http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/05/22/a1.terrorismornot.0522.p1.php?s ection=cityregion Anti-terrorism law weighs case by case By Bill Bishop The Register-Guard Published: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 The nation's anti-terrorism law may - or may not - apply to some or to all of the 10 co-defendants in Operation Backfire, the largest ever prosecution of radical underground environmental activists, a federal judge ruled late Monday.
The law allows a much harsher sentence when a defendant's act involved or was intended to promote a crime that sought to influence, affect or retaliate against government conduct. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that federal prosecutors must prove by clear and convincing evidence whether each of the 10 defendants falls within the law during individual sentencing hearings scheduled during the next three weeks. Lawyers on both sides of the case have awaited Aiken's ruling since a daylong hearing one week ago in which they argued over whether the law applies to co-conspirators, whether Congress intended the law to apply to crimes lacking a substantial risk of harm to people or that did not cross national boundaries, and other legal points. The ruling's first effect will unfold today, when defendant Stanislas Meyerhoff faces Aiken for a sentencing hearing. Under federal law, Aiken has broad discretion in deciding a sentence for Meyerhoff, a 29-year-old former Eugene resident who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and other crimes in seven separate arsons over a three-year period. His plea deal calls for a 15-year, eight-month prison term. Factual disputes in each defendant's case preclude a more specific finding on the terrorism question, Aiken wrote. In each case, deciding whether the terrorism law applies is only one step in the process of deciding a sentence, she wrote. Negotiated penalties in plea deals generally "weigh heavily" in judges' sentencing decisions, she wrote. "The issue the court must decide is not whether the defendants are `terrorists' as the word commonly is used and understood in today's political and cultural climate," Aiken wrote. "Nor is it appropriate for the court to speculate whether the government seeks to promote a particular political agenda or to punish a particular form of activism ... the debate is about the defendants' criminal conduct - not their political beliefs." Both sides garnered victories and defeats in Aiken's 46-page ruling. For example, prosecutors had argued that they are not required to meet the relatively high standard of "clear and convincing evidence" in proving the intent and conduct of the co-conspirators. Aiken ruled otherwise. In another blow to prosecutors, Aiken agreed with defense lawyers who argued that the crimes of arson and destruction of government property cannot be considered crimes intending to promote terrorism because those provisions of federal law were not in force when the conspiracy dissolved in October 2001. In a blow to the defendants, Aiken ruled that the law requires neither a substantial risk of serious physical injury nor an international act in order for a crime to fall under the terrorism law. She also disputed defense lawyers' assertions that the issue is "uncharted" in federal law and cited other cases where offenders were subject to the terrorism law even though their crimes caused only property damage. "The terrorism enhancement has been applied in cases where far fewer or no acts of arson were committed," Aiken wrote. The so-called "terrorism enhancement" sentencing law could add 20 years to each of the defendants' sentences, although that will be up to Aiken. A label of "terrorist" also means the defendants would spend their terms in the nation's harshest high-security federal prisons. Defendants' lawyers argued that the terrorism law cannot be applied to a conspiracy. Aiken ruled that it can be, if the government can prove the defendants intended to influence or punish government conduct with their crimes. She also ruled that she must consider the crimes and intent of each co-conspirator before determining whether the terrorism law applies to that individual under the laws defining conspiracy and terrorism. In her ruling, Aiken said she intended to help lawyers focus on the issues that will come up in 10 individual hearings on evidence about each defendant's role in the conspiracy and how it applies to Aiken's interpretation of the law. Meyerhoff's hearing is today. A hearing for Springfield resident Kevin Tubbs, 38, is scheduled for Thursday. A hearing for Chelsea Gerlach, 30, a former South Eugene High School student, is scheduled for Friday. By their own admission, Operation Backfire defendants conspired to commit at least 20 arsons or attempted arsons in five states from late 1995 until late 2001, doing more than $40 million in damage. Their members set eight simultaneous fires at a Vail, Colo., ski resort, igniting nationwide awareness of the radical underground environmental movement. They also destroyed the Oakridge Ranger Station in 1996, burned 35 SUVs at a Eugene truck dealership in 2001, and attacked a Eugene police substation in 2000. _____ OPERATION BACKFIRE Ten environmental activists will be sentenced in the conspiracy. Today: Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, 29; guilty of conspiracy, 51 counts of arson in six incidents, eight counts of arson related to an attack on a Vail, Colo., ski resort, and lesser charges; government seeks a sentence of 15 years, eight months Coming up: The other nine face sentencing between Thursday and June 5: Kevin Tubbs, Chelsea Dawn Gerlach, Darren Todd Thurston, Suzanne Nicole Savoie, Kendall Tankersley, Joyanna Lynn Zacher, Nathan Fraser Block, Daniel Gerard McGowan, and Jonathan Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
