5 ms·

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.

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
    it's not separate. the reason why such harsh penalties are needed (i imagine, from the pov of the government) is because there's nothing else to stop others from doing the same damage. in your apology for the status quo above, where you mumble on about the need to protect society (and make trains run on time), you conveniently forget that there are many tools for that, including security guards. also, if there had been competent security, then they wouldn't have got so far and would likely be open to significantly less charges. it seems particularly unfair (to me, i guess you'll find an excuse) that the incompetent security lead directly to worse charges. so again - not separate. i'm sorry for the vitriol above, well not really, but people who say they understand and then dream up excuses to have everything continue exactly as before make my blood boil.
    - jasallen 13y ago
      huh, and phrases like 'mumble on' make your point stronger? I wonder, what have you stood up for? I was trying to have an exchange of ideas, but as long as we're making it personal, people who save their bravery and vitriol for the internet make my blood boil.
      - andrewcooke 13y ago
        if it's any consolation, i would be mad in your face too. but my post had both rhetoric and an argument. yours? [update: on the other hand, this is the second time in two days i've lost my temper, which isn't good. i am going to take a break from the internet.]
- jasallen 13y ago
  Also, I think its important to note that no one is disputing Destruction of Property as something they genuinely are guilty of. If there was naivety involved in this, I genuinely feel for these people. If this was the stand they wanted to make, than this thread is perhaps the start of the attention they wanted to the topic. But for reals folks, if you are not prepared to spend 'years' in jail, do not break in to a government weapons facility, guarded or not. Please, for me. :-)
  - danielharan 13y ago
    What do you think would be an appropriately harsh punishment for an 82 year old nun and couple other seniors breaking through a fence and putting up a banner at a nuclear facility, then wait to be arrested?
- honzzz 13y ago
  >>> 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. Exactly. I find it outrageous that the manager of that facility claimed that "their acts had an impact on nuclear deterrence" - their acts did not, his did and IMO he should rot in jail. Don’t blame the mirror for your ugly face.
MichaelGG 13y ago
There is a penalty for trespassing, and it was printed on a sign and hung up on the fence. Teenagers with "moral streaks" that feel like committing a misdemeanor in order to make a point may do so. If there needs to be stronger laws against trespassing, then the laws should change. Except, we know that trespassing shouldn't come with a 10+ year sentence. Allowing prosecutors to arbitrarily up the charges is a failure of justice. It allows a more "legal" way for the government to act in retaliatory ways. If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. Instead, many people are embarrassed and at least if "convicted terrorists" go to jail over this, there is some saving of face possible. Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? If this was truly a major problem, why not pin them from the start?
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. That's like me arguing that if you'd had stronger locks, I would have only been charged with attempted breaking and entering. Going down that route opens the doors to defense arguing in many cases how if the police had arrested people on their first offense in a series, they wouldn't have committed the rest. Heck, just drive 5 miles over the speed limit and say "Hey, if the cops had stopped me, I wouldn't have done X". > Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the prosecution was fine with letting them off leniently. But they wanted to make a point. Let's not forget that these people did break into and damage a facility that is a part of our national defense. Whatever else you might think, they did that. That they chose not to plead guilty of lesser crimes is their choice. Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the government was trying to be reasonable.
ScottBurson 13y ago
> I think [there] does need to be a fairly harsh punishment Okay, I can see the argument that the government shouldn't have just left it at misdemeanor trespassing. Felony damage to federal property, 0 to 6 years -- I can see that. Damage in excess of $1000, up to 10 years -- this is already starting to seem like a stretch to me. If it costs more than $1000 to fix the fences and paint over their peace slogans, it won't be much over $1000; and when was that statue enacted and how much inflation has there been since then? So I'm not even sure it's within the spirit of that law to charge them with that; but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion. This brings us to the sabotage charge, and this is where it starts getting clearly absurd. The ordinary meaning of the word "sabotage" requires that one do damage that interferes with the functioning of a system. The protestors made no attempt to do anything whatsoever to interfere with the operation of the facility. And then the terrorism charge is beyond absurd. Oh yes, I am just quaking in my boots at these three unarmed pacifists spray-painting peace slogans! I am so terrorized! Seriously -- the successful leveling of terrorism charges at these people frightens me far more than what they did. I am very afraid of what is happening to my country. Because the "crime" these people are actually being prosecuted for, it's quite obvious, is that of embarrassing the government. And if that is worth 16 years in federal prison, we are all in big trouble.
- jasallen 13y ago
  I agree with you, it went to the absurd. That point had already been made over and over, but I should have reiterated it. My intent was to talk about some other aspects that I thought hadn't been addressed. On a related note, I would actually join the chorus of complaints about prosecutorial over-stepping. This case alone doesn't really rile me (obviously), but as another straw on top of Aaron Swartz, Weev, etc. Yeah I agree, that's a problem that needs fixing.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  > Oh yes, I am just quaking in my boots at these three unarmed pacifists spray-painting peace slogans! I am so terrorized! Well, I think that news is quite terrifying. If I lived at the US, I'd probably be terrorized. Not by the trespassers, of course.

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
  it's not separate. the reason why such harsh penalties are needed (i imagine, from the pov of the government) is because there's nothing else to stop others from doing the same damage. in your apology for the status quo above, where you mumble on about the need to protect society (and make trains run on time), you conveniently forget that there are many tools for that, including security guards. also, if there had been competent security, then they wouldn't have got so far and would likely be open to significantly less charges. it seems particularly unfair (to me, i guess you'll find an excuse) that the incompetent security lead directly to worse charges. so again - not separate. i'm sorry for the vitriol above, well not really, but people who say they understand and then dream up excuses to have everything continue exactly as before make my blood boil.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    huh, and phrases like 'mumble on' make your point stronger? I wonder, what have you stood up for? I was trying to have an exchange of ideas, but as long as we're making it personal, people who save their bravery and vitriol for the internet make my blood boil.
    - andrewcooke 13y ago
      if it's any consolation, i would be mad in your face too. but my post had both rhetoric and an argument. yours? [update: on the other hand, this is the second time in two days i've lost my temper, which isn't good. i am going to take a break from the internet.]
jasallen 13y ago
Also, I think its important to note that no one is disputing Destruction of Property as something they genuinely are guilty of. If there was naivety involved in this, I genuinely feel for these people. If this was the stand they wanted to make, than this thread is perhaps the start of the attention they wanted to the topic. But for reals folks, if you are not prepared to spend 'years' in jail, do not break in to a government weapons facility, guarded or not. Please, for me. :-)
- danielharan 13y ago
  What do you think would be an appropriately harsh punishment for an 82 year old nun and couple other seniors breaking through a fence and putting up a banner at a nuclear facility, then wait to be arrested?
honzzz 13y ago
>>> 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. Exactly. I find it outrageous that the manager of that facility claimed that "their acts had an impact on nuclear deterrence" - their acts did not, his did and IMO he should rot in jail. Don’t blame the mirror for your ugly face.

MichaelGG 13y ago

There is a penalty for trespassing, and it was printed on a sign and hung up on the fence. Teenagers with "moral streaks" that feel like committing a misdemeanor in order to make a point may do so. If there needs to be stronger laws against trespassing, then the laws should change. Except, we know that trespassing shouldn't come with a 10+ year sentence. Allowing prosecutors to arbitrarily up the charges is a failure of justice. It allows a more "legal" way for the government to act in retaliatory ways. If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. Instead, many people are embarrassed and at least if "convicted terrorists" go to jail over this, there is some saving of face possible. Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? If this was truly a major problem, why not pin them from the start?

jasonlotito 13y ago
> If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. That's like me arguing that if you'd had stronger locks, I would have only been charged with attempted breaking and entering. Going down that route opens the doors to defense arguing in many cases how if the police had arrested people on their first offense in a series, they wouldn't have committed the rest. Heck, just drive 5 miles over the speed limit and say "Hey, if the cops had stopped me, I wouldn't have done X". > Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the prosecution was fine with letting them off leniently. But they wanted to make a point. Let's not forget that these people did break into and damage a facility that is a part of our national defense. Whatever else you might think, they did that. That they chose not to plead guilty of lesser crimes is their choice. Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the government was trying to be reasonable.

ScottBurson 13y ago

> I think [there] does need to be a fairly harsh punishment Okay, I can see the argument that the government shouldn't have just left it at misdemeanor trespassing. Felony damage to federal property, 0 to 6 years -- I can see that. Damage in excess of $1000, up to 10 years -- this is already starting to seem like a stretch to me. If it costs more than $1000 to fix the fences and paint over their peace slogans, it won't be much over $1000; and when was that statue enacted and how much inflation has there been since then? So I'm not even sure it's within the spirit of that law to charge them with that; but I'll accept it for the sake of discussion. This brings us to the sabotage charge, and this is where it starts getting clearly absurd. The ordinary meaning of the word "sabotage" requires that one do damage that interferes with the functioning of a system. The protestors made no attempt to do anything whatsoever to interfere with the operation of the facility. And then the terrorism charge is beyond absurd. Oh yes, I am just quaking in my boots at these three unarmed pacifists spray-painting peace slogans! I am so terrorized! Seriously -- the successful leveling of terrorism charges at these people frightens me far more than what they did. I am very afraid of what is happening to my country. Because the "crime" these people are actually being prosecuted for, it's quite obvious, is that of embarrassing the government. And if that is worth 16 years in federal prison, we are all in big trouble.

jasallen 13y ago
I agree with you, it went to the absurd. That point had already been made over and over, but I should have reiterated it. My intent was to talk about some other aspects that I thought hadn't been addressed. On a related note, I would actually join the chorus of complaints about prosecutorial over-stepping. This case alone doesn't really rile me (obviously), but as another straw on top of Aaron Swartz, Weev, etc. Yeah I agree, that's a problem that needs fixing.
marcosdumay 13y ago
> Oh yes, I am just quaking in my boots at these three unarmed pacifists spray-painting peace slogans! I am so terrorized! Well, I think that news is quite terrifying. If I lived at the US, I'd probably be terrorized. Not by the trespassers, of course.