Another disturbing consequence of the Bush administration's ongoing War on Terror must be the so-called Terrorism Enhancements being used in crimes against property.
Take the case of Jonathan Paul, a member of the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, who burned down a horse slaughterhouse in Redmond Oregon about 10 years ago. Under terrorism enhanced penalties that went into effect about five years ago, Paul is now considered a terrorist threat on the magnitude of Osama Bin Laden. As a consequence, Paul's sentence could be increased from less than three years to more than fourteen years.
The terrorism enhancements cover some activities that no one would dispute are designed to strike fear and introduce chaos among civilians. Threats involving the use of nuclear weapons and chemical or biological weapons are included in these.
But Paul's transgression involves a crime against property. No animals or humans were harmed when he helped set the fire. Other property crimes being prosecuted with a terrorism enhancement include burning a ski resort in Vail, Colo., said to be built in endangered lynx habitat; torching Childers Meat Co. in Eugene and toppling a Bonneville Power Administration high-voltage transmission tower near Bend. No one was injured or killed in any of the incidents. (Source)
The horrible irony in these prosecutions is that the same conservative experts who denounce hate crime legislation apparently are all for prosecuting crimes against property that used in interstate commerce.
So in other words, someone is making the value judgment that property is more valuable than human life. After all, when a group bombs a church in the deep south or when a gay man is killed over his sexual orientation out west, there is more going on than the simple act of destroying a building or claiming a young man's life. These acts are clearly designed to inspire terror in those left behind.
And isn't a terrorist by definition someone who inspires terror?
Crimes against property are certainly nothing to be dismissed lightly, but neither are they as serious as the tragic events of 9/11. You almost have to wonder whether insurance companies lobby for the inclusion of such properties just so they could avoid paying arson claims because it occurred as an act of war.
Can't you just see the reasoning now? The arson was committed as an act of terror, and we are fighting a war on terror. So that means the incident must have occurred as an act of war.
More disturbing than the inclusion of property used for interstate commerce is the language used to define terrorism:
"Federal crime of terrorism" means an offense that is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct. (Source)
That is an amazingly broad definition. "An offense that is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion" – does that not sound as though it could be used to include the act of entering a voting booth and casting a ballot against the incumbent? Remember, we are dealing with an administration that has demonstrated few scruples when it comes to preserving constitutional liberties.
Lastly, the use of the enhanced terrorism sentencing guidelines in this case strikes me as puzzling. The guidelines were not in place when the offence occurred. It would seem to be the equivalent of charging a slave holder with trading in humans before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation ever saw the light of day.
Our country had a long tradition of civil disobedience dating at least as far back as Henry David Thoreau. In light of these enhanced terrorism sentences, you would never know it.