BC Pipeline Explosion/Bombing
- Thread starter chris_log
- Start date
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 895
- Points
- 1,010
S.Stewart said:
What loop holes? Can you provide any? Or is it just that the anti-terrorism legislation is fairly new and no one in the environmental movements has been charged with it yet? And a lot of people think like you with regard to downplaying the potential impact and growth of domestic terrorism and dont think of using anti-terrorism tools in these cases.
Still waiting on information regarding the Canadian Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act.
Umm, while France is not deforested, it has nowhere the forestry industry we have, so I fail to see what France has to do with anything. Forestry produces 4-5% of Canada's manufacturing sector. It produces over 50% of our trade surplus. I would say that makes it a vital part our country. How do you think the economy, social services network, and balance of trade would be affected if it ground to a halt? We produce 30% of the worlds traded lumber, it wouldn't only have domestic implications.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I didn't say that particular act was Canadian, I posted it because it is a basic umbrella definition of how the industry defines Eco-terrorism, which is not a legal term in Canada it is in the states, here it is simply a term coined and used by the industry.
Logging while huge money wise for this country it is not an essential service, water, hydro etc all essential ie they sustain life. Bottom line is taking someone to court and having them changed and convicted of terrorist activities for spiking trees, or setting fire to logging equipment which could halt operation for weeks, is a far stretch. Chances are they are going to get out of it, there are loop holes and lawyers are trained to find them, and make them fit to get their client off.
It's easier to break out the environmental laws, backed by the forestry act, and nail that person for their violations against the environment, instead of trying to nail them for terrorist crimes against the industry. Environmental law is strict and to the point, and would better apply to a forestry related offense, than an anti-terrorist law.
It has nothing to do with anti-terrorist laws being new, rather the context of the offense.
You can argue with me till your blue in the face, but in the Environmental world, the forestry industry does not rank that high on the essential services scale, over logging etc is being managed but it takes a back seat to contaimination issues, and water issues. Logging isn't going to screw with your drinking water.
BTW under your way of looking at eco-terrorism than I suppose those that were guilty of knowing and covering up the pump that was down creating the Walkerton incident should be convicted of Terrorism, as that actually killed people. That's more shifty in my eyes, than some hippie spiking trees.
Logging while huge money wise for this country it is not an essential service, water, hydro etc all essential ie they sustain life. Bottom line is taking someone to court and having them changed and convicted of terrorist activities for spiking trees, or setting fire to logging equipment which could halt operation for weeks, is a far stretch. Chances are they are going to get out of it, there are loop holes and lawyers are trained to find them, and make them fit to get their client off.
It's easier to break out the environmental laws, backed by the forestry act, and nail that person for their violations against the environment, instead of trying to nail them for terrorist crimes against the industry. Environmental law is strict and to the point, and would better apply to a forestry related offense, than an anti-terrorist law.
It has nothing to do with anti-terrorist laws being new, rather the context of the offense.
You can argue with me till your blue in the face, but in the Environmental world, the forestry industry does not rank that high on the essential services scale, over logging etc is being managed but it takes a back seat to contaimination issues, and water issues. Logging isn't going to screw with your drinking water.
BTW under your way of looking at eco-terrorism than I suppose those that were guilty of knowing and covering up the pump that was down creating the Walkerton incident should be convicted of Terrorism, as that actually killed people. That's more shifty in my eyes, than some hippie spiking trees.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 895
- Points
- 1,010
S.Stewart said:
Ah, but they didn't set out to kill people. They just tried to cover their asses.
I had no intention of linking the forestry industry with the environment in my examples. It is not an essential service, but it is an essential part of the Canadian economy and therefore of national interest.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 708
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
Tomahawk6, you beat me to the punch. While eco-terrorism does not kill that many people (when compared to 9/11) it still causes damage and disruption. And not only is the ELF (and like minded groups) the #1 terrorist group the No.1 terrorist group in the U.S., there are more eco-terrorism incidents in the U.S. then any other kind of terrorism. As the above post makes clear the U.S. authorities take the threat very seriously. Another aspect of eco-terrorism that most people the targeting of people/organizations involved in animal-testing for scientific research. These are deliberate attempts to intimidate these people/organizations, which is considered to be terrorism and are treated as such by the authorities.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
George Wallace said:
Absolutely right - attempting to blow up a sour gas line is a stupid, dangerous, reckless and evil act. I work in the oil patch and I can assure you the devastation from something like this could be amazing. When the perpetrator(s) are caught the important thing is to get them convicted on a serous enough charge that they go away for a long time. If some were caught and got away with it we would be opening the door to a lot more trouble.
The Crown has wide discretion in selecting charges because each charge carries with it specific requirements, which is why sometimes what we in the wider public think is a murder is charged as a manslaughter, not because the crime is less evil, but because the required proof for a murder is different than the required proof for a manslaughter. In this case a threatening letter was sent and to us it appears to be ideologically motivated, but it might be that it was a criminal individual that sent that note in order to create the impression that there was an ideological motivation to get media attention for a crime the equivalent to a major arson. The common law system very much focuses on intent as an aspect of crime - so regardless of whether we think the criminal acted as a terrorist the law will also ask - did the person(s) who did the act have the elements of intent required for a terror charge versus some other criminal charge with a less complex evidentiary burden. This can frustrate the public, but it is a key aspect of our legal system and very tightly tied to the fundamental rights of citizens and a necessary limit within our system to prevent abuse of power by prosecutors, courts and legislators.
We also have to be judicious in the use of the term terrorist or we risk reducing the meaning of the definition to just an extension of the term criminal. We all know there is a difference between ordinary crimes, terrorist crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, political crimes and so on. If we use the term terrorist to mean all of these categories, we reduce our ability to discuss and analyze these horrors and that can negatively impact how well intelligence can be developed to combat the criminals and by muddying the waters we may prevent the best deployment of resources to eliminate the ideological, political, religio-ethnic tensions that motivate the criminals. In our society we have to convince the public to support a cause, if we make the discussion confusing we either hurt chances to legitimately convince the public of our cause, or we undermine the basis of our democracy by denying the people the right to shape public policy.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081017/pipeline_blasts_081017/20081017?hub=Canada
Key phrase being 'residents in the area are worried for their safety'. Yep, sounds like terrorism to me. I wonder if the RCMP will come out and call it that or will they continue to refer to it as an 'isolated criminal act'. Whether it's a 'group' of 1 person or 100...they have managed to scare local residents, get the attention of the gas company and gov't and waste money and time on an investigation.
Time for the RCMP to start calling a spade a spade.
Key phrase being 'residents in the area are worried for their safety'. Yep, sounds like terrorism to me. I wonder if the RCMP will come out and call it that or will they continue to refer to it as an 'isolated criminal act'. Whether it's a 'group' of 1 person or 100...they have managed to scare local residents, get the attention of the gas company and gov't and waste money and time on an investigation.
Time for the RCMP to start calling a spade a spade.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Piper said:
In the interests of clarity, do you believe that any criminal who inspires fear is by definition a terrorist? For example drunk drivers can cause serious damage to property, death and distruction and people could be afraid of that. There have been cases of serial rapists in Canada that that have terrified whole communities and serial murderers who have done the same. If we use the 'causing of fear' as the basis for a defining a terrorist them pretty much every criminal case could be interpreted as terrorism even something as simple as a school bully who punches another kid and scares his classmates might be open to a terror charge the way I interpret your post. This is what I meant in my previous post by being careful to apply the right terms to define a crime. Quite often a spade is actually a shovel.
This guy or guys in BC are scary, but so far I do not think there is evidence of this being actual terrorist activity - and I work in the business and am scared of this kind of thing happening again.
Jack Stratton said:
Drunk drivers don't have a political or ideological agenda, neither do serial killers/rapists.
It's obvious that whoever did this had an agenda (reference the letters sent to local media before the first attack). They are committing an attack to further their group's political and environmental goals.
Terrorism can be summed up as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." This 'group' or person sent a threatening letter, outlined what they were going to attack (gas lines) and why (threatened the environment, land use rights etc) and then bombed the pipelines. You tell me how this DOESN'T look like terrorism.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Piper said:
I don't say this is absolutely not terrorism, I just said it might not be and I think it is too early to tell. I'll give you a few points that I think point to a local person who is upset with gas activity in affecting their property rather than a terrorist organization targetting Canada's energy sector:
First: Attacks against oil and gas facilities are not new in Canada, I'm sure you remember Wiebo Ludwig who, along with his family/clan/religious sect were involved in a previous conflict with EnCana in the Grande Praire region of AB. Wiebo is more what you would call a "nut case" than a terrorist - and while he and his little enclave had an ideology they really form too small a group to call it a terrorist organization unless by the same standard we want to label local street gangs the same way. In addition we find in any given year certain amount of sabotage and other such issues, bullet marks on pipes, valves opened to release gas and so on. This is not a unique event, a new event or substantially different than things that have happened before, other than the higher level of media coverage.
Second: A threatening letter is not so uncommon either, one local refinery had a bomb threat the other day - turned out not to be a terror thing, just a idiot labourer who had used up his sick days and did not want to come in for work. (I am not kidding this happens in the civilian world).
Third: The target was remote and not likely to produce good media coverage. If someone really wanted to get good value from a bomb and a gas pipeline they would pick a main transmission pipeline as it enters a major population centre. Or they would pick one of the sour fields up wind of Calgary. Terrorism is about coverage in the media to generate the result.
Fourth: Only the facilities of one company were targetted, and its the same company Wiebo had it in for.
Fifth: The letter went to a local news agency only. If for some reason a terrorist decided to commit an act like this why target the teeny tiny local press only and not also send a copy of the threat to the Globe and Mail or the National Post or CTV?
Sixth: Bombs are not the exclusive territory of terrorists, during the biker wars in Quebec the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine used bombs against each other and terrified the public in so doing. While these outlaw bikers engage in criminal activities, they really are not terrorists unless we are going to stretch the meaning of that word all out of reality. And yes you can argue they are ideologically motivated: they believe in the right to sell drugs and profit by it - a trait they share with the IRA (terrorist) and the Taliban (insurgents/terrorists), despite this commonality of business activities we do not think of Biker Gangs as terrorists. Though trying to make a terror charge stick to them would be great fun!
On the other side of the argument:
The combination of threats, media contacts, bombings and so on do look quite a lot like a terrorist's modus operandi.
When we no more, and the RCMP get their man or men - we'll find out what's going on.
Cheers,
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Piper said:
I agree that there is such a thing as domestic terrorism, and the current events under discussion may fit the description. I am not so naive as to believe that only international groups do terrorism. However, I do assert (as does the law) that some level of organization must be present in the criminal act for it to cross over from ordinary crime to terrorism and 'a few locals' might just be enough to meet the standard if there was a political, ideological or religious motivation. Let me be clear here, to me an ideology for these atrocious acts would be something like "all sour gas is evil and must be destroyed" but "I hate that oil company that owns that pipe" would not be ideology it is just hate. Now we know the note claimed something like the former, but that could be merely a smoke screen for the latter.
I think I already stated my opinion about maintaining the utility and integrity of language in regards to terrorism, so I won't bother to repeat it, however I still have 2 cents worth (well 1.2 cents after recent market downturn) in regard to the anti-terror law:
From a legal standpoint:
For a criminal act to be classed as terrorism it seems to be necessary for there to be an element of organization and an element of political religious or ideological motivation. The Canadian terrorism law uses the terminology of "a conspiracy" to capture the element of organization required for a crime to be classed as terrorism, which is a pretty low threshold as two people can form a conspiracy, but generally two person crimes avoid that additional charge as proving a conspiracy is actually difficult to do, as it is necessary to prove mutual intent and planning to a legal standard. Lawyers and citizens alike will be able to argue for years over how the terms "political", "religious" or "ideological" are to be interpreted as elements of a criminal act. The way this law works, to get a criminal conviction, a jury or judge would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that one of those motivations (politics, religion, ideology) fitted and the person committing the act was conscious of that aspect of the motivation as part of their ill intent and that they shared this with at least one other person in a way that fits the definition of conspiracy and that the act they committed fit the other technical requirements under the law. We will have to see how this works when the decision comes in the Momin Khawaja case at the end of this month. (Mr. Khawaja is accused of participating in a plot to set off fertilizer bombs in the UK, including making detonators and he appears to have been involved in an alleged terror training camp in Ontario - to me this one looks cut and dried but the judge gave himself a month to work through his decision).
In the specific language of the law we can see that the framers of the law were concerned about the over extension of the anti-terrorism law when they specifically included adjectives requiring "serious" risks to people or "substantial" damage to property or specifically causing death or endangering a persons life as necessary elements. Depending on exactly how these attacks were done they might not even fit the physical requirements (e.g. the perpetrator may have ensured no one was present, the explosives may have been sized to not cause major damage etc.).
The British courts have in the past had trouble convicting of terrorism criminals who clearly committed (in my mind) obviously terrorist acts because judges and juries had trouble applying the standards for criminal conviction to the elements of ideology, religion and political motivations to groups and individuals who committed the acts. The result was they added laws specifically to criminalize using explosives or intent to use explosives in a criminal way. This gets the difficult argument about the political/religious/ideological motivation out of the way and reduces the issues to whether or not the perpetrator was planning to do something criminally dangerous and evil. A similar problem has affected attempts to criminalize membership in organized crime groups in Canada and to date nothing has really worked here in regard to these groups due to the difficulty of proving the intention to commit evil required in common law for a criminal conviction.
Bottom Line:
We're all on the same basic side here we do not like people who do stupid, dangerous and criminal things, threaten people and blow stuff up. Let's hope they get this person or persons soon - because sooner or later these pipeline bombers will do some real damage. No matter whether they are legally or morally terrorists or not, they are dangerous, very dangerous and must be stopped.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jack Stratton said:
That's part of the argument against the idea of 'lone wolf' terrorists.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Piper said:
Just to play your little game: Al Qaida in your books would then be "International Terrorists" and the Taliban would be "Domestic Terrorists".
George Wallace said:
:
Let's play the semantics game then...Domestic Terrorism: "terrorist acts by individuals or groups within a given country, without foreign direction or involvement"
International Terrorism: "terrorist acts directed by foreign groups who transcend national boundaries, affecting people in several countries"
The Taliban have never been classified as a terrorist org. They were a national government of sorts (before 9/11) and now are considered an insurgent group (insurgent: "member of a political party who rebels against established leadership") rebelling against the Afghan leadership. Have they become a terrorist group? You could argue that. Heck, you an conclude whatever you like.
And watch the 'little game' comments too. I'm not 12, and you're not as important as you like to think you are George.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Piper said:
Excellent point there, it would be very easy based on available information to classify the Taliban as a Terrorist group rather than an insurgency that uses terror tactics. The term insurgent, when applied to a group, usually implies some level of general support in a geopolitical region while the term terrorist does not carry this same connotation. It is more practical and useful to use the terminology of insurgency about the Taliban as it more accurately reflects where this group fits in the political and cultural environment of Afghanistan and so we use the lever of semantics to communicate ideas better by choosing the correct wording.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Piper said::
...............
And watch the 'little game' comments too. I'm not 12, and you're not as important as you like to think you are George.
:
;D You make me laugh. You made my laugh in your previous incarnation as Piper. Keep up the good work.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Piper said:
Is the term 'Transnational Terrorism' still in use as you see it?
Oh, also, what source are you using for your definitions?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
If members of the Conservative Government get together a team to play a team of NHL Oldtimers in a Charity hockey tournament, are they not all just "hockey players"?
Is not an IED just a "modernized" term for a booby trap?
Is not an insurgent who kills defenceless civiliansnot just a terrorist?
Is not an IED just a "modernized" term for a booby trap?
Is not an insurgent who kills defenceless civilians
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
George Wallace said:
I assume you did not intend to double negative that last sentence. My short answer to your three semi-rhetorical questions in order are: no, yes, no.
Even that yes is conditional, if IED's are actually really being manufactured through a cottage industry what you have is a non-factory produced land mine and calling it a booby trap hides the nature of the required supply chain, logistics and economics involved. If IED's are truly improvised on the spot from local materials - well there's not much you can do but use detection and mine clearing techniques. On the otherhand, i f there's really a little industry going on, well then I would think that industry would be a target for our forces.
Similar threads
