13 ms·

How three pacifists were convicted as terrorists

403 points by swombat 13y ago

omonra 13y ago
It could be just me, but this story bothers me a lot more than all the non-stop coverage about NSA. Perhaps I had always expected NSA to snoop on everything on the internet whereas this shows complete breakdown in common sense by the government.
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  The most dangerous crime you can commit is to embarrass this government.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    It's a pretty ballsy move to martyr these people. It may end up bringing much more awareness to the simple undeniable fact that the people charged with the defense of one of our most sensitive military facilities were totally and utterly incompetent. If they were smart then they would go totally by the book to make the story as unexceptional as possible, anything that draws attention to this case does not look good for them. Of course their incompetence has already been demonstrated on the ground, so why should their PR be any better?
  - specialist 13y ago
    They exposed the lack of security, thereby threatening the revenues of some contractor(s) and kickbacks of some generals. Reminds me of the charade of security exposed by Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko in his book Rogue Warrior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko TL;DR: His team did penetration testing pretty much everywhere, with great success, embarrassing the hierarchy.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  more than a lack of common sense - it's vindictive, thuggish behaviour. (then again - aaron swartz...)
  - scotty79 13y ago
    Also completely, blatantly unjust, yet comming straight from US justice system.
- ikusalic 13y ago
  I think those are actually supporting each other. One is about getting more power. Other is the demonstration that they are not to be trusted with that power.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  I'm infuriated and disturbed by both stories.
mtgx 13y ago
This is becoming a lot more common lately. The discrepancy between how much jail time the people who upset the government get, and the people who commit real crimes is getting bigger. And that's without counting the complete lack of interest in prosecuting bankers and other corporations that are very friendly to the government. Justice is becoming increasingly more unequal.
- kiba 13y ago
  Becoming more common lately? Or it is becoming more apparent to you lately? I would like a citation on wrongful prosecution activities.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    This isn't a reference library. In the absence of a citation, I think its perfectly acceptable to automatically read that (or any comment post or blog) as "My perception is..." and move on without criticizing.
    - tome 13y ago
      I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that perceptions be stated explicitly as such, rather than leaving statements open to easy misinterpretation.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        I think it's perfectly absurd to expect that a brief intelligent comment on a social chat board be expected to include encyclopedic completeness and citations to ward off every conceivable casual wanton misinterpretation.
        tome 13y ago
        What's wrong with saying "This seems to be becoming a lot more common lately" rather than "This is becoming a lot more common lately"?
kghose 13y ago
[Edited: Deleted, wrong thread. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry]
- honzzz 13y ago
  Wrong article?
  - kghose 13y ago
    You are correct sir. This is entirely the wrong thread. I am deleting the comment.
gridmaths 13y ago
TLDR : 80yo nun incarcerated for non-violent protest at nuclear weapons facility [ fence cut, graffiti sprayed, prayers said ] Quote, last sentence : "In ten months, an 82 year old nun and two pacifists had been successfully transformed by the U.S. government from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism."
- tterrace 13y ago
  Don't do that please.
youngerdryas 13y ago
More link bait. Charged != turned. The puffed up charges have to hold up in court. Edit: I somehow missed that they were convicted. Regardless of the semantics of the law I am quite sure they do not support violence.
- sc00ter 13y ago
  If you read the article you'll see they were convicted of the "puffed up charges". They await sentencing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- femto 13y ago
  To quote: "...convicted of violent crimes of terrorism. Now in jail awaiting sentencing for their acts at an Oak Ridge, ..." They have been convicted, not just charged. The stronger title is justified.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  They don't support violence. The title is meant to indicate that they are being treated as if they were violent terrorists.
pyalot2 13y ago
The (potential) application of statutes may be outrageous for the kind of infraction. However... "In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 28, 2012, long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property." Stop right there. You did what? And you didn't expect what to happen? Really? Geeze people. You seem to mistake exercising your first ammendment with breaking into the property of a government nuclear weapons facility. Contrary to popular belief, you can exercise your first ammendment without running afoul of the law. Don't be surprised that they do throw the book at you, if you give them the means to do so.
- scotty79 13y ago
  You are saying "government nuclear weapons facility" as if it was some serious thing. If it were actually serious in any way to anybody then three geezers would't enter this facility to spray and pray just by cutting few fences some random morning.
  - jeremyjh 13y ago
    Is this something you believe because it should be true, or because you have some evidence that it is true?
    - akiselev 13y ago
      He's being facetious. Obviously nuclear weapons facilities are very important. Obviously three hippies aged 57, 63, and 82 shouldn't be able to break in so far as to spray paint a building holding nuclear weapons.
  - pyalot2 13y ago
    PSA: If you go looking for trouble, don't be surprised if you get into trouble.
    - codygman 13y ago
sc00ter 13y ago
I couldn't help but be struck by the parallels between this case and that of Aaron Swartz, given the significant overreach by the prosection in continuing to add federal charges to the indictment as the case progresses. We have a glimse here as to how the Swartz might have ended; it will be revealing to see how the sentencing in this case pans out.
- wl 13y ago
  The behavior of federal prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz case wasn't anything unusual. The same holds true for the case this article speaks about. Piling inappropriate charge upon charge to coerce a plea deal is standard operating procedure. This stuff is happening every day and has been happening for a long, long time. As for the sentencing, there are rules that we can apply to get an idea of what to expect. The federal sentencing guidelines have a bit of flexibility, but not much. These people probably have a criminal history level of I under the sentencing guidelines. The sabotage charge has a base offense level of 26. The property damage charges each have a base offense level of 6. I'm guessing the property damage charges would be considered a part of the sabotage charge, so we'll just stay at 26. That yields a sentence of 63-78 months. I'd be seriously surprised if any of them get more than 7 years.
jfaucett 13y ago
This piece is extremely disturbing, are you kidding me? Has the US Gov't and its justice system degenerated so far as to label pacifist as terrorist and incarcerate them? What disturbs me the most, is that I had heard nothing at all about this case, and I consider myself fairly up-to-date on political happenings...
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Anyone who was so naive as to think that terrorism laws would not be used against political troublemakers has no perspective of history ;-) We've known for some time (and it has been controversial on many sites I frequent on both left and right) that "terrorism" has been used to label groups believed to be radical by the government (i.e. those groups which threaten the bipartisan consensus. Environmental groups get added. Groups espousing local governance get added. But it is nothing new in this country. The words of Jack Warshaw, originally applying the experience of Americans to the Troubles in Northern Ireland are as true today as they ever have been: They say that here we are free To live our lives as we please To sing and to speak and to write So long as we do it alone But do it together With comrades united and strong And they'll take you away for long rest With walls and barbed wire for a home No time for love if they come in the morning No time to show tears or for fears in the morning No time for goodbye, no time to ask why And the sound of the sirens, the cry of the morning.
  - silvestrov 13y ago
    terrorism is the new communism
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      The names change, the tensions stay the same.
qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
Looking at just the title, it makes it sound like the government somehow drove former pacifists to violence, which isn't remotely true. It's a story of how the government has been treating those pacifists like violent terrorists; they haven't at all become terrorists.
- VLM 13y ago
  "they haven't at all become terrorists." Of course that's what they've become. They were even convicted of it. What Big Brother defines as terrorism has very little to do with reality, of course. The real problem is if you make the penalty for non-violent protest the same as the penalty for violent protest, you're relying solely on the perpetrators ethics and morality to not shoot the place up and burn it down. After all they get the same penalty for holding up a banner as for doing something actually violent... so why not make "more" of a statement?
RexRollman 13y ago
Conservatives complain about "activist judges" but I would like to see something done about "activist prosecutors", who stretch the law to imprison people in ways not intended by law. The computer hacking statutes are also a good example of this.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  This is really not a failure of prosecutors. I mean it is, in the sense that they aren't actually obligated to do this, but they have every incentive to and they're human. The real failure is of Congress not to over-criminalize minor offenses and to distinguish what these people or people like Aaron Swartz did from people doing the far more malicious things whose actions are used to justify the laws and penalties these people have been charged with.
  - ethanazir 13y ago
    Prosecutors, like police, have 'discretion.' The ability to decide, hey this is not that important to our community and let it go; there are more important things to do.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    I read an interview with a prosecuter (it may have been an AMA on reddit) where he said that while a lot of lawyers wanted to become defence lawyers because they dreamed of saving innocent people, as prosecutor he had the power to simply drop the charges, with no reason to go to trial.
    - Zak 13y ago
      The supposed obligation of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not to put people in jail. When the incentives favor injustice, they should be adjusted; public campaigns personally shaming overzealous prosecutors are one possible disincentive that could be added.
  - greedo 13y ago
    I remember a common phrase when I was growing up: "Don't make a Federal case about it." Back then, a Federal crime was something serious, rare, and unusual. Most crime was (and still is) a local affair. Then things changed in the 80's and onward. Now double jeopardy is far too common, and trying to live your life without somehow stepping on the morass that is the US Code is difficult. These folks meant to perform civil disobedience, to bring attention to their opinions, but to rot in jail for the rest of their lives (consider their age) is a travesty.
Radim 13y ago
Any threat against a government's monopoly on violence is a threat against its very lifeblood. The outcome is pretty predictable. What do you think would cause a more passionate and exaggerated reaction in the IT community? * someone stealing a few computers from a hardware store, or breaking other people's computers on purpose, OR * someone saying computers are inherently evil and should be abandoned and banned forever, while rallying support in that direction? (to be clear, this is an analogy to a government's expected reaction to theft, vandalism, rape etc. versus a perceived existential threat to its military and police) Being suddenly outraged or shocked by the development in this story displays a lack of understanding of basic historical patterns. If anything, the government's desire to send such exaggerated, exemplary signals by means of giving peaceful old nuns "a lesson" points at some surprising weakness & insecurity on its part.
einhverfr 13y ago
When I was growing up as a Quaker, I was raised to see such people as heroes, and I still do. These people took their beliefs and their convictions and chose to live life on their terms, not bowing to the authorities of the government. They knew what the potential punishments were. They used the trial to make their case. They made it. Like many other heroes of great magnitude they have sacrificed much and now stand as political prisoners. But in addition to making their own cases, they have exposed something deeper about our system of government. We are all in their debt. I shall listen to Jack Warshaw's "No Time for Love" (as a tribute to political prisoners) tonight, both his version[1] and the Moving Hearts version[2] (which was published first interestingly). [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8p1XhTc2Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8p1XhTc2Y [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgD-QveQrU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgD-QveQrU
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  "But in addition to making their own cases, they have exposed something deeper about our system of government. We are all in their debt." It was hard for me to put a name on what in this story resonates with me. And I think that quote really captures it. What they did was illegal, of course, but there's something about the response of the government that really exposes the paranoid insecurity of the security state. We're told that our wars on Terror and Drugs are going well and that the ends justify the means, and yet this story seriously destabilizes for me the feeling that there's much else besides security theater and draconian punishment. The government just seems to be making up the rules as it goes, and if you don't like those rules, God help you. It's infuriating. We could be so much better as a country.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    > We're told that ... the ends justify the means There are no ends, life is just a sequence of means. Really, whatever objectives somebody have, they'll change before anybody get even near them. Nobody ever uses that phrase to achieve something good. No exceptions, it doesn't matter if you think this time it's different, or that this one is a honest person.
- 13y ago
xenophilia 13y ago
A group of people trespass into a nuclear weapons facility, carrying written statements indicating they may be there to sabotage the weapons, already caused damage to the facility, and they didn't expect something like this to happen? I don't think their charges sound that terribly unreasonable. Maybe somewhat excessive but it's definitely not a bigger deal than the NSA issue. What's the problem with nuclear weapons anyway? They're simply a fact of international relations that you have to deal with. Should all of NATO have just thrown all their nukes into the ocean during the cold war and let the USSR have our way with them? They've only been used in wartime twice in history, and that was to save far more lives than it took, and since then they've been an adequate deterrent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
- subsection1h 13y ago
  carrying written statements indicating they may be there to sabotage the weapons In what article was the contents of their written statements disclosed? I don't think their charges sound that terribly unreasonable. 10-30 years for trespassing and damaging three fences is reasonable? Are you deranged?
  - xenophilia 13y ago
    """They carried bibles, written statements, peace banners, spray paint, flower, candles, small baby bottles of blood, bread, hammers with biblical verses on them and wire cutters. Their intent was to follow the words of Isaiah 2:4: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”""" That's what I meant. Maybe it doesn't explicitly say that's what the written statements said, though. And trespassing and damaging fences just anywhere, sure, that'd be nuts, but this is a nuclear weapons facility! More time is to be expected for breaking into government property with questionable intentions like that. They must have known what they were possibly getting into when they did this. 10 years is a bit excessive but it's not surprising.
    - 13y ago
jasallen 13y ago
I don't particularly agree with them, frankly, but I would still hold them up as an example of the proper use of civil disobedience as a tool to affect change. a) broke the law, knew there would be consequences b) did not cause harm, injure or endanger people in the process c) used the attention to proselytize their cause, not beg for leniency So, as a person who does not want society to stagnate, I applaud that there are people out there will to take risks for (perceived) needed change. However, that only stands as long as there is a society to be 'risking' it against. We need laws and we need structure to be a society. And not every change truly is needed. Since there is a compelling reason to punish people who break into government weapons facilities (we don't want every high schooler with a naive moral streak imitating it), It strikes me that, while I hold nothing against them and applaud their willingness to take the punishment, I think their does need to be a fairly harsh punishment. Now, if despite the harsh punishment, more and more people start doing this and if the less brave of us who are in agreement with them are vocal (I said already I'm not particularly in agreement), and the less brave still at least vote, then over time laws and government can change. But in the short term, the brave revolutionaries must take the consequences.
- rapind 13y ago
  I disagree. I think they should have only been charged with the trespassing, and instead the management of the facility should have been been on the hook for some serious negligence charges. Let's just assume for a second that there are terrorists out there younger and a little more nimble than an 82 year old... If the whole point is the send a message to the public / make an example of, then it should be those responsible for security (and the budget for security, etc. up the line) that should be made the example of.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    I completely agree with negligence on the part of the facility management and entire hierarchy of responsibility there. I just think it's a separate issue :-)
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
fowkswe 13y ago
In the dark, the three activists cut through a boundary fence which had signs stating “No Trespassing.” They broke into and vandalized a nuclear weapons facility. If you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horns.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  I am still kinda shocked that is even possible. I mean the US go to great lengths to prevent Iran from getting nukes, but they don't even protect their own storage facilities? I understand that you can't exactly just press a button to make a nuclear bomb go of (although if the PAL is still set to its cold war default of 00000000 that might be just that simple) but on of the US fears is how close Iran is to be able to make enriched uranium, best case (or worst case, for us) estimates are still years away but if they can simply waltz into a weapons storage facility and walk away with it, then they could get it at any time and what is possibly worse is that they could finish the rest of the components (which wouldn't worry the US too much, as they still wouldn't have the uranium) and then get the uranium in a few days (and if the storage facilities aren't tracking their inventory closely enough, the first indication of the nukes being stole may be when the Iranians announce that they have them). And if Iran doesn't want nuclear bombs, then we know that North Korea wants them.
- codygman 13y ago
  They SUCCESSFULLY broke into a nuclear weapons facility without any opposition. The nuclear facility security staff and management should be getting the horns.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  If they had broke into and attempted to destroy a nuclear weapons facility, then would sympathize a bit more with the charges. A handful of pacifists cutting fences, making signs, and singing songs is not terrorism, much less violent terrorism. How long until robbing a bank is terrorism? It could presumably hinder national defense, so it must be terrorism. How about killing someone? Is that terrorism? Smoking marijuana? Jaywalking? How far will we go, allowing ourselves to say "that person deserves it," before we're next on the list? If pacifists trespassing is terrorism, I'd say anyone living in the US should be pretty fucking worried right about now.
csomar 13y ago
These guys sneaked into a nuclear (weapons) facility. Which I guess is a very critical and important facility to the US. How can we know they weren't real spies? There is a difference between freedom of expression, and cutting a nuclear facility fence. Try to convince people about the dangers of the weapons and not cut the fences. Cutting the fences will obviously put you in jail. Maybe the sentence was too harsh, but I have little sympathy for them. If they were detained for speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, they'll not have only my sympathy but also any possible help I can give.
- redbad 13y ago
  > Maybe the sentence was too harsh, but I have little > sympathy for them. I cannot rightly comprehend the sociopathy that assembles the facts of this case and renders a judgment like the above. I hope you never need stand before a jury of your peers.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Did you miss the part where he said NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY? There are absolutely zero places I would want more defended than a place holding nuclear weapons. Hell, one of the points used to oppose nuclear power plants is the fact that they have nuclear fuel at all, and that kind of fuel doesn't even blow up in a nuclear yield. But nuclear weapons can!
    - gambiting 13y ago
      Precisely. And that's why the managing director of that facility should be the one charged with 35 years in prison for not protecting it well enough, and thus endangering the safety of the United States of America. These people should be only given the original charge of trespassing and spend at most a year in jail.
    - akiselev 13y ago
      Which is why we should be giving these three people a medal and sending to prison whoever was responsible for the incompetency of the security force. We were lucky and need to be thankful that three pacifists (including a nun of all people) and not actual terrorists were the first ones to find a major hole in the security of this facility. A facility, mind you, tending to weapons that could destroy human civilization many times over.
pmorici 13y ago
It sounds like they had a horrible lawyer.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  I imagine they either represented themselves or had a lawyer who acted in accordance with their wishes.
mikecane 13y ago
This is why they want everything secret. Perversions of justice and insane prosecutions such as this. Because open coverage reveals their multiple levels of failure. What's next? Being charged with "Interference with Lawful Surveillance" if you encrypt files, use TOR?
ak217 13y ago
> The federal manager of Y-12 said the protestors had damaged the credibility of the site in the U.S. and globally and even claimed that their acts had an impact on nuclear deterrence. LOL
saosebastiao 13y ago
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/... Related: http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7647 http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7...
- peeters 13y ago
  That might all be true, but that doesn't mean his Department of Justice is faithfully serving justice. The story is equally chilling regardless of how legitimate the protesters' concerns were.
dhughes 13y ago
What if they had been shot by guards? This wasn't a very good plan.
- peeters 13y ago
  From the article: > The DOE agent admitted the three carried a letter which stated, “We come to the Y-12 facility because our very humanity rejects the designs of nuclearism, empire and war. Our faith in love and nonviolence encourages us to believe that our activity here is necessary; that we come to invite transformation, undo the past and present work of Y-12; disarm and end any further efforts to increase the Y-12 capacity for an economy and social structure based on war-making and empire-building.” The ultimate reason for carrying such a letter would be to explain their actions in the event they could not explain their actions themselves. For example, had they been shot by guards. And later they said: > "For this we give our lives — for the truth about the terrible existence of these weapons." Sounds like they are very much aware that their actions might have ended in their death, and accepting of it. They are 82, 57, and 63 years old.
  - dhughes 13y ago
    It looks like they expected to be shot.
Symmetry 13y ago
I wonder how much of the expansion of the charges against them was due to embarrassing the government, and how much was due to them not pleading guilty and forcing the prosecutor to take the case to trial.
rdl 13y ago
Am I the only person who dislikes the headline? "Turning a pacifist into a violent terrorist" is what happens when you send someone to Gitmo, break him, convince him the world has no meaning except for through violent terrorism, etc. Prosecuting a protesting pacifist under laws meant for terrorism doesn't "turn them into" violent terrorists; I'd be perfectly comfortable around them/not afraid they would kill me, although I do think they should get some slight punishment for destroying government property and trespass (suspended), while the security at Oak Ridge should get vastly more scrutiny.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  I disagree. While you are right that turning someone from a pacifist into a violent terrorist can be done by "breaking" them, I think the point of the article is to show what lengths the US government will go to destroy those who disagree with it, whether they are citizens or not. I think anyone who perused the article for more than 30 seconds sees that these people were not "converted." The fact that they have been labelled violent terrorists for a peaceful protest is much more worrisome and impactful than throwing them in prison and watching their ideals erode away. This is our country right now: a peaceful person can be labelled a violent terrorist. I think the title fits.
angersock 13y ago
See, this is the sort of thing that cheapens the word "terrorist", and which underscores the strategic failing and corruption of the US justice system. By clearly being adversarial, petty, and unjust, we are in effect giving permission/encouragement/polarization to elements which would wish us harm. If we did this to aged protestors, anybody who is considering something similarly mild may as well try and up the ante--after all, they can only jail you for life once.
steveklabnik 13y ago
The FBI has been referring to left-wing activists as 'domestic terrorists' for a while now, specifically the animal rights / global justice / anti-nuke / anti-capitalist / green flavors.
losethos 13y ago
Bow down to me. I am your new king. God says... listening cleansed whereupon untruth Fountain see cover insight excellencies previous admirable Who associate rejoicing ghetto 97 afford conferring warring aged death revolt way favour 31 convicted Augustine noon orbs oh_oh faces enjoyed plural rioting fulness mediator Psalter tasting shadowy smoke Thus roving Oh_Hell_No concerning tree_hugger think_you_could_do_better belong long-suffering parts religious lose compassionate refreshment indications particles foreshower fountain falsely convertedst hairs 2002 ----- God says... 18:4 For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest. 18:5 For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect, and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away and cut down the branches. 18:6 They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth: and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them. 18:7 In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion. ----- With pruning hooks we will trim and throw the chaff in the fire! Bear fruit motha-fuckers or you go in the fire.
switch33 13y ago
Read the article till this rediculous paragraph: "Describing themselves as the Transform Now Plowshares, the three came as non-violent protestors to symbolically disarm the weapons. They carried bibles, written statements, peace banners, spray paint, flower, candles, small baby bottles of blood, bread, hammers with biblical verses on them and wire cutters. Their intent was to follow the words of Isaiah 2:4: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” And was like, uhm, ok they may not be terrorists but they are nut job religious people. I mean baby bottles full of blood what the hell? And yes it is sort of terrorism to go to a nuclear power plant of a country and say dismantle all your weapons with something/anything that may look threatening! But regardless I don't think terrorism should stick in the court cases as much. They should get a bit more of a sentence than normal protest and maybe include some invasion of private property but terrorism seems a bit out of touch.
w_t_payne 13y ago
With broad enough laws & proprietorial discretion; coupled with sufficient levels of surveillance and record-keeping, we are all effectively at the mercy of the whims of the agencies. The only missing piece is the capability for mass incarceration .... oh... wait a sec. ..

403 points by swombat 13y ago

It could be just me, but this story bothers me a lot more than all the non-stop coverage about NSA. Perhaps I had always expected NSA to snoop on everything on the internet whereas this shows complete breakdown in common sense by the government.

jeremyjh 13y ago
The most dangerous crime you can commit is to embarrass this government.
- dasil003 13y ago
  It's a pretty ballsy move to martyr these people. It may end up bringing much more awareness to the simple undeniable fact that the people charged with the defense of one of our most sensitive military facilities were totally and utterly incompetent. If they were smart then they would go totally by the book to make the story as unexceptional as possible, anything that draws attention to this case does not look good for them. Of course their incompetence has already been demonstrated on the ground, so why should their PR be any better?
- specialist 13y ago
  They exposed the lack of security, thereby threatening the revenues of some contractor(s) and kickbacks of some generals. Reminds me of the charade of security exposed by Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko in his book Rogue Warrior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko TL;DR: His team did penetration testing pretty much everywhere, with great success, embarrassing the hierarchy.
andrewcooke 13y ago
more than a lack of common sense - it's vindictive, thuggish behaviour. (then again - aaron swartz...)
- scotty79 13y ago
  Also completely, blatantly unjust, yet comming straight from US justice system.
ikusalic 13y ago
I think those are actually supporting each other. One is about getting more power. Other is the demonstration that they are not to be trusted with that power.
acjohnson55 13y ago
I'm infuriated and disturbed by both stories.

mtgx 13y ago

This is becoming a lot more common lately. The discrepancy between how much jail time the people who upset the government get, and the people who commit real crimes is getting bigger. And that's without counting the complete lack of interest in prosecuting bankers and other corporations that are very friendly to the government. Justice is becoming increasingly more unequal.

kiba 13y ago
Becoming more common lately? Or it is becoming more apparent to you lately? I would like a citation on wrongful prosecution activities.
- jasallen 13y ago
  This isn't a reference library. In the absence of a citation, I think its perfectly acceptable to automatically read that (or any comment post or blog) as "My perception is..." and move on without criticizing.
  - tome 13y ago
    I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that perceptions be stated explicitly as such, rather than leaving statements open to easy misinterpretation.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      I think it's perfectly absurd to expect that a brief intelligent comment on a social chat board be expected to include encyclopedic completeness and citations to ward off every conceivable casual wanton misinterpretation.
      - tome 13y ago
        What's wrong with saying "This seems to be becoming a lot more common lately" rather than "This is becoming a lot more common lately"?

kghose 13y ago

[Edited: Deleted, wrong thread. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry]

honzzz 13y ago
Wrong article?
- kghose 13y ago
  You are correct sir. This is entirely the wrong thread. I am deleting the comment.

gridmaths 13y ago

TLDR : 80yo nun incarcerated for non-violent protest at nuclear weapons facility [ fence cut, graffiti sprayed, prayers said ] Quote, last sentence : "In ten months, an 82 year old nun and two pacifists had been successfully transformed by the U.S. government from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism."

tterrace 13y ago
Don't do that please.

youngerdryas 13y ago

More link bait. Charged != turned. The puffed up charges have to hold up in court. Edit: I somehow missed that they were convicted. Regardless of the semantics of the law I am quite sure they do not support violence.

sc00ter 13y ago
If you read the article you'll see they were convicted of the "puffed up charges". They await sentencing.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
femto 13y ago
To quote: "...convicted of violent crimes of terrorism. Now in jail awaiting sentencing for their acts at an Oak Ridge, ..." They have been convicted, not just charged. The stronger title is justified.
acjohnson55 13y ago
They don't support violence. The title is meant to indicate that they are being treated as if they were violent terrorists.

pyalot2 13y ago

The (potential) application of statutes may be outrageous for the kind of infraction. However... "In the early morning hours of Saturday, July 28, 2012, long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property." Stop right there. You did what? And you didn't expect what to happen? Really? Geeze people. You seem to mistake exercising your first ammendment with breaking into the property of a government nuclear weapons facility. Contrary to popular belief, you can exercise your first ammendment without running afoul of the law. Don't be surprised that they do throw the book at you, if you give them the means to do so.

scotty79 13y ago
You are saying "government nuclear weapons facility" as if it was some serious thing. If it were actually serious in any way to anybody then three geezers would't enter this facility to spray and pray just by cutting few fences some random morning.
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  Is this something you believe because it should be true, or because you have some evidence that it is true?
  - akiselev 13y ago
    He's being facetious. Obviously nuclear weapons facilities are very important. Obviously three hippies aged 57, 63, and 82 shouldn't be able to break in so far as to spray paint a building holding nuclear weapons.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  PSA: If you go looking for trouble, don't be surprised if you get into trouble.
  - codygman 13y ago

sc00ter 13y ago

I couldn't help but be struck by the parallels between this case and that of Aaron Swartz, given the significant overreach by the prosection in continuing to add federal charges to the indictment as the case progresses. We have a glimse here as to how the Swartz might have ended; it will be revealing to see how the sentencing in this case pans out.

wl 13y ago
The behavior of federal prosecutors in the Aaron Swartz case wasn't anything unusual. The same holds true for the case this article speaks about. Piling inappropriate charge upon charge to coerce a plea deal is standard operating procedure. This stuff is happening every day and has been happening for a long, long time. As for the sentencing, there are rules that we can apply to get an idea of what to expect. The federal sentencing guidelines have a bit of flexibility, but not much. These people probably have a criminal history level of I under the sentencing guidelines. The sabotage charge has a base offense level of 26. The property damage charges each have a base offense level of 6. I'm guessing the property damage charges would be considered a part of the sabotage charge, so we'll just stay at 26. That yields a sentence of 63-78 months. I'd be seriously surprised if any of them get more than 7 years.

jfaucett 13y ago

This piece is extremely disturbing, are you kidding me? Has the US Gov't and its justice system degenerated so far as to label pacifist as terrorist and incarcerate them? What disturbs me the most, is that I had heard nothing at all about this case, and I consider myself fairly up-to-date on political happenings...

einhverfr 13y ago
Anyone who was so naive as to think that terrorism laws would not be used against political troublemakers has no perspective of history ;-) We've known for some time (and it has been controversial on many sites I frequent on both left and right) that "terrorism" has been used to label groups believed to be radical by the government (i.e. those groups which threaten the bipartisan consensus. Environmental groups get added. Groups espousing local governance get added. But it is nothing new in this country. The words of Jack Warshaw, originally applying the experience of Americans to the Troubles in Northern Ireland are as true today as they ever have been: They say that here we are free To live our lives as we please To sing and to speak and to write So long as we do it alone But do it together With comrades united and strong And they'll take you away for long rest With walls and barbed wire for a home No time for love if they come in the morning No time to show tears or for fears in the morning No time for goodbye, no time to ask why And the sound of the sirens, the cry of the morning.
- silvestrov 13y ago
  terrorism is the new communism
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    The names change, the tensions stay the same.

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago

Looking at just the title, it makes it sound like the government somehow drove former pacifists to violence, which isn't remotely true. It's a story of how the government has been treating those pacifists like violent terrorists; they haven't at all become terrorists.

VLM 13y ago
"they haven't at all become terrorists." Of course that's what they've become. They were even convicted of it. What Big Brother defines as terrorism has very little to do with reality, of course. The real problem is if you make the penalty for non-violent protest the same as the penalty for violent protest, you're relying solely on the perpetrators ethics and morality to not shoot the place up and burn it down. After all they get the same penalty for holding up a banner as for doing something actually violent... so why not make "more" of a statement?

RexRollman 13y ago

Conservatives complain about "activist judges" but I would like to see something done about "activist prosecutors", who stretch the law to imprison people in ways not intended by law. The computer hacking statutes are also a good example of this.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
This is really not a failure of prosecutors. I mean it is, in the sense that they aren't actually obligated to do this, but they have every incentive to and they're human. The real failure is of Congress not to over-criminalize minor offenses and to distinguish what these people or people like Aaron Swartz did from people doing the far more malicious things whose actions are used to justify the laws and penalties these people have been charged with.
- ethanazir 13y ago
  Prosecutors, like police, have 'discretion.' The ability to decide, hey this is not that important to our community and let it go; there are more important things to do.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  I read an interview with a prosecuter (it may have been an AMA on reddit) where he said that while a lot of lawyers wanted to become defence lawyers because they dreamed of saving innocent people, as prosecutor he had the power to simply drop the charges, with no reason to go to trial.
  - Zak 13y ago
    The supposed obligation of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not to put people in jail. When the incentives favor injustice, they should be adjusted; public campaigns personally shaming overzealous prosecutors are one possible disincentive that could be added.
- greedo 13y ago
  I remember a common phrase when I was growing up: "Don't make a Federal case about it." Back then, a Federal crime was something serious, rare, and unusual. Most crime was (and still is) a local affair. Then things changed in the 80's and onward. Now double jeopardy is far too common, and trying to live your life without somehow stepping on the morass that is the US Code is difficult. These folks meant to perform civil disobedience, to bring attention to their opinions, but to rot in jail for the rest of their lives (consider their age) is a travesty.

Radim 13y ago

Any threat against a government's monopoly on violence is a threat against its very lifeblood. The outcome is pretty predictable. What do you think would cause a more passionate and exaggerated reaction in the IT community? * someone stealing a few computers from a hardware store, or breaking other people's computers on purpose, OR * someone saying computers are inherently evil and should be abandoned and banned forever, while rallying support in that direction? (to be clear, this is an analogy to a government's expected reaction to theft, vandalism, rape etc. versus a perceived existential threat to its military and police) Being suddenly outraged or shocked by the development in this story displays a lack of understanding of basic historical patterns. If anything, the government's desire to send such exaggerated, exemplary signals by means of giving peaceful old nuns "a lesson" points at some surprising weakness & insecurity on its part.

einhverfr 13y ago

When I was growing up as a Quaker, I was raised to see such people as heroes, and I still do. These people took their beliefs and their convictions and chose to live life on their terms, not bowing to the authorities of the government. They knew what the potential punishments were. They used the trial to make their case. They made it. Like many other heroes of great magnitude they have sacrificed much and now stand as political prisoners. But in addition to making their own cases, they have exposed something deeper about our system of government. We are all in their debt. I shall listen to Jack Warshaw's "No Time for Love" (as a tribute to political prisoners) tonight, both his version[1] and the Moving Hearts version[2] (which was published first interestingly). [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8p1XhTc2Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8p1XhTc2Y [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgD-QveQrU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgD-QveQrU

acjohnson55 13y ago
"But in addition to making their own cases, they have exposed something deeper about our system of government. We are all in their debt." It was hard for me to put a name on what in this story resonates with me. And I think that quote really captures it. What they did was illegal, of course, but there's something about the response of the government that really exposes the paranoid insecurity of the security state. We're told that our wars on Terror and Drugs are going well and that the ends justify the means, and yet this story seriously destabilizes for me the feeling that there's much else besides security theater and draconian punishment. The government just seems to be making up the rules as it goes, and if you don't like those rules, God help you. It's infuriating. We could be so much better as a country.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  > We're told that ... the ends justify the means There are no ends, life is just a sequence of means. Really, whatever objectives somebody have, they'll change before anybody get even near them. Nobody ever uses that phrase to achieve something good. No exceptions, it doesn't matter if you think this time it's different, or that this one is a honest person.
13y ago

xenophilia 13y ago

A group of people trespass into a nuclear weapons facility, carrying written statements indicating they may be there to sabotage the weapons, already caused damage to the facility, and they didn't expect something like this to happen? I don't think their charges sound that terribly unreasonable. Maybe somewhat excessive but it's definitely not a bigger deal than the NSA issue. What's the problem with nuclear weapons anyway? They're simply a fact of international relations that you have to deal with. Should all of NATO have just thrown all their nukes into the ocean during the cold war and let the USSR have our way with them? They've only been used in wartime twice in history, and that was to save far more lives than it took, and since then they've been an adequate deterrent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

subsection1h 13y ago
carrying written statements indicating they may be there to sabotage the weapons In what article was the contents of their written statements disclosed? I don't think their charges sound that terribly unreasonable. 10-30 years for trespassing and damaging three fences is reasonable? Are you deranged?
- xenophilia 13y ago
  """They carried bibles, written statements, peace banners, spray paint, flower, candles, small baby bottles of blood, bread, hammers with biblical verses on them and wire cutters. Their intent was to follow the words of Isaiah 2:4: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”""" That's what I meant. Maybe it doesn't explicitly say that's what the written statements said, though. And trespassing and damaging fences just anywhere, sure, that'd be nuts, but this is a nuclear weapons facility! More time is to be expected for breaking into government property with questionable intentions like that. They must have known what they were possibly getting into when they did this. 10 years is a bit excessive but it's not surprising.
  - 13y ago

jasallen 13y ago

I don't particularly agree with them, frankly, but I would still hold them up as an example of the proper use of civil disobedience as a tool to affect change. a) broke the law, knew there would be consequences b) did not cause harm, injure or endanger people in the process c) used the attention to proselytize their cause, not beg for leniency So, as a person who does not want society to stagnate, I applaud that there are people out there will to take risks for (perceived) needed change. However, that only stands as long as there is a society to be 'risking' it against. We need laws and we need structure to be a society. And not every change truly is needed. Since there is a compelling reason to punish people who break into government weapons facilities (we don't want every high schooler with a naive moral streak imitating it), It strikes me that, while I hold nothing against them and applaud their willingness to take the punishment, I think their does need to be a fairly harsh punishment. Now, if despite the harsh punishment, more and more people start doing this and if the less brave of us who are in agreement with them are vocal (I said already I'm not particularly in agreement), and the less brave still at least vote, then over time laws and government can change. But in the short term, the brave revolutionaries must take the consequences.

rapind 13y ago
I disagree. I think they should have only been charged with the trespassing, and instead the management of the facility should have been been on the hook for some serious negligence charges. Let's just assume for a second that there are terrorists out there younger and a little more nimble than an 82 year old... If the whole point is the send a message to the public / make an example of, then it should be those responsible for security (and the budget for security, etc. up the line) that should be made the example of.
- jasallen 13y ago
  I completely agree with negligence on the part of the facility management and entire hierarchy of responsibility there. I just think it's a separate issue :-)
  - andrewcooke 13y ago

fowkswe 13y ago

In the dark, the three activists cut through a boundary fence which had signs stating “No Trespassing.” They broke into and vandalized a nuclear weapons facility. If you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horns.

tomjen3 13y ago
I am still kinda shocked that is even possible. I mean the US go to great lengths to prevent Iran from getting nukes, but they don't even protect their own storage facilities? I understand that you can't exactly just press a button to make a nuclear bomb go of (although if the PAL is still set to its cold war default of 00000000 that might be just that simple) but on of the US fears is how close Iran is to be able to make enriched uranium, best case (or worst case, for us) estimates are still years away but if they can simply waltz into a weapons storage facility and walk away with it, then they could get it at any time and what is possibly worse is that they could finish the rest of the components (which wouldn't worry the US too much, as they still wouldn't have the uranium) and then get the uranium in a few days (and if the storage facilities aren't tracking their inventory closely enough, the first indication of the nukes being stole may be when the Iranians announce that they have them). And if Iran doesn't want nuclear bombs, then we know that North Korea wants them.
codygman 13y ago
They SUCCESSFULLY broke into a nuclear weapons facility without any opposition. The nuclear facility security staff and management should be getting the horns.
orthecreedence 13y ago
If they had broke into and attempted to destroy a nuclear weapons facility, then would sympathize a bit more with the charges. A handful of pacifists cutting fences, making signs, and singing songs is not terrorism, much less violent terrorism. How long until robbing a bank is terrorism? It could presumably hinder national defense, so it must be terrorism. How about killing someone? Is that terrorism? Smoking marijuana? Jaywalking? How far will we go, allowing ourselves to say "that person deserves it," before we're next on the list? If pacifists trespassing is terrorism, I'd say anyone living in the US should be pretty fucking worried right about now.

csomar 13y ago

These guys sneaked into a nuclear (weapons) facility. Which I guess is a very critical and important facility to the US. How can we know they weren't real spies? There is a difference between freedom of expression, and cutting a nuclear facility fence. Try to convince people about the dangers of the weapons and not cut the fences. Cutting the fences will obviously put you in jail. Maybe the sentence was too harsh, but I have little sympathy for them. If they were detained for speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, they'll not have only my sympathy but also any possible help I can give.

redbad 13y ago
> Maybe the sentence was too harsh, but I have little > sympathy for them. I cannot rightly comprehend the sociopathy that assembles the facts of this case and renders a judgment like the above. I hope you never need stand before a jury of your peers.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Did you miss the part where he said NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY? There are absolutely zero places I would want more defended than a place holding nuclear weapons. Hell, one of the points used to oppose nuclear power plants is the fact that they have nuclear fuel at all, and that kind of fuel doesn't even blow up in a nuclear yield. But nuclear weapons can!
  - gambiting 13y ago
    Precisely. And that's why the managing director of that facility should be the one charged with 35 years in prison for not protecting it well enough, and thus endangering the safety of the United States of America. These people should be only given the original charge of trespassing and spend at most a year in jail.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    Which is why we should be giving these three people a medal and sending to prison whoever was responsible for the incompetency of the security force. We were lucky and need to be thankful that three pacifists (including a nun of all people) and not actual terrorists were the first ones to find a major hole in the security of this facility. A facility, mind you, tending to weapons that could destroy human civilization many times over.

pmorici 13y ago

It sounds like they had a horrible lawyer.

Joeboy 13y ago
I imagine they either represented themselves or had a lawyer who acted in accordance with their wishes.

mikecane 13y ago

This is why they want everything secret. Perversions of justice and insane prosecutions such as this. Because open coverage reveals their multiple levels of failure. What's next? Being charged with "Interference with Lawful Surveillance" if you encrypt files, use TOR?

ak217 13y ago

> The federal manager of Y-12 said the protestors had damaged the credibility of the site in the U.S. and globally and even claimed that their acts had an impact on nuclear deterrence. LOL

saosebastiao 13y ago

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/... Related: http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7647 http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7...

peeters 13y ago
That might all be true, but that doesn't mean his Department of Justice is faithfully serving justice. The story is equally chilling regardless of how legitimate the protesters' concerns were.

dhughes 13y ago

What if they had been shot by guards? This wasn't a very good plan.

peeters 13y ago
From the article: > The DOE agent admitted the three carried a letter which stated, “We come to the Y-12 facility because our very humanity rejects the designs of nuclearism, empire and war. Our faith in love and nonviolence encourages us to believe that our activity here is necessary; that we come to invite transformation, undo the past and present work of Y-12; disarm and end any further efforts to increase the Y-12 capacity for an economy and social structure based on war-making and empire-building.” The ultimate reason for carrying such a letter would be to explain their actions in the event they could not explain their actions themselves. For example, had they been shot by guards. And later they said: > "For this we give our lives — for the truth about the terrible existence of these weapons." Sounds like they are very much aware that their actions might have ended in their death, and accepting of it. They are 82, 57, and 63 years old.
- dhughes 13y ago
  It looks like they expected to be shot.

Symmetry 13y ago

I wonder how much of the expansion of the charges against them was due to embarrassing the government, and how much was due to them not pleading guilty and forcing the prosecutor to take the case to trial.

rdl 13y ago

Am I the only person who dislikes the headline? "Turning a pacifist into a violent terrorist" is what happens when you send someone to Gitmo, break him, convince him the world has no meaning except for through violent terrorism, etc. Prosecuting a protesting pacifist under laws meant for terrorism doesn't "turn them into" violent terrorists; I'd be perfectly comfortable around them/not afraid they would kill me, although I do think they should get some slight punishment for destroying government property and trespass (suspended), while the security at Oak Ridge should get vastly more scrutiny.

orthecreedence 13y ago
I disagree. While you are right that turning someone from a pacifist into a violent terrorist can be done by "breaking" them, I think the point of the article is to show what lengths the US government will go to destroy those who disagree with it, whether they are citizens or not. I think anyone who perused the article for more than 30 seconds sees that these people were not "converted." The fact that they have been labelled violent terrorists for a peaceful protest is much more worrisome and impactful than throwing them in prison and watching their ideals erode away. This is our country right now: a peaceful person can be labelled a violent terrorist. I think the title fits.

angersock 13y ago

See, this is the sort of thing that cheapens the word "terrorist", and which underscores the strategic failing and corruption of the US justice system. By clearly being adversarial, petty, and unjust, we are in effect giving permission/encouragement/polarization to elements which would wish us harm. If we did this to aged protestors, anybody who is considering something similarly mild may as well try and up the ante--after all, they can only jail you for life once.

steveklabnik 13y ago

The FBI has been referring to left-wing activists as 'domestic terrorists' for a while now, specifically the animal rights / global justice / anti-nuke / anti-capitalist / green flavors.

losethos 13y ago

Bow down to me. I am your new king. God says... listening cleansed whereupon untruth Fountain see cover insight excellencies previous admirable Who associate rejoicing ghetto 97 afford conferring warring aged death revolt way favour 31 convicted Augustine noon orbs oh_oh faces enjoyed plural rioting fulness mediator Psalter tasting shadowy smoke Thus roving Oh_Hell_No concerning tree_hugger think_you_could_do_better belong long-suffering parts religious lose compassionate refreshment indications particles foreshower fountain falsely convertedst hairs 2002 ----- God says... 18:4 For so the LORD said unto me, I will take my rest, and I will consider in my dwelling place like a clear heat upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest. 18:5 For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect, and the sour grape is ripening in the flower, he shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning hooks, and take away and cut down the branches. 18:6 They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth: and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them. 18:7 In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden under foot, whose land the rivers have spoiled, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion. ----- With pruning hooks we will trim and throw the chaff in the fire! Bear fruit motha-fuckers or you go in the fire.

switch33 13y ago

Read the article till this rediculous paragraph: "Describing themselves as the Transform Now Plowshares, the three came as non-violent protestors to symbolically disarm the weapons. They carried bibles, written statements, peace banners, spray paint, flower, candles, small baby bottles of blood, bread, hammers with biblical verses on them and wire cutters. Their intent was to follow the words of Isaiah 2:4: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” And was like, uhm, ok they may not be terrorists but they are nut job religious people. I mean baby bottles full of blood what the hell? And yes it is sort of terrorism to go to a nuclear power plant of a country and say dismantle all your weapons with something/anything that may look threatening! But regardless I don't think terrorism should stick in the court cases as much. They should get a bit more of a sentence than normal protest and maybe include some invasion of private property but terrorism seems a bit out of touch.

w_t_payne 13y ago

With broad enough laws & proprietorial discretion; coupled with sufficient levels of surveillance and record-keeping, we are all effectively at the mercy of the whims of the agencies. The only missing piece is the capability for mass incarceration .... oh... wait a sec. ..