Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMy brother, The 'Terrorist'
The Government Is Distorting The Word To Get More Notches In Its Gun.
My brother is considered one of the biggest domestic terrorists in the country. You probably haven't heard of him, and I think that's odd. After all, he's dangerous. He's trying to overthrow our country. He "doesn't like our freedoms," or so President Bush has said of terrorists in general, so I suppose that applies to my brother too.
Let me tell you a little bit about him. He likes the History Channel. He's a Trekkie. He cried (in secret) at the corny 1980s movie "Turtle Diary." He's good at fixing things. And, most important, he has devoted his life to stopping animals' suffering. To this end, he has broken the law. He crept into animal laboratories to free dogs. He dismantled corrals to release wild mustangs. He impersonated a fur buyer to film the treatment of minks. He put himself between whales and whalers despite warnings that his boat would be impounded and that he would be jailed. And nearly 10 years ago, he burned down a horse slaughterhouse in Redmond, Ore. It is for this final act that the U.S. government considers him among the ranks of Osama bin Laden, Eric Rudolph and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.
"This is a classic case of terrorism," the federal prosecutor said earnestly to the judge during a hearing last week in my brother's case.
My brother, Jonathan Paul, has pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore., to burning the Cavel West Slaughterhouse. He will find out on June 5 whether the judge considers his actions deserving of the "terrorism enhancement" to his sentence sought by the government. (Nine other members of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, who pleaded guilty to different charges, are being sentenced as well. The first, sentenced Wednesday, was deemed a terrorist.) If a terrorism enhancement is imposed, my brother's recommended sentence could go from less than three years to more than 14 years.
Don't let me give you the impression that I think arson is something to be taken lightly. I do not. The irony is rich in this case: I was a San Francisco firefighter for 13 years. I was angry and dismayed that my brother chose arson as a route to stop animal suffering. But "a classic case of terrorism"?
Federal laws define terrorism as one of a laundry list of offenses committed for the purpose of coercing the government to change its policies. It is a broad definition, designed to give judges wiggle room and adopted at a time when terrorism was a new concept. Congressional hearings in 1995 and 2001 make the original intent of the laws clearer. When House members and senators described acts of terrorism, every example (Pan Am Flight 103, Oklahoma City, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Tokyo subway attack) involved the killing of, or the intent to kill, human beings.
But recently the government has moved away from the idea of terrorist-as-murderer. The case involving my brother represents the first time that terrorism enhancements have been sought when all the evidence shows that the defendants took affirmative steps to make sure no one would be endangered.
Clearly the government is trying to expand — or more accurately, dilute — the definition of a terrorist to encompass those who engage in property damage. Egregious property damage, yes, but still just property damage.
Past terrorism cases also have involved targets with government links. But the Cavel West Slaughterhouse was a private Belgian corporation; its horsemeat went to Europe and Japan. The prosecutor has argued that some of the horses were wild mustangs, sold by the federal Bureau of Land Management, and that therefore there was a clear intent to disrupt government policy.
There's a legal term for this. It's called "overreaching."
How much safer do we feel now that ELF/ALF members, who have never hurt or intended to hurt a single human being, might be confined to a maximum-security prison? Could it really be true that the most powerful country in the world feels "coerced" by a bunch of bunny huggers? Is the confident "I am the decider" leader of this nation being bullied by vegans? Or is it possible that the government just wants to crow about convicting another "terrorist" while the main one is still at large?
A lot has been written about the radicalization that led to Bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. Let me tell you a bit about the conversion of one member of the group that the FBI now considers the "No. 1 domestic terrorist threat." When my brother was 15, he shot a bird out of a tree with a .22-caliber rifle. It fell to the ground, wings spread, gasping for air. He killed it with a rock. Then he vowed he would never knowingly harm an animal again.
My brother had hunted before. (Less perhaps then Ted Nugent but more than, say, Mitt Romney.) And yet on that day, he had a revelation. He can't explain it. A religious person might say it was the tiny cruciform bird on the ground. A psychotherapist might surmise that something had been percolating for a while, only to burst to the surface. Who knows? What I do know is that since that day in 1981, my brother has been resolute in the rescue and protection of animals.
Anyone who lives in Redmond will tell you how terrible the Cavel West Slaughterhouse was. The horses screamed all day. Their blood clogged the sewage system. The stench was unbearable. The killings, by many accounts, were slow and agonizing. My brother's sentiments were far from radical, and they had nothing to do with the government. His intention was simple: save the horses.
This does not mean arson was the right thing to do. If you call my brother a lawbreaker, I won't argue. But labeling him a terrorist dilutes the meaning of terrorism. And you demean all the Americans, and all those around the world, who have died in real terrorist acts.
Caroline Paul is a writer who lives in San Francisco.
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
27 Comments so far
Show AllJonathan Paul is no terrorist. He and the members of ELF/ALF are heroes. Bush, Dick and his crony c~@suckers are terrorists along with the majority of americans who support them. Every single bomb that we drop and bullet that we fire terrorizes someone who is either innocent or defending their country. We are the biggest terrorists in the world today whether you like to believe it or not.
can anyone please explain to me why so many people think the agony of animals is less important than the agony of humans. if they were people dying in the slaughterhouse, what would the solution be? i know many creatures kill to eat. i am not talking about that. i'm wondering why TORTURE is ok to do to animals. really.
anyone with half a brain who doesnt watch fox news is considered a terrorist.
Terrorist (def)- a person who interferes with the profit making ability of a major corporation.
Let's be absolutely clear. It is perfectly fine for a corporation to poison your children, kill your father with Viox, salt the land with mercury emissions and warp the genetic code that life depends on. All of this is legal.
It is legal for policemen to shoot and kill unarmed citizens for no percievable reason if they say they "felt threatened." It is legal for the U.S. military to kill small children in wholesale lots in undeclared wars.
It's legal to sell weapons to death sqads outside of the US. None of this is "terrorism."
Terrorism is any action or thought taken in the defense of the environment, of civil rights, free speech or the protection of individuals homes.
What YOU do is terrorism. What the corporations, the suits, the uniforms and the badges do is their legal right; remember that.
You're either with Bush or you're with the terrorists.
I don't see why burning down a slaughter house to save horses should get any harsher penalty than an arsonist who burns down a slaughter house to collect the insurance money. Frankly, I don't think there should be laws against "terrorism". You are a muderer, or an arsonist, or a vandal, or whatever and you get the punishment for your crime. The fact that it was politically motivated (versus what? greed? revenge? pleasure?) shouldn't have anything to do with the punishment. It doesn't change the act. It is all about mind control...
Fr. Dan Berrigan defines property as that which is proper to the sustenance of life.
It is wrong to destroy true property.
But to disable the instruments of destruction without endangering life is a beautiful and loving act.
The fires ELF and ALF set trouble me, as did the bombs of the Weather Underground, because the risk for killing or maiming someone even when careful and meticulous is too high for my taste.
But that risk pales in comparrison to the violence those people were trying to stop, and I admire their courage, compassion, and dedication.
To call them terrorists is to rob the word of its meaning.
Mr. Paul is a terrorist. Period. Arson for a political purpose, which this was, is terrorism. The fact that he does not like horse killing is irrevelent; this is a democracy and he has (or had, now) every opportunity to try to pursuede his fellow citizens to outlaw the practice. Just as it would be terrorism if he had burned down an abortion clinic because he did not like abortion, or a pornography studio because porn oppresses women, or a church because the church oppresses gays. Or a political party headquarters because they are not "politically correct."
I am a strong believer that sentencing laws in this country are insane, life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza is not only immoral, it is dumb. BUT, in this case, lock him up and throw away the key.
If you don't vote for them you are a "rebel"
If you stand up to them you are a "terrorist". and they make the laws.
The reformist part of me says there should be consequences for Mr. Paul's actions, arson is a criminal offense. Mr. Paul does have the right to peacefully protest and oppose animal cruelty but crossing the line to illegal actions is, in my opinion, a poor choice. You can agree or disagree about why he felt it was necessary to commit this crime but it was criminal. Of course, my more radical tendencies would lead me to ask at what point crime becomes necessary to oppose oppression. One part of me believes in the rule of law, the other screams for more direct action against oppressive conditions. I guess I'd rather see opposition directed at the government, personally.
Meanwhile George W. Bush, the ultimate terrorist, continues to prance around spewing wicked lies and downright gibberish and the media continues to cover him as if he is actually a legitimate leader. And the band plays on.
My thoughts and prayers are with your brother.
Second amendment supporters take note - is striking at illegal and immoral government policies via a well-maintained militia (eg ELF) an act of terrorism or an act of patriotism demanded by the Constitution? Terrorism (and Constitutionality, apparently) is always in the eye of the beholder.
Good luck to Paul...
Remember recently, Amy Goodman covered the story of a REAL terrorist, now save it in the US for Years, he took down a plane and all were killed, not in this country. Sorry, can't remember his name, but Bush 1 had something to do with it being in the CIA at that time. One would think that the judge would realize by reading and following the news that justice isn't served when a Real terrorist is free and perhaps he should put this case in perspective. This term terrorist is indeed getting misplaced on the average people.
A year ago last winter, I put some cardboard signs on some red and white pine trees. This 20 acres was being clearcut, this property joins my property which I have first option to buy, but the owner was only selling the timber and wouldn't make a deal. I talked to the loggers and they said they would leave those old pine on the hill. It became obvious their monster machines were heading up the hill. I stapled signs saying Please let me live, Save Me, and then there was one sign, Tree says: Let Me Live So You Can Live. The trees were taken down. The following day, 2 sheriff dupties are at my door and asking me questions about who put up the signs. They played the good cop and bad cop, hands on their hip on their guns. I'm lying, frankly they were quite intimadating. One would say there was a terrorist threat and the other would say no one is in really big trouble. One would say the tracks lead to your house maam, and I said there's been all kinds of people around here lately.
There was no way I was going to confess, let them prove it. Nothing ever came of it, but I'm sure there is some report somewhere with my name on it. Really surprized that these loggers, whom I slightly know would call the cops on me, an old lady in her mid fifties.
Mr. Paul, I sincerely hope that your case is treated fairly, and not made into an example with extreme punishment, as there's No real accountability involving our own governmental officials. I fear a police state is becoming the new reality.
Amen, Ron. Killing in large numbers in the service of the Global Market is nothing compared to the horror of burning down one buiding with no lives lost.
I'm sorry to say that this situation has been obvious for some time, that terrorism would be the blanket under which all dissent would be smothered. Under Clinton, it was attempted to label the actions of environmental activists as "terrorism" in legislation, but it could not pass, probably because the vast majority of Americans feel that their voice on environmental concerns has not been heard. It is likely that most of us secretly cheer for the actions of ELF and ALF because they give us a sense of power. A sense that SOMEONE is acting on our behalf. Most of us fear and loathe the likes of Monsanto and Dow. Most of us feel that animal cruelty is not to be tolerated. It is a hard sell to make such entities the "victims" of crime when they themselves seem to be the criminals.
Much of the terror legislation has been aimed at domestic dissent. One need look no further than the Green Party members who found themselves suspiciously on the "no-fly" lists following 9/11. All manner of peace rallies have been infiltrated and organizations whose sole purpose is peace have been under the watchful eye homeland security as "potential terrorists." Mr. Paul is not an accidental victim of a system gone amok. He is the obvious result of a system serving only the interests of MONEY. There is no way around it. Our democracy is now one dollar, one vote and those dollars are voting for harsh criminal penalties to those who oppose the illegal or immoral acts of the corporation. It is almost funny that corporations sought, and gained, recognition before the law as human beings, but that they are the one human being seemingly safe from punishment for criminal behavior. We are willing to execute PEOPLE, but not to destroy a corporation for knowingly committing murder (cigarette companies, anyone?). And now the alchemy is complete. You will do more time for killing a building than taking a life. We are the inanimate artifacts of civilization and property is the life force.
I am sorry for Mr. Paul. Sorry because I have no doubt that he will get the terrorism enhancement tacked onto his conviction. Perhaps we should take this time to consider the actions that our government DOES NOT consider acts of terrorism. I am sure the Paul family will not smile at the irony.
Your brother should've bombed Baghdad instead and killed thousands of people. Then he would be a great man, not a mere arsonist. A mean mind in an earlier post calls your brother a maggot. I would suspect that mean mind doesn't have much compassion for horses either. Your brother's blow against horse cruelty was quite pathetic and probably ineffective but it was better than doing nothing at all. If I was the judge, I would throw the horse killers in jail. There are demons among us. If your profession is to kill animals, you are a demon and you need to wake up. Your brother sent the demons a message. Good for him. If he draws a long prison term, he will have time to meditate and become a better person. It may be just what he needs. And his meditation will benefit all of us.
"My brother, The 'Terrorist'" - Good article.
The ELF-people would actually do something practical about their insights and views. They were knowingly taking legal risks to promote their views. That way they stopped more suffering than any they caused. And they will themselves suffer more from punishment than any suffering they caused.
On a "one standard for all"-basis, they were right.
On the principle of "punishment fitting the crime", the punishment they get will be wrong.
In a world where at least 6 out of soon 7 billion people are terrorized into place by the police and military might of their governments, led by US as the biggest weapons-producer of all (50 % and rising), it's consistent with the brutality of ruling that the standard for what counts as "terrorizing" - as defined by the state - becomes different when done by people in power to others than when done back to themselves. Rather than one consistent standard for all.
If the principle of "one standard for all"- supposedly central to US law - really ruled, the judge in the ELF-case wouldn't even be able to drive his car home - on gas extracted with great land and property-damage to exploited people. Not to mention further environ-mental damage in the car's emissions.
The judge is himself necessarily a benefitter from the consumption-structures the ELFs object to. How "fair and unpartial" can he be?
I know such contextual considerations aren't allowed in a court-case like this. They are still real.
The framework imposed by the state-terrorists may not be effectively questioned. Without risking repercussions and one's freedom, that is. That's what the ELFs did. Now for them the repercussions. That disciplines the rest of us. Whether we accept it or not, the punishment of the ELFs/ALFs contributes to defining the rules of the political power-game. And the rules just ain't fair.
Ole Ullern
Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the cause. Lock this maggot up and throw away the key. Or at least be consistent and call for the release of abortion bombers.
Frank: This "bud's" for you:
Ode to Jeffrey Dahmer:
You think it's broccoli, but it's not
ain't no telling what genes it's got.
it would do Jeffrey Dahmer proud
to know these days all lunch in his crowd.
I, too, deeply take issue with Monsanto for its investment in our food supply, when this same company was the designer of chemicals of war. Makes you wonder what's in your cereal, or should. The outcome of all the genetic meddling made me think of this little joke. A baby is born and the doctor comes to inform the parents. He says, "I've got good news and bad... which do you want first?" (This child being influenced by bio-tech foods and their laced in hormones, etc.) The father says give me the bad. The doctor responds, "Well, your son's genitals are extended from his face... but the good news? Everyone will KNOW he has balls!" Sick times call for sick humor!
Hmm, it is not terrorism if no one dies. Does this mean that if the right wing nut abortion clinic bombers do their bombing at night when no one is there, it is not "terrorism", but rather "protecting the innocent unborn". Or is it simply a fact that, if progressives agree with it, NOTHING is terrorism?
It used to be called "ecotage" or "monkey-wrenching". It was a desperate act of self defense when protecting the environment that supports one's life. Or by persons who sent agent provocateurs to perform a destructive act and blame it on environmentalists, or by animal rights activists or other sincere persons. Each case had to be evaluated independently. The Bush FBI has put environmentalists first on their list mostly to protect corporate polluters.
well said frank1569!
but that potatospiderbacteria thingy just cleared up my herpes :)
with....
without...
that's what the fighting's really all about...
Sadly, this isn't new "news." Back when Monsanto first started contaminating our food supply with untested, so-called genetically engineered foods (the splicing of genes from two different species, basically, creating a "new" species which there is no way to contain, nor predict even potential effects on the fabric of life,) we second generation monkeywrenchers were already atop the FBI's terrorist list. Yet, since 1980, nearly every eco-direct action remains unsolved, both here and abroad. In Europe, the effort wasn't "terrorism," it was successful at stopping Monsanto and the rest at nearly every step, and even convincing Prince Albert to swear off GMOs.
Corporations have managed to convince our "representatives" that PROPERTY destruction is the equivalent of human destruction, and that "workers" are "terrorized" in spite of the fact that NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED OR INJURED SINCE AN ERRANT WOOD SPIKE IN '83!
The question for us is the same today as it always was: if the Government will not stop a Monsanto from using us as lab rats, what other recourse do "we the people" have to protect ourselves? In certain other parts of the world, when "the people" realize they are COMPLETELY HELPLESS, the answer is suicide bombings. Here, it's freeing a few minks or smashing up a research lab. And, like the suicide bomber, when reported, there is no mention of WHY one would take such drastic action, leaving viewers to believe we need to kill the crazies before they blow more shit up.
Pass the Potatospiderbacteria thing, please...
Auberon
i tend to agree with you. i have a terribly hard time with the idea that expending so much energy on animals rather than humans....... sure...it is about imparting fear to stop dissent. but looking up the definition of terrorism and there are a million of them, most say the use or threat of serious violence to advance a cause. being passionate is a good thing but.....'shaking head' in confusion
who would have thought that "anti-terrorism" laws would be used to protect property rights, above all else? i'm shocked! shocked, i tell you! i thought my gov't cared about terrorism!
yeah, it is about dissent. watch out at your next protest....
The extreme actions of the ELF and ALF only serve to alienate people who might potentially side with them. And, sorry to say, burning down a building to make a point seems awfully terroristic to me.
It's not "just property damage." It is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee this....it is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee that a human being won't get hurt. What if there was someone in the building you didn't know about? What if a firefighter, who came to put your fire out, got hurt because of your fire?
It's about control and stamping out dissent by instilling fear in anyone who considers protesting against our government.
Now, who really hates our freedom?
Burning down warehouses is too extreme for me but he is no terrorist.
If we want to define terrorism, maybe we need to consider which groups of people cause other people to feel the most terror. Who causes more people to fear for their lives, al-Qaida or The Pentagon?
I have not lost one single night of sleep from fear of al-Qaida or Usama bin Laden. The whole Islamic world is afraid of George W. Bush and his neocon regime.
I am personally more afraid of the CIA than any group on earth.
Jonathan Paul in my book, is a hero, a Freedom Fighter. A protector of innocents and those that have no rights.