Why was this charge brought up now when no one was killed and they never brought these charges up for abortion clinic bombings when people where killed?

Sent by Maria Todd | 2:05 PM ET | 06-04-2007

As long as corporations have legal standing as entities and access to our government officials, damage to corporations and their holdings will continue to be valued by the courts more than damage to individuals will be, and acts that harm no individual person will continue to be blown out of proportion in accordance to state and corporate interests.

Sent by BLR | 2:18 PM ET | 06-04-2007

I don't think that these group of environmentalists are even close to terrorists and I cringe every time I hear environmental activists referred to as terrorists. The word "terrorist" has been manipulated as a weapon to create a mind set of fear in order to collectively negatively categorize that which goes against the stanard norm. If it weren't for many environmental activists doing what they do, issues like pollution and global warming would go unnoticed. What they are doing is for a greater good and nobody died in this incident.

Sent by Kimb | 2:18 PM ET | 06-04-2007

If someone accidentially gets hurt or killed in these "acts against property" is it them terrorism? The intent doesn't change, but the end result does. This distinction seems weak to me, simply a way to justify end results. If Al Quaida blew up 40 million dollars worth of homes or businesses, but no one was hurt, I doubt there would be any hesitation, pragmatic or legal, to consider that terrorism.

Sent by Anna | 2:21 PM ET | 06-04-2007

The poor things; they were just sweet idealistic misunderstood arsonists destroying property in the name of 'bambi' and mother earth. Mean old government, calling them terrorists, and putting them in jail. They are really lovely people.

Sent by Mike | 2:21 PM ET | 06-04-2007

It's my understanding that the IRA would frequently warn the press about upcoming bombings so as to avoid human casualties. It's still terrorism by any definition.

Sent by Jack | 2:21 PM ET | 06-04-2007

I lived for many years in Northern California, supported Earth First! in what was termed Redwood Summer, and organized several meetings between timber operators, loggers, and environmental activists trying to keep the situation calm and non-violent.

It was the habit of several timber companies to label anyone disagreeing with their timber practices as 'terrorists' simply for opposing them.

One of the leading environmental activists and friend, Judi Bari had a bomb put in her car at a meeting that I had organized which nearly killed her.

The FBI totally ignored this act of terrorism and instead tried to convict Judi of bombing herself.

By classifying the actions as terrorism of the radical environmental activists on trial , the judge has cheapened their crimes giving them no meaning, which I think is the intent.

Unfortunately it puts the act of burning up a batch SUV's at a car dealership into the same category as what Al Queda is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Wm. H. Evans Media, Pennsylvania

Sent by Wm. H. Evans | 2:23 PM ET | 06-04-2007

During the 60s and early 70s there was a group in the USA called the Weather Underground. They bombed numerous buildings throughout the nation, including breaking Timothy Leary out of prison with the use of bombs. What they did was never tried because of the means to investigate the events. They were only referred to at the end of their actions as terrorist to discredit what their antiwar goals were based upon. No one was ever injured in their bombings. One of the goals was to make a statement, and specifically not to hurt people.
How do you all see parallels between these groups and their punishments?

Sent by nathan lucero | 2:24 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Greetings,

It seems to me that this definition is actually closer to how I would define "revolution".

Sent by Neil Blanchard | 2:26 PM ET | 06-04-2007

What will be the legal distinction between Vandalism and Terrorism? Would an angry teen who breaks a car window be a terrorist? Certainly random acts of property distruction is scary.

Sent by Jonpaul | 2:26 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Thanks to Maria above for bringing up a most salient point - why do groups who bomb abortion clinics get away with terrorism? Is there legislation to punish and label them as terrorists?

Sent by Jennifer F. | 2:27 PM ET | 06-04-2007

I would argue that influencing the public in a democratic society would indeed be coercing the government. Using violence to make a political point is terrorism, whether it is a leftist group bombing an ATM or animal rights activists burning down a building.

Sent by A | 2:29 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Would the Million man march be considered a terrorist activity? They are intent on influencing the government and that many people could easily "frighten" law enforcement for example.

Sent by Allen Engle | 2:29 PM ET | 06-04-2007

If a group or individual wanted to destroy your home or business, what would you call them? Vandals? Also, if this or similar group decided to destroy a building but someone died, would that be a terrorist? Or would they be able to say, "We're sorry. We didn't mean to do it so we are not terrorists." If you want to make a statement about your message, protest, write letters & hold rallies. Don't destroy someone else's property!
Second thought: If a group/individual wants to destroy your property to make a statement, can the individual/owner turn around & destroy the destroyer's property??

Sent by William B | 2:30 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Earth Liberation Front, while intending to intimidate the government and corporations, plan exceedingly careful to avoid injuring any people and taking any lives. This intent is hugely important to consider.

Sent by Alice | 2:30 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Are there terrorists outside of the Muslim World?

Sent by Mohamed Abdullah Abu Jihad al Kamelpoo | 2:31 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Do you think that with this talk of intent that terrorism should fall into classes such as 1st, 2nd, & 3rd degree murder depending on the outcome of the act?

Sent by Rick | 2:32 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Here's An easy definition for terrorism. An act, not limited to acts that include violence, intended to produce terror in the populace, or a given governtment presently in power; e.g. an act intended to have the psychological effect of terror.
See also; the French terrorists, supporting our own war of independence, dressing up like native americans to ambush the english and inspire terror in their adversary.

Sent by Dale Orkus | 2:34 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Terror=fear of death and property damage.

Sent by Sylvia Smith | 2:46 PM ET | 06-04-2007

By Dale Orkus' definition above, the Patriot Act itself along with Orange/Red alert warning systems could be considered acts of terror (designed to inspire fear in our general populace).

Sent by Alice | 2:47 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Our country was founded with acts of terrorism. We were taught as children that the Boston Tea Party was a brave act against an evil government and company. What was the intent of the Boston Tea Party? To the government in power, it was terrorism. It seems that the definition changes depending on one's perspective.
To people who want change yet feel frustrated and blocked to bring about change in a peaceful manner "terrorism" or "direct action" is an action of last resort. So it seems it is the writers of history who decide.
Our government's involvement in Iraq has brought far more terror to citizens than any animal rights person ever has or could. Where is the justice and accountability? Will we as Americans be considered historically as terrorists?

Sent by Kitty | 2:55 PM ET | 06-04-2007

The terror caused by these activists is insignificant when compared with the enormous amount of needless suffering endured on the part of the millions of animals that we murder and use as if they were just more consumer goods. Surely, caring about the creatures with whom we share the planet isn't relegated to radicals?

Sent by Kurt Risser | 2:57 PM ET | 06-04-2007

In law is there no longer any distinction between terrorism and sabotage?

Sent by Michael | 3:30 PM ET | 06-04-2007

There was a gentleman that called earlier that stated he that he did'nt
think the act of starting the fires should be considered as terrorism.
I disagree. I think we are finally getting closer to a real definition of
the word. True, no one was harmed. but what about the fire fighters who are put in harms way, no to mention the
destruction of animals. The word "terror" has a personal meaning to
me. as I have been theatened personal
harm by gangs of young thugs when coming
home from work on the St. Louis waterfront. What is the difference between proceeding with the mugging or
threating to do someone harm ????
I agree with the procecution of the
goverment. As far as I am concerned the
nine years in prison is not enough
punishment.

Sent by Glennon Meyer | 4:12 PM ET | 06-04-2007

I have been vegan for about 7 years and so I have heard about these entities. I believe to date **they have not killed one person**. To me that isn't luck it's a strategy to open people's eyes. It is extreme but they are trying to break down society's view on certain topics.

The difference here is that they are doing these acts for a belief and an idea. They do not want to harm anyone like a terrorist group does.

Altough I favor them I also ask when and if do they stop? What is their goal when say they are happy?

Sent by Jesse | 4:28 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Were the Founding Fathers terrorists for throwing that tea in the sea? The reason people sometimes use violence against property or people to achieve political ends is because the government is a prisoner of elite interests that often don't respond to the will of people. Plus, governments use violent means all the time to achieve political ends.

Sent by johnny | 4:30 PM ET | 06-04-2007

The word "terrorism" seems to be thrown around for emphasis. Those using the word "terrorism" so loosly need to be cautious not to callus the public to the use of this word. I feel that terrorism is when an individual or group of individuals deliberately hurt or kill innocent individuals. We don't want to water down this word. If all (or most) crimes are dubbed "terrorism", what are we going to use to describe bombings on innocent victims, etc.? We also have to remember that terrorism is an international problem, so using it to describe an isolated instance (intentional destruction on property, not individuals) where no one was hurt seems rediculous when in the next sentance we use the same word to describe subway bombings where innocent children are massacred.

Sent by Amy | 5:11 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Here is a different perspective, as perhaps a foreign observer might view it: A distinction SHOULD be made between 'internal' (i.e. domestic) terrorism, and terroristic acts of clearly external origin. Attempting to use the same laws to deal with entirely different origins of intent can only result in the injustices that might result from the ELF cases, and additional gives governments an easy way to cloud any issues that might arise because of such acts.
The question then is, will the evidence or motivation in domestic cases be weighed differently? Will penalties be harsher (treason!) or more lenient (boys will be boys...)?

Sent by Pat | 6:06 PM ET | 06-04-2007

I woud consider illegal aliens terroritsts. Oh, but you woud say that these people are coming here to work? What people? And how do you know what their intends are?
Two million coming here to work, is much different from a 2 million man army. Do any of these people have military training. Yes.
Let's do a better job at defendng the borders

Sent by kerthialfad | 7:50 PM ET | 06-04-2007

Time out for a reality check. This group embarked on a campaign that included 20 events and caused $40 million in property damage. In so doing they put their values above those of society at large regardless of the consequences. Their objective was to change government or corporate policy to conform to their ideals. They used some "higher good" concept to excuse their acts. How can this pattern of activity not be characterized as "Terrorism"? Their intent was clearly to intimidate without any thought of the cost of their actions or the possible injury they might cause. I think comparison to the KKK (Is burning a cross in someone's front lawn any less despicable just because no one was burned in the fire?)and other radical groups is perfectly valid.

Sent by jim mckay | 9:12 PM ET | 06-04-2007

If someone feels very strongly about their position and feels the need to fight for it, that is only because they know that the opposing view has enough truth to be feared.

Sent by SEA | 2:58 AM ET | 06-05-2007

was George Washington a terrorist

Sent by Pat | 9:13 AM ET | 06-05-2007

I don't think comparison to the KKK crimes is valid. The KKK were people who already had power and wanted to intimidate the disenfranchised and powerless.

If radical actions are made against the rich and powerful, it is usually when they have refused to listen or act responsibly for the needs of society.

Sent by graybeard | 2:05 AM ET | 06-06-2007

If we're going to expand the definition, I think that gang violence and organized crime should be prosecuted as domestic terrorism.

Sent by kc | 2:14 AM ET | 06-06-2007

boston tea party

Sent by Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf | 7:00 AM ET | 06-06-2007

The Boston Tea Party by this new definition of terrorism would be considered terrorism! I think these individuals should be tried for vandalism.

Sent by Zac Albrecht-Heiks | 12:34 PM ET | 06-12-2007