PETA, ELF, and wolf poisoning

How does this board feel about environmental terrorism?

Upper - Salmon's summary to Kevin was chilling!!
These folks are really scary and need to be jumped on hard.

Kevin,
I was pleased to hear that we agree that IF Tim is convicted of being involved in wolf poisoning he should be kicked....I say kicked hard along with the next earth-liberation-front environmental terrorits they bring to justice! Your points about the press are good ones but in reality when public figures (like Tim ) are the targets of investigation it is and should be news. AS I supect you know law enforcemtn and prosecutor can and do use public disclosures for range of legitimate law enforcement tactics long before they charge anyone. I say give them the benfit of the doubt and let them do their jobs. IF it turns our they were grandstanding or violating the law or ethics rules later THEN we should give 'em a hard time about it.

Tim is a public figure because he has sought the limelight for his radical anti - wolf views and apparently for publishing what is in effect a technical manual for environmental terrorists who are sympathetic to his views.

I suggest that we may want to think about this in broeder political terms as hunters and conservationists...

Poisoning wolves, instructing people how to poison wolves, or simply treating it sympathetically undermines all wildlife management laws. As ethical conservationist we have to support wildflife laws....even the ones we may think are really stupid. If not we tacitly support the political methods and approaches of Earth Liberation Front, PETA and the even more sinister islamic fundamentalist and radical zionist outfits. In short if thes radical fail in above board political fights they advocate illegal and dangerous methods. As hunters we have much more to fear from these tactics from ELF, PETA or people sympathetic to broadcasting poison to kill wolves than from wolves or their reintroduction. If some hunter out there thinks USFWS or USFS as an agency is out to take their hunting rights they are not paying attention.

Tim Sundles has a VERY public position on wolves and appears to be a recent source publicizing a very dangerous and illegal tactic. Thank god he and all of us have robust due process protections. As hunters, however, we need to respect due process AND push for vigorous investigation and prosecution of poisonings. We should also condemn Tim Sundles, not because we believe or suspect he may have commited crimes but because he appears to be a vocal advocate for and source of information on environmntal terrorist tactics....killing wolves illegally.

Whether he has commited crimes or not is between him and our law enforemnent agencies.

elk - fed

[razorsharp]

"As ethical conservationist we have to support wildflife laws....even the ones we may think are really stupid."

Thanks, Elk-fed....but most of us on this board already understand that reality and have shared our concerns with Tim.
Oh, and you don't have to keep saying "like Tim"....we understand what you mean without having to bring up his name.

But to answer your first question....I don't agree with environmental terrorism...that's a bad thing.

[Sgathak]

Not that it has anything to do with the topic of the post... but why on earth did you bring in Islamic and Jewish faith groups? Further more, while I can understand the current trend in the American mind to lump in Islamic fundamentalism with any discussion on real or perceived terrorism, Im quite curious to know why you tossed in "Radical Zionists" yet left out any other number of equally "radical" and dangerous faith based terror organizations?

[Kevin]

I do not agree with the assertion that Sundles is a public figure as I understand the law. Just having an opinion and stating it publicly does not make one a public figure.

I also agree with Sgathak that bringing in Islamic terrorists and radical Zionists in the conversation in comparison is inappropriate. Tone down the hyperbole, save it for when it's necessary.

When I attend my nephews Bar Mitzvah in a few years I will remember that some people equate questioning radical zionist politics with anti - semitism. As critics of radical islamists have been villified, improsined and assassinated in their societies. I think there was an editorial in the New York Times suggesting that critics of Rummsfield and Wolfowitz's neo - con agenda were acting on an anti - semitic agenda.....what a load of cr*p.

My point is a general one.
Contrary to the famous line (Goldwater?)that claims:
'extremism in the cause of freedom is no vice'

I am suggesting that extremism whether by our Attorney General who is currently holding an american citizen as an 'enemy comnbatant' without charging hiim, or by religous or political zealots of any stripe is a serious threat to freedom. It confuses conviction with political and moral authority and takes srong convictions as justification to break the law and undermine democratic process.

Considering the rash of poisonings I am curious how strongly folks on the board feel about anti - wolf zealots.....

For those of you who have 'shared your concerns' with Tim how about a strong public disavowal of his recipe book for the environmental terrorists who are going around killing peoples pets.

In a recent letter to the Challis Messnger Ron Gillette appears to defend this practice because they were trying to kill 'canadian wolves' which he alleges were illegally introduced.

If your are not worried about the potential threat to hunting from these kinds of politics you are asleep at the wheel...

elk-fed

[razorsharp]

Okay..I disavowal the recipe books written by any and all terrorists that are obviously destroying hunting as we know it. I am tired of having to keep my pets inside, all the while peeking through the blinds.

And all this time I thought the real threat was a political lobbying one.

[Sgathak]

Actually, I dont think anyone said that questioning "Radical Zionist" politics as being Anti-Semitic. It was however said that given the topic of PETA, ELF, and Wolf Poisoning (and other groups/forms of eco-terrorism) that bringing in the behaviors of Fundamental Islamic Terrorism, and "Radical Zionists" was inappropriate. I further made the implication that there are other faith based terror organizations here in America which were not mentioned. Groups which compose the vast majority of domestic terror threats.

[homerdave]

for the record, i have little tolerance for zealots of ANY kind. they cannot be reasoned with.( and they get boring. fast )

[img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img]

[AbnMedOps]

Ok, the disclaimer again: "I am not a lawyer, but..".
There is nothing "extreme" about the Attorney General hold an American citizen as an "enemy combatant and not charging him".
First, citizenship has nothing to do with whether one is legally a combatant...one becomes a combatant (usually) by engaging in combat. If you are an enemy, then you are an enemy combatant, again, it doesn't matter what your citizenship is (think of the U.S. Civil War - the one from 1861-65, I mean).
You are (generally speaking) a "lawful combatant" if you are functioning under proper authority as a member of a military of a "recogized" nation or power, wearing a uniform / fixed insignia, and are conducting combat in a "lawful" manner, ie; respecting the laws of land warfare and not committing war crimes.
You are (generally speaking) an "unlawful combatant" if you are not meeting the above standards. This would include terrorists. Again, citizenship has nothing to do with it.
If you are a "lawful combatant" and are captured, you are not a criminal, you are simply a Joe from the other guy's army, and are entitled to be treated as a Prisoner of War, with certain rights and entitlements (humane care, Red Cross visits, food, medicine, etc. at least as good as the enemy is able to provide his own troops, even token pay), as well as certain duties (obey legitimate POW camp rules, etc).
A prisoner of war may be held until the cessation of hostilities, and is held soley to prevent him fighting against you, not as punishment, because, again, he is not presumed to be a criminal.
If you are an "unlawful combatant" and are capture, then woe be unto you. By the traditional interpretation and practice of the laws of war, spies were hung/shot, as were terrorists, and other gross violators of the laws of war.
Since WWII there has been a lot of evolution of how, in practice, the U.S. actually implements the laws of war as pertaining to unlawful combatants.
This Padilla character, and the Gitmo bunch, are being extended the treatment due a lawful combatant / prisoner of war, at least until their status is determined, most likely by Courts-Martial (Military Commissions). This is legal, proper, as fair as these things are ever likely to be, and probably a hell of a lot more "procedure" than most of them are worth. This is a Department of Defense show, NOT Dept of Justice / Attny General. (Although it is entirely possible that Padilla may end up before a civil court vs. military.

[homerdave]

whether or not a spy was hung, i believe that they were hanged [img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif[/img]