Law blog: Eco-terrorists are real terrorists (Marquette University)‏

Sent: November 16, 2009 1:34:25 PM


Marquette School of Law (Faculty Blog)
Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Yes, Eco-Terrorists Are
Real Terrorists
Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear
November 15, 2009 |
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/200...eal-terrorists/

On the night of July 20, 2000, Katherine Christianson, Bryan Rivera,
and two companions damaged or destroyed more than 500 trees at a
United States Forest Service facility. Was it a prank? A dare? A
harvest for the thneed industry? No, Christianson and Rivera were
members of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front, and their
target was the Forest Service’s genetic-engineering experiments on
trees in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. ELF issued a press release the next
day claiming responsibility for the attack and asserting that “the
Forest Service, like industry, are [sic] capitalists driven by insane
desire to make money and control life.”

Eight years later, Christianson and Rivera pled guilty to destroying
government property and were sentenced to two and three years of
prison, respectively. On appeal, Rivera challenged the district
judge’s decision to apply the terrorism enhancement of the sentencing
guidelines. He argued that he was not a terrorist because his
motivation was “the hope of saving our earth from destruction.” The
Seventh Circuit, however, rejected his argument and affirmed the
sentence in United States v. Christianson (No. 09-1526) (Manion, J.).

Following the application notes contained in the guidelines, the court
relied on the definition of terrorism set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
2332b(g)(5)(B): the commission of a listed crime (including
destruction of government property) ”calculated to influence or affect
the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate
against government conduct.” In light of that definition, it was not
hard to conclude that Rivera qualified as a terrorist:

“Here, the purpose behind defendants’ actions was to further ELF’s
political agenda: the end to industrial society. . . . Because the
defendants do not look the part of our current conception of a
terrorist does not separate them from that company. Indeed, it
doesn’t matter why the defendants oppose capitalism and the United
States government — if they use violence and intimidation to further
their views, they are terrorists.”

I agree there is little legal (or, I suppose, moral) basis to
distinguish criminals who are motivated by extremist environmental
views from criminals who are motivated by extremist religious views.
But I think it is an interesting question whether a passionate desire
to reform society (on environmental, religious, or any other grounds)
ought to be treated as an aggravating sentencing factor.

Imagine a hypothethetical variation on Christianson: Although Rivera
was motivated by a desire to change government policy on genetic
engineering, Christianson was only in it for the thrill of sneaking
into a government facility in the middle of the night and destroying
something. Is it right that Rivera ought to be punished more severly
than Christianson based on his motive? At least he was seeking the
greater good and not acting in a purely self-interested manner —
arguably, his motives are mitigating, not aggravating, relative to
hers.

Motive and intent are always factors considered for aggravation or mitigation. And, yes, using terrorost tactics to "reform society" should be an aggravating sentencing factor. No individual or group has the right to harm or threaten or destroy property no matter the justification.

A trapper or hunter can't go burn down PETA offices and if they did it would be a terrorist act and the same people not wanting these acts to be considered terrorist acts would want it prosecuted as such.