Dakota Pipeline Protester in Federal Prison for 8 Years

Climate activist's fight against 'terrorism' sentence could impact future protests (msn.com)

This woman faces a terrorism rap...

Why doesn't it bother me?

let me explain...

In my travels throughout southern California, I noticed an anomaly whilst behind the wheel. And some here may have heard me intone "the court of public opinion" has elected to make miserable all my undertakings; but in particular that "the freeway has its head up its ass"... and so on.

Lately, I concluded that there may be more to it than me being viral in some miscreant's FaceBook postings...

and I'm concerned that it might be related to my carbon footprint as it pertains to my regular back-and-forth commuting between 40 and 50 miles to Los Angeles.

Well, the bottom line for me is that I've been targeted by environmentalists with whom I typically politically align. I used to drive a ULEV (ultra-low emissions vehicle) and am currently in the market for a hybrid.

But for all my efforts, it has made no difference; possibly because it is thought that my travels are unnecessary or that people from my area should avoid the commute to LA because it contributes to air pollution GHG.

so their activism is aligned against me. and no amount of complimenting Greta Thunberg, mentioning "Cap and Trade", or Richard Nixon and the advent of the EPA is going to change their mind.

but I digress...

------

This woman is being charged very seriously. Because I am biased for the reasons stated herein, I will remain silent.

The definition of "domestic terrorist" for a climate activist may seem deceiving. "She's American!" we might conclude. But that's why they're saying "domestic".

What she did wasn't explicitly political though, but it seems to inch toward a symbolic act of aggression; albeit indirect, at proponents of the pipeline.


------

They're trying to max her out. While I am very irritated (I'm actually very serious about retaliating against the posers interfering with my life and my commute) I am not certain she should face terrorism charges.

What she did was wrong though, and I'm not particularly concerned if it was motivated by wanting to halt a process that harms the environment and thus the people who are in it, or not.

Are we ready to allow our company's to come under attack to better serve an agenda for faster environmentalism?

 

"Corporations ARE people... " ~ Mitt Romney

 

It isn't clear that these are her exact words, but the article attributes to Jessica Reznicek that what she did was "a nonviolent act of civil disobedience." Using force against property falls within the definition of violence - it doesn't have to be an act against people to be violent. An act of violence can't be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is, by definition, nonviolent. It wasn't a nonviolent act of civil disobedience. It was a crime of violence.

As to being an environmental activist, burning motor oil, burning motor vehicles, and using an oxy acetylene torch that produces heat up to 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit would do more harm than good to the environment.

I do have a problem with the judge's characterization of her as a "terrorist," because she wasn't charged that way and she didn't plead guilty to a terrorism charge. Still, if it was simply just the judge's personal opinion it wouldn't be so bad. The judge similarly could have called her, for example, a "menace to society," simply a statement of opinion. The problem comes in using in sentencing a legal authority intended for convictions on terrorism charges. Reznicek wasn't convicted of any act of terrorism, and probably could not have been because terrorism is violence directed at people. On that basis, her appeal will likely result in re-sentencing or a revised sentence.

Having pleaded guilty to one count of damaging an energy facility, she probably should have been sentenced to fewer than 8 years. The restitution is debatable - she'll never pay much of it anyway. She could have been sentenced to a much longer period of incarceration, but the federal prosecutors negotiated a plea. They would have had to take her to trial and get convictions on the original charges for a longer sentence. Essentially, the prosecutors and the judge misused the system - they didn't do the work necessary to achieve the result they produced, and defending the sentence on appeal and hearing that appeal is a cost paid by all taxpayers.

Reznicek didn't do herself any favors in several respects. She wasn't caught committing these acts. She publicly bragged later about having done it, and she'd retained all of the evidence necessary to prove that her attention-seeking statements were true, which is what got her charged. She sought the public attention and notoriety, not just for a cause but for herself. She wanted her 15 minutes of fame. Then, after agreeing to surrender to federal authorities, she went on the run and into hiding for almost a year. She said that she wished she could have done more damage, not a good thing for someone seeking a light sentence. She had several previous convictions for crimes of sabotage. It's as if she wanted to spend a long time in a federal prison, a very environmentally-unfriendly form of housing.

For what she says she did, 8 years is a short sentence. For what she actually pleaded guilty to in court, it's a long sentence. It'll get sorted out, but something tells me this won't be her last time before a judge.