY

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    Yes, sal, that's exactly it. Property is a lie of The Man!

    Fuck you. I have a teeny problem[ with you asserting that breaking a few tractors is worse than 9/11. Perhaps you could actually acknowledge that you said something incredibly fucking stupid, o we can move on? I mean, your claim was on Ege02 levels.
    Except I didn't say that?

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    Aegeri and others, it'd be nice if you'd try and distinguish between environmental protesting and rabid animal rights/anti-vivsectionist types. They're rather different.

    I'm not interested in one side of things, because here we have such a strong pro-environment government and general cultural attitude such a thing is irrelevant. We also don't have as much of a problem with the likes of the animal liberation front, but where we've had problems is with GE researchers being attacked, harassed and their experiments being utterly destroyed. I knew a PhD student who lost everything, 4 years of work in one night due to the actions of these kinds of idiots. The law is completely inadequate to prevent such actions in many cases and in Britain it can be even worse.

    Do you know how many researchers visit my University and comment at how amazed they are how freely we can do animal research compared to back home? I had a discussion for several hours with an American researcher about the fear and paranoia that some PhD students and such have due to threats of attacks from extremist animal rights groups and there is NOTHING they can do about it.

    Such a law as this does give them a chance to do something about it. My hope is legislation like this gives a stepping point for the likes of Britain to similarly increase the strength of their legislation on the issue.

    Then legislation protecting those specific research types is needed. Not an attempt to blanket ban any environmetnally-related protest. This law means people protesting, say, a Wal-Mart they don't want built near a creek because it would destroy a section of remnant riparian vegetation could be declared terrorists. Not just vandals or disruptors of the peace, they'll be placed on the same legal level as Al Quaeda. Do you see how that is problematic?

    No.
    `(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

    That's pretty clearly stated. They could easily protest such a thing, by dispensing pamplets about why it was bad, protesting to raise awareness and such forth. What they are not allowed to do is attack the families of wal-mart employees, the workers (potentially), breach trespass notices and bomb things. All the normal legal and similar avenues are still provided by and specifically exempted by this legislation.

    Also, nowhere in the bill does it apply the label terrorist to people who commit such acts, only in the title of the bill, unless I missed that part.

    It's like people haven't read the actual bill in question. I still fail to see what is so damn unreasonable here.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

    By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

    It's not a question of "whether the laws are sufficient". It's a question of will to enforce. It's illegal to break shit. Cops are supposed to investigate it when people break shit. But guess what? Cops mostly don't really care all that much one way or another, especially because vandalism/ destruction of property is difficult to prove and really pretty unsexy work when it comes down to it.

    So - passing another bill - "Vandalism II: This Time It's Terrorism!" with no extra enforcement provisions, and no new real substance, doesn't add anything.

    If anything, you should be kind of pissed that the legislative "solution" to your experiments getting sabatoged is:

    a) Calling it "Terrorism" in a symbolic sense
    b) ???
    c) Free vivisection 4 all!

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    Not just vandals or disruptors of the peace, they'll be placed on the same legal level as Al Quaeda. Do you see how that is problematic?

    Not legally, this bill is about terrorism in name only.

    True, but its still a hugely problematic law, completely unneccesary, and in the end, why fling the word into the bill when writing it if that isn't how the authors see environmental protest? Take a look at the wording. That factsheet was right, its deliberately vague enough to make boycott incitement a crime. That's insane.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!
    As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.

    In the case of the guy spiking his trees to discourage the logging company from poaching trees on his property, I have to say that was a rather clever idea on his part. Especially because it lends more credence to his claims that the logging company was stealing trees off his property.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    THIS JUST IN

    BLOWING STUFF UP IS OKAY

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    Yes, sal, that's exactly it. Property is a lie of The Man!

    Fuck you. I have a teeny problem[ with you asserting that breaking a few tractors is worse than 9/11. Perhaps you could actually acknowledge that you said something incredibly fucking stupid, o we can move on? I mean, your claim was on Ege02 levels.
    Except I didn't say that?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.

    "I never said Stay The Course!!"

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Aegeri wrote:
    It's almost as if in this thread you've made the argument that such a law is unrequired because existing laws cover it, without actually explaining why those laws are adequate and working fine to justify your statement. Maybe it's just because I've been following this issue for a while that I know harsher penalties (something you derided earlier incidentally) are required among tougher legislation against harassment have been long overdue.

    By all means, please do explain why if the law is working adequately as is without such additional legislatin as this, there is such concern on the likes of campuses about researchers and experiments coming under attack from these individuals.

    It's not a question of "whether the laws are sufficient". It's a question of will to enforce. It's illegal to break shit. Cops are supposed to investigate it when people break shit. But guess what? Cops mostly don't really care all that much one way or another, especially because vandalism/ destruction of property is difficult to prove and really pretty unsexy work when it comes down to it.
    Also, because vandalism / destruction of property, with very few exceptions, is a state offense, and not a federal one. The FBI is now legally able to investigate these cases, where before they were not unless ALF/ELF/Greenpeace/Who The Fuck Ever explicitly took credit for it.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    God45 wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!
    As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.

    In the case of the guy spiking his trees to discourage the logging company from poaching trees on his property, I have to say that was a rather clever idea on his part. Especially because it lends more credence to his claims that the logging company was stealing trees off his property.
    I'm pretty sure booby-trapping is super illegal.

    Dynagrip on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    God45 wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!
    As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.
    Wow, its almost like you're taking what I said out of context in order to support a strawman! How bizarre!

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    bone daddybone daddy Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Aegeri wrote:
    That's pretty clearly stated. They could easily protest such a thing, by dispensing pamplets about why it was bad, protesting to raise awareness and such forth. What they are not allowed to do is attack the families of wal-mart employees, the workers (potentially), breach trespass notices and bomb things. All the normal legal and similar avenues are still provided by and specifically exempted by this legislation.

    You know, if your American researcher dudes told you ALF was bombing them and everyone was going "Durfa durr we can't do nothing," they were exaggerating. That's FBI/most wanted levels of trouble.

    bone daddy on
    Rogue helicopter?
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    God45 wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    Conservatism: Because Your Stuff is More Important Than Real People!!
    As someone who owns property (land), and who has infrequent problems with the locals thinking they can cull from it (and do to it) as they like, I feel the need to say fuck you.

    In the case of the guy spiking his trees to discourage the logging company from poaching trees on his property, I have to say that was a rather clever idea on his part. Especially because it lends more credence to his claims that the logging company was stealing trees off his property.

    Putting landmines in your front yard to stop those damn kids from running in your azaleas will still land you in prison.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
    If they don't hurt or kill people, how are they the largest terrorist thread, exactly?

    I'm sorry, but I see a guy who will kill even one person as a much bigger threat than a hundred people who have no problem destroying a bunch of Hummers.

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.