Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you want to establish that as your standard, be consistent with it. Per your standard, the death of 3000-someodd in New York a decade or so back was regrettable, but not wrongful. I somehow suspect, however, that you're not fine with that.

As I see it, 911 was as wrongful as Dresden 1945. Both situations fit with your formulation of Classic-Xer's standard.

I don't think Classic Xer would see it that way anymore than many Germans in 1945 would have.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I hope that people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention to this shit. (pun intended!)

Off and on, the situation is rather depressing after all: If you threaten the corporate war machine, you're a terrorist... and our society will not be deterred by pesky laws and rights in its quest to catch and punish terrorists.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Off and on, the situation is rather depressing after all: If you threaten the corporate war machine, you're a terrorist... and our society will not be deterred by pesky laws and rights in its quest to catch and punish terrorists.

Occupy Wall Street Labeled "Terrorists" By The FBI


Submitted by Robert Oak on December 30, 2012 - 5:34pm

Protest for economic justice and you are now a terrorist? Wonder why all of a sudden cities across America coordinated and shut down the Occupy Wall Street movement? Now we know and it was coordinated by the banks. The FBI, DHS, police, and private-sector financial businesses all coordinated to repress the people and suppress a movement. Civil Justice Fund a non-profit, posted FBI files which show this is what happened. Think we are free and have freedom of speech and protest in the United States? Freedom is allowed only if no one hears you.

Blow Back

John Dear:


For the past decades, the United States has been bombing and killing children around the world -- in Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan. The violence we spread around the world will whiplash back upon us; it has, too. I'm surprised there aren't more terrorist bombing attacks here in the United States.

It would be comical if it weren't so tragic when our pundits and politicians ask, "Why would anyone do such a thing to us?" We are so blind and naïve to the terrorism we Americans do to the world's children, not to mention the terrorism we prepare with our drones and nuclear weapons. These deadly preparations do not go unnoticed. We are inspiring millions of people to hate us. It's inevitable that a few of them will go insane with hatred and suicidal terrorism.

During my recent visit to Afghanistan, I heard many stories about how our drones and fighter bombers blew up loved ones. In the face of these American bombing raids, any one of us would join the Taliban. The question is: Why doesn't everyone in the world hate us and want to kill us? This is the legacy of decades of war making, bombings, terrorist attacks and nuclear threats.

If we do not want any more bombings here at home, we better stop bombing people abroad.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you want to establish that as your standard, be consistent with it. Per your standard, the death of 3000-someodd in New York a decade or so back was regrettable, but not wrongful. I somehow suspect, however, that you're not fine with that.

Which, if the case, means that the standard you are laying out by which you claim to want your actions judged is not one you actually hold or one you actually want applied as a standard. And we're back to a lack of integrity and the balls to be upfront and honest with others and with ourselves. Which is, as I mentioned above, a quality very much opposed to the sustenance of a healthy society.

You're twisting things. You shouldn't twist things in regards to what others say and think because it's a bad sign as far as your integrity and character as an individual. My position is consistant with most Americans. My views are consistant with most Americans. And my standards are consistant with most Americans. Evidently, you were able to pick that up during our exchanges. Hopefully, I repeat hopefully, you are able to recognize that the terrorists on 9/11 followed no rules and applied no standards as far as who or what they killed which deserves the same standards to be applied to theirs based on my standard of an eye for an eye. Clearly, my standard is not being applied. We aren't leveling cities and killing civilians in mass. We are targeting individuals who are at war with us and accepting responsibility for the civilian casualities vs running away from the blame or shifting blame to someone else. We are accepting the blame and continuing to bomb.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You're twisting things. You shouldn't twist things in regards to what others say and think because it's a bad sign as far as your integrity and character as an individual. My position is consistant with most Americans. My views are consistant with most Americans. And my standards are consistant with most Americans. Evidently, you were able to pick that up during our exchanges. Hopefully, I repeat hopefully, you are able to recognize that the terrorists on 9/11 followed no rules and applied no standards as far as who or what they killed which deserves the same standards to be applied to theirs based on my standard of an eye for an eye. Clearly, my standard is not being applied. We aren't leveling cities and killing civilians in mass. We are targeting individuals who are at war with us and accepting responsibility for the civilian casualities vs running away from the blame or shifting blame to someone else. We are accepting the blame and continuing to bomb.

True as far as it goes. However, we know that our bombs and drones have killed many innocent folks; sometimes because they were walking or standing or sitting near our target Al Qaeda leaders, or sometimes "by mistake" we killed whole families that had no connection to Al Qaeda. If we "accept responsibility," then why do we continue these bombings, which clearly arouse more opponents than they eliminate? Some collateral damage in capturing terrorist suspects is to be expected, as with those who were hurt or killed chasing the Tsarnaev Brothers, but bombing has been condemned by our allies among foreign leaders, and bombing campaigns always tend to arouse more resistance and opposition because of how many innocent people they kill.

While 9-11 was not justified, it would not have happened were we not engaged in supporting imperialist Israel and Arab dictators, and engaged in our activities as lead world policeman, which has caused us to pursue wars that were not only very deadly but unnecessary and unjustified by moral and international law (Iraq, Vietnam, Central America). More violence and "eye for an eye" in response to terrorists here will only perpetuate the madness. Old Testament spiritual law was superceded by that of the New Testament (I mean, if you are going to depend on that source, as you do).

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You're twisting things.

It's not twisting to derive a standard and attempt to apply it consistently. That is, after all, what "standard" means both as word and as concept. If it looks twisted to you, you might want to have your vision checked.

My position is consistant with most Americans. My views are consistant with most Americans. And my standards are consistant with most Americans.

Indeed. I bumped very firmly up against that point above, when I mentioned how we're not a particularly good people. Holding hypocritical self-serving views that permit the irresponsible intentional harming of innocents is a sort of defining characteristic of 'not good'.

Hopefully, I repeat hopefully, you are able to recognize that the terrorists on 9/11 followed no rules and applied no standards as far as who or what they killed which deserves the same standards to be applied to theirs based on my standard of an eye for an eye.

They quite clearly and openly did apply standards. Standards of their own (much like you apply standards purely of your own making and on-the-fly revision). They aimed at concrete targets which were directly and indirectly responsible for having caused harm -- the Pentagon requires, I'm certain you can agree, absolutely no explanation at all on that count; while Mike expanded quite a bit as regards the towers. They directed very specifically-aimed strikes at those concrete targets (say what you might, sitting in the pilot's seat to steer all the way to the moment of impact is a damn strong means of precision-targeting). Those who were killed were, with relatively few exceptions, either the targets themselves or close associates and other fellow travelers of the targets.
It's textbook drone-strike-justification -- except that the cowards who pilot the drones don't have to actually put their own asses on the line (or even on the same side of the planet as the line).

Clearly, my standard is not being applied. We aren't leveling cities and killing civilians in mass. We are targeting individuals who are at war with us and accepting responsibility for the civilian casualities vs running away from the blame or shifting blame to someone else. We are accepting the blame and continuing to bomb.

"Your standard" isn't being applied because you don't have a standard. You have a policy of self-serving justification and evasion to excuse you in anything you do while at the same time allowing you to condemn any others who dare to do unto you. That's the position (if the word can be so distorted as to apply) you have.

Leveling cities is something that nobody in this particular conflict has done (we'll omit Fallujah as irrelevant and, frankly, silly). Killing civilians intentionally and repeatedly? Again, that's what a policy of exploding bombs where people are necessarily means -- the intentional and repeated killing of innocent people.

And to wrap it up, you repeat the ludicrous claim of 'accepting responsibility'. Here's a hint: accepting responsibility for hurting an innocent person means accepting either punishment or retribution for the wrongful act, and beyond that, admitting openly that it was a wrongful act, intentionally chosen with full knowledge that it was wrong. Point to the first example you find of that. I'll wait; I've got another 40-50 years to go, easy, and I'm in no rush.


----
-edit-
For christ's sake... even Eric gets it...

Originally Posted by Deb C

Blow Back

John Dear:


For the past decades, the United States has been bombing and killing children around the world -- in Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan. The violence we spread around the world will whiplash back upon us; it has, too. I'm surprised there aren't more terrorist bombing attacks here in the United States.

It would be comical if it weren't so tragic when our pundits and politicians ask, "Why would anyone do such a thing to us?" We are so blind and naïve to the terrorism we Americans do to the world's children, not to mention the terrorism we prepare with our drones and nuclear weapons. These deadly preparations do not go unnoticed. We are inspiring millions of people to hate us. It's inevitable that a few of them will go insane with hatred and suicidal terrorism.

During my recent visit to Afghanistan, I heard many stories about how our drones and fighter bombers blew up loved ones. In the face of these American bombing raids, any one of us would join the Taliban. The question is: Why doesn't everyone in the world hate us and want to kill us? This is the legacy of decades of war making, bombings, terrorist attacks and nuclear threats.

If we do not want any more bombings here at home, we better stop bombing people abroad.

Are you so niave to actually believe that stopping our bombing would stop terrorism? Do you know anything about your adversaries and the ruthlessness of your adversaries? How many Middle Easterners are like us and think like us and rationalize like us and are as educated as us? What happens to them if OUR BOMBs stop dropping on the Taliban. My guess, they either join the Taliban or accept being executed and stoned to dealth, raped and pillaged, and starved to dealth by the Taliban?

Originally Posted by The Rani

... If they get away with non-Mirandizing #2, there is a real danger that applying the label of "terrorism" will now be used to send political activists to the gulag.
For example:
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists

I hope that people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention to this shit. (pun intended!)

Not Mirandizing a defendent is a handicap on the governement, but it's not illegal. They can't use any reponses he makes in court, but in this case, they already have so much it doesn't matter. Now the animal activists, on the other hand, seem to be asking for a trial. Snooping is not going to get anyone arrested, but breaking things and releasing the animals will. If the intent is to get a day in court, they're on it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are you so naive to actually believe that stopping our bombing would stop terrorism? Do you know anything about your adversaries and the ruthlessness of your adversaries? How many Middle Easterners are like us and think like us and rationalize like us and are as educated as us? What happens to them if OUR BOMBs stop dropping on the Taliban. My guess, they either join the Taliban or accept being executed and stoned to death, raped and pillaged, and starved to death by the Taliban?

Not speaking for Deb or John Dear, I might agree that our adversaries are more ruthless and tyrannical than us, but it is a matter of degree, since Americans have some of the same qualities, as demonstrated by our actions. And there's no doubt that we can't attribute their actions against us totally to their ruthless fanaticism. Our actions toward them give them a "rationalization" to attack us, just as their actions toward us give us a "rationalization" to bomb and torture them. I think we should, non-unilaterally, help the Afghans to hold off the Taliban, if they ask us to. But our military presence in the country and our bombings have fueled the Taliban's fight, just as they aroused the civil war and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not speaking for Deb or John Dear, I might agree that our adversaries are more ruthless and tyrannical than us, but it is a matter of degree, since Americans have some of the same qualities, as demonstrated by our actions. And there's no doubt that we can't attribute their actions against us totally to their ruthless fanaticism. Our actions toward them give them a "rationalization" to attack us, just as their actions toward us give us a "rationalization" to bomb and torture them. I think we should, non-unilaterally, help the Afghans to hold off the Taliban, if they ask us to. But our military presence in the country and our bombings have fueled the Taliban's fight, just as they aroused the civil war and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I can second this. To some extent, as Mr. Saari used to say, I'm a Whig, a believer in progress. Human rights, democracy and advancing technology are on the whole a good thing. On the other hand, transition from an Agricultural Age pattern of highly autocratic rule with a population dedicated mostly to farming to the Industrial Age pattern is traumatic. It is more traumatic if outside cultures try to force a quick transition.

Saddam was one rotten dude. By modern standards, he might be as close to the classic dictators of the 1940s crisis as any. Still, through secret police and aggressive suppression of minorities, he kept the lid on a pressure cooker. It was George Bush 43's attempt to take away weapons of mass destruction while performing an instant transition to democracy that triggered a deadly time of terror.

This is typical. How many civil wars and revolutions were necessary for the Anglo American civilization to transition from the Agricultural pattern to the Industrial? How many centuries? How many lives lost? If one looks at China, from the Boxer Rebellion on, the country was in perpetual crisis mode. Foreigners were looking for profit, and the traditional culture was constantly out of balance. The troubles in the modern middle east are to be expected. Any transition from the Agricultural to the Industrial patterns is going to be traumatic, the more so if foreign profiteers are trying to hurry it up while skimming off the top.

The neo-cons were not shy in saying there ought to be US troops positioned near the oil. No matter how many times it was said this wasn't the objective, so long as the US government announced that only US corporations would get primary contracts, there would be the shadow of imperialism. So long as we were attempting to alter cultures at gunpoint, there would be trouble. There will be trouble.

Anyway, there was adequate reason for the hate, and leaving them alone now isn't likely to make the hate instantly vanish.

I am of the opinion that we are locked-in to a cycle of stupid, regardless of nationality or worldview. It's Statler and Waldorf time, until the post-trainwreck 1T gets going.

Originally Posted by The Rani

There's also this:

‘Ag-gag’ bills seek to limit food reporting

No doubt that our country is increasingly a police state.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not speaking for Deb or John Dear, I might agree that our adversaries are more ruthless and tyrannical than us, but it is a matter of degree, since Americans have some of the same qualities, as demonstrated by our actions. And there's no doubt that we can't attribute their actions against us totally to their ruthless fanaticism. Our actions toward them give them a "rationalization" to attack us, just as their actions toward us give us a "rationalization" to bomb and torture them. I think we should, non-unilaterally, help the Afghans to hold off the Taliban, if they ask us to. But our military presence in the country and our bombings have fueled the Taliban's fight, just as they aroused the civil war and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Have you ever dealt with a nasty dude in school or in life?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Have you ever dealt with a nasty dude in school or in life?

Would it have been regrettable-but-unavoidable if you had chucked a grenade at him in the cafeteria during lunchtime? Would there have been any difference between doing that and carefully sticking a grenade down the back of his pants (you know, precision targeting and all that) before it went off?

And if you got away with it, and the next day said "Yes, I did it; I take responsibility for it"... would those words be sufficient in themselves? If it ended there, did you actually take responsibility for anything at all?

And if the next week, you chucked another grenade in the cafeteria at another guy that you had (oh so carefully and certainly) determined was a 'nasty guy'? And again the week after that, and again the week after that -- each time saying "I accept responsibility" (not even: "I'm sorry" - that)?

This is the behavior of a bad person.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Saddam was one rotten dude. By modern standards, he might be as close to the classic dictators of the 1940s crisis as any. Still, through secret police and aggressive suppression of minorities, he kept the lid on a pressure cooker. It was George Bush 43's attempt to take away weapons of mass destruction while performing an instant transition to democracy that triggered a deadly time of terror.

SNIP

The neo-cons were not shy in saying there ought to be US troops positioned near the oil. No matter how many times it was said this wasn't the objective, so long as the US government announced that only US corporations would get primary contracts, there would be the shadow of imperialism. So long as we were attempting to alter cultures at gunpoint, there would be trouble. There will be trouble.

Anyway, there was adequate reason for the hate, and leaving them alone now isn't likely to make the hate instantly vanish.

A little history about the US relationship with Saddam Hussien. It was written in 2003 by Chalmers Johnson in his book "The Sorrows of Empire: How the Americans Lost Their Country." He's an expert in predicting the blow back that we have been experiencing in this country and our plan for Iran.

The first and most obvious ploy of the warhawks was to claim, in the words of the president, "He [Saddam] possesses the most deadly arms of our age." The problem with this argument is that it is probably not true and, even if true, suggests a need to disarm Iraq, not to wage a war to bring down Saddam Hussein. Iraq certainly had such weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) at one time, but between 1991 and 1998 a combination of the Gulf War, UN sanctions, and UN inspectors destroyed almost all or all of them and Iraq's capabilities to produce more of them. In the words of Scott Ritter, "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them." (4) Never one to give up on any idea that might help his cause, Rumsfeld replied that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In fact, the PNAC was never much interested in Saddam's WMDs except as a convenient excuse. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," went the relevant passage in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." (5)

SNIP

After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the United States decided to back the sworn opponent of the Islamic clerics who had come to power there – namely, Iraq's secular tyrant Saddam Hussein. In September 1980, Saddam invaded Iran. When it looked like Iran might defeat him, the Reagan administration covertly began to supply him with satellite intelligence and weapons, including precursors for development of biological weapons and the basic ingredients for the chemical agents he used, in President Bush's memorable words, "to gas his own people." The Iraq-Iran war ended with a ghastly loss of life on both sides. In 1990, the U.S. allowed Saddam to think that it would tolerate his seizure of Kuwait. Every Iraqi leader since the 1920s has vowed to invade Kuwait and reunite it with Iraq, and Saddam was no exception. The U.S. then seized the opportunity posed by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait to vastly expand its empire of military bases in the Persian Gulf. As the Middle East scholar Stephen Zunes observes, "The United States used Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as an excuse to advance its long-desired military, political, and economic hegemony in the region." (15) The attacks of September 11 have, in turn, given the United States a renewed opportunity to expand its power and influence in the region – this time potentially to use its new Persian Gulf bases to establish even more bases in the ancient territories between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq.


In short, I believe the true explanation for the American government's planned second war with Iraq is the same as for its wars in the Balkans in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 – the inexorable pressures of imperialism and militarism. I agree with Jay Bookman, an editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, when he asks, "Why does the Bush administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled? Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran." (16)

Mark his words; Iran is in our cross hair.

For entire piece:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/johnson1.html

Originally Posted by The Rani

Takes one to know one.

Yeah me too. Again, perhaps it takes one to know one.

If they get away with non-Mirandizing #2, there is a real danger that applying the label of "terrorism" will now be used to send political activists to the gulag.
For example:
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists!)

We don’t even need to go that far down the rabbit hole. Just last Friday a metropolitan police force declared martialish law in a major United States city in order to hunt down an injured 19 year old kid who wears his baseball hat backwards. An important component of this martialish law/boyhunt was a warrantless door to door home invasion spree in another US city complete with automatic firearms, forcible entry and search, and included the removal of the denizens at gun-point with hands raised (we won’t even get into asking how, during this friendly neighborhood search, not one of the 10,000 mobilized police officers ever thought to check the big fucking boat with blood on it in a back yard).

In other words, the people of an entire city were treated like criminals for the actions of two dumb ass kids (allegedly; we still haven’t seen much actual evidence).

Why? All in the claimed interest of safety.

“Safety” of course is a relative term as the police had absolutely no problem with firing thousands of rounds inside residential areas (Listening to the couple of derpy officers asking each other if they have a rifle really amuses me. I have to think that if that is going on outside of my house, I’m sure as hell not handing them mine. It’s getting nudged back into a nice, dark corner).

The reward for this behavior has been lots of back-slapping and “job well done” kudos for the police (even from many people who should probably feel really violated).

And I guess you can see their point. I mean so far terrorists are on a pace to kill 10’s of Americans this decade! Why, just think of the inconvenience to the average American male, having his manhood constantly tested by these infrequent emergencies (okay it’s a test to your manhood too ladies, settle down ). Having to witness these events can really crush egos and make folks feel bummed out (thankfully drugs are available to those who can’t cope). One of these events could even interrupt an episode of American Idol or Splash. The threat is real and it’s some scary stuff.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I hope that people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention to this shit. (pun intended!)

I have some good news and bad news for you. The good news is that yes, people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention. The bad news is that all 5 of us are pretty much screwed.

An example of what is done in our name with drones:

"In the poor village that day, more than 40 civilians were killed, including four pregnant women. Bin Fareed was one of the first people to the scene. He and others tried to rescue civilians. He told me their bodies were so decimated that it was impossible to differentiate between the children, the women, and their animals. Some of these innocent people were buried in the same grave as animals."

Yemeni Testifies at Senate Drone Hearing on Human Cost of US Drone Wars

Based on experiences, Al-Muslimi maintains that US missiles are “helping to destabilize” his country and “create an environment from which AQAP benefits.” He adds, “Every time an innocent civilian is killed or maimed by a U.S. drone strike or another targeted killing, it is felt by Yemenis across the country. These strikes often cause animosity towards the United States and create a backlash that undermines the national security goals of the United States. The US strikes also increase my people’s hatred against the central government, which is seen as propped up by the Persian Gulf governments and the United States.”

For him, personally, he says that drone strikes have made his “passion and mission in support of America almost impossible in Yemen.” He believes “the anger against America” in parts of Yemen “that results from the strikes makes it dangerous” for him to “even acknowledge having visited America, much less testify how much my life changed thanks to the State Department scholarships. It’s sometimes too dangerous to even admit that I have American friends.”

In conclusion:

"“What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America.”

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

I am of the opinion that we are locked-in to a cycle of stupid, regardless of nationality or worldview. It's Statler and Waldorf time, until the post-trainwreck 1T gets going.

Yeah. And that raises the question of how this became the default state everywhere. After all, Rush Limbaugh is not broadcasting in German.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Do some research on the ag-gag bills (now laws in several states) and find out how wrong you are.

ETA a good place to start:
AG-GAG: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS RESTRICTING UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS ON FARMS

Yes, state laws are typically over the top. Only time can fix that. Note: gun laws have a similar pattern. Here in Virginia, we dropped the limit on purchases (buy 1, buy 100) and made traceability nearly impossible. It's much easier to buy a state government, which is one reason that the Federal system may be nearing a crisis point.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, state laws are typically over the top.

From the paper:

These states efforts to protect animal enterprises culminated in federal legislation
to protect animal facilities. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) makes
it a crime to intentionally cause the loss of real or personal property of an animal
enterprise. Some scholars argue that undercover investigators could be prosecuted
under AETA because investigators fit its prohibition: they intentionally cause the loss of
property—goodwill and future profits—of an animal enterprise. Indeed, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force apparently took this position in a
2003 memorandum.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Takes one to know one.

Yeah me too. Again, perhaps it takes one to know one.

If they get away with non-Mirandizing #2, there is a real danger that applying the label of "terrorism" will now be used to send political activists to the gulag.
For example:
FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists


I hope that people with the capacity for critical thinking are paying attention to this shit. (pun intended!)

Significantly these "curiosity killed the cat" laws have the sponsorship of the infamous American Legislative Exchange Council which tells right-wing politicians how to stifle dissent with agribusiness.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog...-exposed/5034/

... and of course dismember unions while promoting crony capitalism:

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Organizin...ers-and-Unions

ALEC is the Jeffrey Dahmer of American Democracy.

No, thanks. I prefer Vernon Dahmer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Dahmer

but not what happened to him.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

From the paper:

These states efforts to protect animal enterprises culminated in federal legislation to protect animal facilities. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) makes it a crime to intentionally cause the loss of real or personal property of an animal enterprise. Some scholars argue that undercover investigators could be prosecuted under AETA because investigators fit its prohibition: they intentionally cause the loss of property—goodwill and future profits—of an animal enterprise. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Joint Terrorism Task Force apparently took this position in a 2003 memorandum.

I don't see that argument playing in Federal court, though. That will be particularly true if the exposed practicies are heinous. On the other hand, destroying or removing real goods, inlcuding the animal feed or the the animals themselves, will not be treated as "journalism".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Did you even read the paper?

Clearly not. It's so much easier to simply assume that the system set up explicitly to do a certain thing won't really do that thing if you don't like it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see that argument playing in Federal court, though. That will be particularly true if the exposed practicies are heinous. On the other hand, destroying or removing real goods, including the animal feed or the the animals themselves, will not be treated as "journalism".

The First Amendment would not cover such an activity as releasing animals, destroying cages, or taking away fur pelts. Such is not free speech. Exposing the nastiness of decisions made by a firm?

What is next? Would someone be prosecuted for statements that might be 'detrimental to business'? Was Ralph Nader a criminal for publishing Unsafe at Any Speed? Would a nutrition expert who debunks the idea that the super-size meal at the usual fast food eatery is a disaster for health be an offender based on some concept of "crimes against prosperity"? Would someone be subject for prosecution for denying global-warming denial? Or disparaging the labor-management relations on behalf of strikers? Would exposing the "collateral damage" of airstrikes?

Censorship on behalf of "profit" might be good for business, but it would destroy freedom.