portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

human & civil rights

america is nuts

;
yahoo news .student linked to suv ''bombings''.could be charged with 35 years to life! .just for some material object being hit?.insane materialistic society values death over life.why dont you cops just die
your car or house 21.Aug.2004 14:25

roundabout

So your house or car or business (material posessions all)is fair game if I have a political or personal problem with you? I don't agree with your politics and you wrote this article from your house so let the fire bombing on your home begin? I'm right (or left in your case), so I have the moral and legal authority to burn whatever I want with impunity?

Punishment is Not Consistent 21.Aug.2004 14:53

Whosit

Of course assaulting property is not "OK", but it does seem strange that -- for instance -- that woman in Beaverton could attack a demonstrator and not be held responsible. And that President Bush could send 900+ servicemen and women to their deaths with his lies and receive no punishment whatsoever.

Taken out of context 21.Aug.2004 14:54

me

I think perhaps the author of the initial rant needed to be a bit clearer. There is something to be said about direct action and the destruction of property--inatimate things. And at times people will be hurt, but if done with care, then you can minimalize life lost. However, this is the quandry. SUV's for example <and only one example out of thousands> kill people, animals, the planet--but softly. So does toxic waste, meth, processed foods, and on and on...so what is the problem here? As I see it, people have a social and moral obligation to make their voices heard. And if that means that a few SUV's get soiled in the process woopty doo...we are condoning the genocide of so many people across this globe when we do nothing--and property damage is just one option--ONE option out of many....

the ground rules are clear 21.Aug.2004 17:37

stop whining

life, liberty, property.

that was what the constitution was going to say but they changed it to read the persuit of happiness.

If you actually owned anything of value you may feel different.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think anyway, the ground rules are clear. If you want to destroy then you pay with the only thing you do value, your life (as it rots away in a cell).

only one problem... 21.Aug.2004 17:39

fact checker

Only one problem, the guy didn't attack some private individual's car or house. He attacked an SUV on a used car lot in the middle of the night with no one around. Of course, whoever wrote otherwise doesn't care about the truth, only about trying to defend the sick and twisted political priorities of the so-called "justice system" and the ultraright wing judge in this case.

hey "roundabout" - 21.Aug.2004 18:09

your car or house

every word you said is pretty much what GWB claimed about Saddam Hussein -

except that none of his claims were true, and the people of Iraq (along with 10 US troops per week) are paying the ultimate price for it.

Idealism 21.Aug.2004 22:52

James

"And if that means that a few SUV's get soiled in the process woopty doo...we are condoning the genocide of so many people across this globe when we do nothing--and property damage is just one option--ONE option out of many."

Fine. All well and good. I can get behind that. Now, how do we create a set of laws which define what is acceptable and what is not?

People should not be subjected to harsher prison sentences for the reasoning behind their crimes. (Indeed, they should only be subjected to prison as a last resort, where a true threat to society exists). They should not receive harsher sentences for their political beliefs.

(This means environmentalists should not receive harsher sentences for burning SUVs than everyday vandals do, and skinheads should not receive harsher sentences for killing black men than their domestic partners do).

But the idea that vandalism should be forgiven simply because there is a valid political statement behind it is ridiculous. Civil disobedience should always be prosecuted to the same extent as other similar crimes. It is upto the people (and, by extension, juries) to sort out valid political statements from the invalid.

Priorities 21.Aug.2004 23:48

Skullhunter

Personally, my problem with this is twofold. Number one, someone who committed a property crime of vandalism, destruction of an inanimate and unfeeling object, is facing a heavier sentence in prison than people who have actually raped and murdered other human beings. Number two, mainstream society is perfectly okay with that idea and sees no skewed priorities there. But we're supposedly the ones who are fucked in the head.

make me! 22.Aug.2004 06:47

whine whine whine

1. If ya don't like "whining" fuck off and go read something else, asswipe.

2. The phrase "life, liberty, and property" is from the Constitution.

3. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence.

4. The documents cited in 2 & 3 were written by different people, at different times, for different reasons. The Revolution was not, in fact, fought to create the monstrous many-armed mollusk later facilitated by the Constitution.

>If you actually owned anything of value you may feel different.

Awww, are we hurting your FEELINGS? Stop whining ya fuckin' baby. Welcome to the world. Not everybody is like you. That's the POINT. This is where people who are NOT LIKE YOU (barf) get to talk to each other. Go listen to Rush.

>the ground rules are clear. If you want to destroy then

If you want to destroy then you better have lots and lots of bombers and tanks so you can GET AWAY WITH IT. Yes, we understand all about your goddamn ground rules and how to get away with shit. Fuck off.