Surprise! The government is distorting the law

Media Credit: Patrick Finney [Click to enlarge]

Do you remember John Lithgow as Eric Qualen in Cliffhanger in 1993? If you like trashy action movies as much as I do, I'm sure you recall when he said, "Kill a few people, they call you a murderer - kill a million and you're a conqueror."

I would have liked to see one of the "eco-terrorist" defendants recently sentenced in Eugene put a twist on that line. He or she should have stood up in front of federal judge Ann Aiken and said, "Destroy $40 million dollars worth of private and government property and they call you a terrorist - destroy a whole country and you're a liberator."

Such a B-movie one-liner captures the farce that our federal courts system and our federal government are being reduced to.

Legal measures and definitions enacted to allow the federal government to prosecute terrorists are being selectively tailored to fit cases to which they do not apply. The sentencing of the convicted members of the "The Family," an Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front related group, represent just such a circumstance of misdirected legal angst.

Maybe the FBI and the rest of the Department of Justice are trying to outfit their domestic unrest containment took kits with new gear. Or maybe Judge Aiken is just aching to make a mark on her resume as an anti-terror trailblazer.

Whatever the motivation, neither the terrorism definition in Title 18 of United States Code, section 2332b, nor Federal Sentencing Guideline section 3A1.4, that refers to the USC, are designed for criminals like these arsonists.

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113B, §2332b(g)(5) reads that "the term 'Federal crime of terrorism' means an offense that - (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a violation of" one of a list of over forty specified areas.

Many of the items on the list refer to assassinations, acts involving air piracy, and events relating to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In short, most of them are what a reasonable and prudent individual would consider terrorism.

However, I must concede that there is one item on this long list that, per the letter of the code, applies to the defendants. Subparagraph (i)844(f)(2) and (3) of Title 18 read that requirement "(B)" can be fulfilled by proving that a defendant's actions involve a crime "relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death." There was no bombing or causing of death, but yes, there was arson and risk of death.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools