Daniel's First Outbound Communication

Your interview on democracy now, if anything, expressed a much more apologetic tone than I thought was necessary, or to be honest, wanted to hear. However, awaiting sentencing as you were, I understood why. Yes, anything you say can and will be used against you. Be strong, and keep speaking anyway. If everyone were as strong as you and Nathan and Joyanna, no one would be going to jail. They had nothing on anyone, until the cooperating defendants began to talk. I actually understand why they did it -- they were faced with a hell of a choice, and I'm not sure how many people could have stood strong. But you did, Daniel.

This is a lesson for everyone. And no, the lesson is not to shirk away from the hard work that it will take to save this planet. On the contrary, the lesson is to think very carefully about what you will do to save the earth before you do it. Make sure you completely understand the risks of whatever you do, and make damn sure you are willing to take those risks. Can you take the consequences, should anything go wrong? Be honest with yourself. There is no shame in deciding that you are not willing to sacrifice certain things, like your freedom, so long as you make that decision BEFORE you put your comrades at risk. Daniel is an excellent role model for all of us. If you're going to take an action, be willing to take the risks, and never put anyone else in danger.

The law, in this case, is wrong. It's simply wrong. It's wrong to prop up the status quo at a time when the status quo is killing us. It's wrong to protect the "property rights" of those who would prey on us all till the very last drop of blood was gone, if we did not stop them. It's wrong to put gentle souls in prison for the crime of caring enough to get up off their asses and DO something about the destruction of the planet we live on. And it's wrong to penalize someone for acting out of conscience rather than out of self interest. The law is wrong, and the judge is wrong, and history will say so.

Namaste, Daniel. We will be here when you get out. And we will be here for you while you are in.

Just a comment to Jane...Daniel gave the his interview on Democracy Now! AFTER he was sentenced, not before as you said. I did a Yahoo! search and found the full text of the interview at: www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/11/142258 There is also a direct quote on the ELF website: www.earth-liberation-front.org It seems clear that Daniel shows remorse (or, at least regret)for his past actions. So I can't understand why judge Aiken denied a delay for starting his prison term so he could finish his educational commitments. But, here's an idea his legal team might want to consider if it's not too late. Often times a federal judge will consider modifying a person's sentence if they successfully complete a 90-day study when they first arrive in prison. Basically, the "study" is a series of interviews, psychological tests and observances while the inmate goes about their day to day work assignments. At the end of the 90 days, the inmate appears before the judge. If the study is favorable and the prisoner has stayed out of trouble, worked well with staff and other inmates, the judge cna use her judicial discretion and modify the sentence in some way. Maybe, say, five years of suprvised probation and community service. I think Daniel, having no previous criminal record, should be an ideal candidate for this potential sentencing modification. So, I hope this possibility is considered. If anyone knows how to contact his legal team, pass this idea along. Also, the ELF website seems to be taking a second look at the past and is discussing alternative tactics. This and Daniel's statements that he has "severe reservations" and became "incredibly disinchanted" with the use of arson as a tactic. It sounds like Daniel has a lot going for him...family, intelligence and commitment to making the world a better place. He deserves a second chance. But, if he has to do the time, I'm sure he'll use it well. All things must pass. Hang in there!

With regard to Jane...Daniel gave his interview AFTER he was sentenced, not before as you said. I did a Yahoo! search and came up with the address where the full text of his interview can be read: www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/11/142258 The search also came up with the ELF website where a direct quote is given: www.earth-liberation-front.org . It is clear that Daniel shows remorse, or "regret" for his past behavior. So I don't see why judge Aiken denied Daniel's request for a delay for his sentence to begin so he can fulfill his educational commitments. Well, here's another posibility that Daniel's legal team might consider if it's not too late: Perhaps the judge could be asked to consider a sentencing modification if Daniel undertakes a 90-day study. A study is an option that the feds will allow for certain individuals who have no previous criminal convictions and have a low risk to society. A "study" involves interviews, psychological tests and observations of the inmates ability to cary out his work assignments and work well with staff and fellow inmates. At the end of 90 days, Daniel would appear before the judge and, if the study is favorable, the court can exercise its discretion by modifying the original sentence. Say, five years supervised probation and community service. Beats prison and then he can continue his educational goals. I hope someone out there can get this out to Daniel's legal team. He certainly sounds like he'd be a good candidate. Everybody deserves a second chance. The ELF web page shows a willingness to reconsider their past actions too, so that should help Daniel's efforts to get released. Good luck!