Justice served or witch trials? Readers react to sentences.

Byline: TERRORISM OR ACTIVISM? For The Register-Guard

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following comments were take from a registerguard.com "Talk To Us" blog titled "Eco-sabotage: Terrorism or activism?" They represent a sampling of reactions to U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken's sentencing of 10 environmental activists who were involved in arsons and other acts of sabotage prosecuted as a part of Operation Backfire. Judge Aiken has ruled that the `terrorism' label should apply to many of the defendants' acts of property damage.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. It is not an enemy, but a method. People resort to terrorism when they feel that extant rules so privilege their opponents that their own cause is doomed to fail; they use terrorism to change the terms of a conflict they feel they are losing. Nonetheless, the judge is correct that the unfortunate methods these defendants chose to air their grievances our society and its laws defines as terrorism.

- Posted by DoctorTodd

I am astounded that the "terrorism enhancement" sentencing by a U.S. judge in Eugene is not bigger news for the only daily news publication in print here. Many of the people in this community have no clue as to the gravity of these outlandish sentencing guidelines, the ease with which Judge Ann Aiken can label the activists terrorists - banishing them to maximum federal penitentiaries, all while the U.S. government, with all its far-reaching arms, freely commits worldwide atrocities on a gargantuan scale - in large part paid for by our taxes!

- Posted by Beset

I don't think we can believe everything that the prosecutors and their informants say. Regardless of how anyone feels about the defendants or whether or not their tactics were appropriate, property destruction is still not terrorism. They should be sentenced for arson. They should not be sentenced as if they harmed human beings because they didn't do that.

- Posted by Brendan

As for the sentences, they could be much worse. Judge Aiken has sought to balance the need to treat these criminal acts seriously with compassion. So far, each time she has imposed the terrorism enhancement, she has softened it by crediting the defendant with cooperation or eventually accepting responsibility. She is not required to do that.

- Posted by Julia Gomez

I could care less about the legal definition of (terrorism). The question is, is eco-sabotage really in the same category as murder? How similar is property damage to killing people? The violent, murderous, anti-democratic wars and CIA-perpetuated coups our government has perpetuated for over 150 years around the world, including Iraq - now that's something to get upset about. The continuing destruction of the world's ecosystems to fuel our industrial commodity-consumption lifestyle; the very real threat of severe global death and starvation due to rapid climate change caused by our addiction to fossil fuels - now those are things to get upset about.

- Posted by U.S.=World's Biggest Terrorist

For those who may not be familiar with the local terrain let me assure you that your holier-than-thou heroes did not use public transit or nonpolluting transportation methods to get to the scene of their planet-saving crimes. Their vehicles and fires actually spewed massive quantities of toxic and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

- Posted by Doug

Welcome to the 21st century version of the Salem witch trials. In the 17th century, if you were threatening to the power structure, you were branded a witch. In the mid-20th century, it was communist. Now we've moved on to terrorist.

- Posted by Ken

Yes it is a form of terrorism if people are afraid of what these nut jobs will do next. You don't like the way things are going so you think people will listen more if you destroy their property. Would blackmail be a better term than terrorism? Do as we say or there will be more destruction? Sounds like a fear-based tactic to me.

- Posted by Mekun

If these useless scum are to be commended for being `activists,' then we also have to apply that description to the imbeciles who bomb abortion clinics.

- Posted by bob

I think when we come to a place where we let people tell us that we are going to war against `terrorism,' and then they tell us that `terrorism' doesn't mean actually hurting anyone, threatening to hurt anyone, or terrorizing anyone, that we need to really examine where we are in history. With this bizarre new `anti-terror' legislation, any one of us could be the next to be accused of the T-word. This robs it of its real meaning.

- Posted by Jane D

I wonder if their victims who lost irretrievable research and business records and personal possessions, without knowing the source of the attacks, feel these were just a few do-gooders rather than feeling terrorized? The victims' lives were disrupted, often losing not only personal possessions but time with their families while trying to resurrect the losses they incurred. Again, subject to the secrecy of perpetrators who expressed no regret until faced with prison time. Webster: "terrorize - to coerce by intimidation." Yes, it is terrorism.

- Posted by Bill

If you jaywalk, you get a ticket. If you jaywalk with a sign that says "George Bush should be impeached," you should get the same ticket. If you choose to burn down a building, you should be punished the same whether you do it for fun or for political reasons. This assumes that you believe they should be punished at all.

- Posted by Jeff D

I'm not opposed to protecting the environment, but when you cause potential harm to others, that is not morally right. There are other more productive and legal ways to protect our environment than the way they chose to. Judge Ann Aiken deserves respect, not criticism, for a job well done to protect our society from useless, costly criminals like these people.

- Posted by Jennifer

Judge Aiken has chosen to look only at one part of the definition of terrorism, that of influencing the government, to the complete exclusion of the other, rather more important element, of murder. And by so doing, she has redefined the word terrorism in such a way that it loses its meaning. For many of us in New York, this is insulting, to say the least.

- Posted by Marianne

I am not afraid of a tree hugger, but I am afraid of Judge Aiken calling these environmental and animal rights activists terrorists. By this definition, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman and other abolitionists, the Boston Tea Party, the suffragettes, plowshares and other religious folks who opposed the Vietnam War, are also terrorists.

- Posted by Katherine B.

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the U.S. Army counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the `only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

- Posted by It's Terrorism Stupid

I don't think out of 1,200 arsons, no one being hurt is an accident. Those odds don't randomly occur in nature. Can the United States government say that out of 1,200 bombs dropped, no innocent civilians were hurt?

- Posted by Angela