82 year old nun about to be sentenced as a terrorist

page: 3
37
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
It's nuclear territory.

It'd be one thing if they had the anti-whatever campaign and protested outside the building. It'd be different if they had a hunger strike outside the building. It'd be really interesting if they found their way into a place where they got sick from their own foolish actions. But they got the wire cutters, did the vandalism, and sat around and waited, literally sitting ducks who wanted to get caught. That's not protest.

Maybe nun lady is on a mission to minister to people in prison.

It's the nice thing to call them terrorists. It would be mean to call them nuclear spies, which carries a heavier sentence and a bigger money penalty. A good question to ask is, after their year of jail, are they going to run to another country and tell the enemies of the US what it's like in that nuclear facility? We don't know. They are lucky they are still alive, because the nuclear groups can use deadly force.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
No words . If the DA prosecuting this,or the judge overseeing it ,had a kid who did the same exact thing ,they would get off with a slap on the wrist .



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by trollz
...
That is one place in particular that you do not want to mess around with. Just as you'd expect to be shot for tearing towards Area 51 at full speed in your vehicle of choice, you DO NOT mess with nuclear facilities. They're extremely secure, and for very good reason.




...
long-time peace activists Sr. Megan Rice, 82, Greg Boertje-Obed, 57, and Michael Walli, 63, cut through the chain link fence surrounding the Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility and trespassed onto the property.


Apparently you can mess with nuclear facilities because they're not very secure. Well, at least that facility anyway. Slow and steady seems to be the trick, not driving at the gates at full speed!



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
This is just another example of the government attempting to send the message that ANY opposition to their actions will be met with severity, even though the government is clearly wrong in calling these people terrorists. In fact, that word gets thrown around way too much by our government. They have gotten everyone to fear "terrorism," or the potential of terrorism, to the point where they are actually taking away our freedoms to better protect us, or so they say. It is a load of crap to be sure, but they do it anyway.

And those die hard people who support everything the government, or republicans, or democrats, do, clearly need to open their eyes to government law-breaking. These people are not terrorists, otherwise they would not have simply painted some slogans on a wall. Terrorists want to kill people, so how are these old people terrorists? And another thing...It seems that ALL we have is protesting, when it comes to opposing the government. And clearly the government does not listen to what the people have to say, once the politician is in office. They pretend they care about what the people have to say only when they need the people for something, most often to get them elected. Remember Romney changing up his position on various things during the last election? And he is just one of the many.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 



Well, cutting a fence & entering a nuclear facility was just stupid, and where is it written that elderly & even elderly nuns are exempt from doing wrong/harm? Age and occupation are no defense in this criminal activity.. and it was criminal. I do not think that these folks are terrorist threats, but they did perform what we would consider a terrorist act had it been someone else.

let's keep your statement logically equivalent, and substitute in other terms. i feel this method demonstrates flaws in reasoning quite well.

some pacifists cut a fence and enter a nazi death camp where they proceed to sprinkle love and flowers everywhere. they are then charged with terrorism (or rather shot on sight).

legally they comitted a crime, and as we all know the extermination of jews is completely legal (as is manufacturing nuclear weapons and killing on a mass scale).

if you believe your previous statement is true, you must also accept that the three should be charged with terrorism for cutting a fence at a nazi death camp and attempting to spread a message of non-violence.

someone will come in and state "godwin's law holds true" and completely ignore my points, forgetting that godwin's law doesn't invalidate a claim. (i add this on as a defense to the would-be inevitable comment so i do not have to waste my time replying to foolish posts)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

This looks just plain crazy in my eyes. When the heck have non-violent anti-nuclear peace protesters become terrorists. Three peace terrorists trespass on Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production facility. They cut through some fences and spayed slogans on the wall and sung peace songs until they where arrested.

Acts of peaceful protest are not terrorists. Granted they broke the law and should face the consequences of there actions. But it should be noted activism plays an integral and important role in a free democratic system. We have right to challenge and protest on peaceful terms. No one should be given the power to take that away.

The USA was founded on acts of massive disobedience. Without such action it would not exist today. It looks like the politicians and law makers have forgotten their cultural heritage.


In just ten months, the United States managed to transform an 82 year-old Catholic nun and two pacifists from non-violent anti-nuclear peace protestors accused of misdemeanor trespassing into federal felons convicted of violent crimes of terrorism. Now in jail awaiting sentencing for their acts at an Oak Ridge, TN nuclear weapons production facility, their story should chill every person concerned about dissent in the US.


www.commondreams.org...


From left, Greg Boertje-Obed, Sister Megan Rice, and Michael Walli. (Photo: Saul Young/News Sentinel)




Ah yes, but you do not have the right to break into restricted areas. They've only got themselves to blame for being in this position.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by RobinB022
I know this sounds paranoid... but I wonder if the Gov't. is actually trying to get the revolution started. I mean.. they're doing everything but inviting us to show our hand. I even imagine them in meetings asking each other, 'What's it gonna take.'


Well then call me paranoid! I've had the feeling for a few months that this is happening, but my feelings are a little more different than yours. I think they are using 'trusted' alternative media to create the outrage.

This thread is a perfect example. The article used as the source states the nun will be sentenced as a terrorist. That's not true. She and the others were convicted of sabotage, not terrorism. But most members on the thread believe she was convicted of terrorism and are outraged.

Look up the charge. It falls under Chapter 105, Sabotage. Terrorism would have been Chapter 113B. But let's face it, convicted as a saboteur sounds a lot less sexy in today's environment than terrorist.

----------

There is much more to this incident then most on ATS are aware. All the security failures is a big one. Lazy staff, non-functioning cameras, faulty sensors (reported recently there were about 800 false alarms in the 96 hours prior to the break-in) and mostly importantly, repair requests that were ignored or denied.

I really hope the protesters are not sentenced to the maximum, but they do need to serve some jail time. As does the employees from the security company, in my opinion. If the protesters are going to be used as an example, so should the security firm!



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
They shouldn't receive any sentence greater than the maximum posted on the signage, simple as that. The upping of charges is where my outrage comes in.

I agree they should be charged up to the risks they accepted upon entering the fence (the 1 year in jail and a $100,000 fine), however, adding any additional charges is just pure crap in my opinion.... (and really, don't you think the jail and that high of a fine would pretty much ruin them anyhow?)

To be honest, the public service of pointing out the security pitfalls should count some here, and they should get some minimal jail time and a smaller fine. The reality is that the security is embarrassing, and they are just trying to cover their butts (but failing, as they simply called attention to themselves).



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 


I don't think that sounds overly paranoid. I think it sounds plausible. But as another ATS poster often says (I'm sorry I can't remember your name at the moment, I think you've got Damien Echols in your avatar?) no one is hungry enough for a revolution yet. Until a lot of people are hungry it's probably going to be Dancing With the Stars and American Idol and consumerism for the forseeable future.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
She's being sentenced as a saboteur (saboteuse?), which is what she is. She sabotaged the security of a uranium enrichment plant by cutting holes in the fences, while carrying out a conspiracy to alter US nuclear weapons policy. Under Chapter 105 of Title 18, that's sabotage. She was not charged with terrorism, and I haven't found a direct quote, in context, from the court regarding terrorism.

Everyone has a Constitutional right "peaceably to assemble." But you don't have a right to damage and evade the security of a US government nuclear facility and assemble on their property, then repaint their property and pour blood on it. That's not a peaceable assembly. It's criminal.

These three knew that, of course. The entire point of their exercise was to make the government arrest them. That's always the point of these look-at-me stunts. If they go free, nothing lost. If they go to jail, they make the government look mean and spend their last few years playing mahjong in a Federal Bureau of Prisons retirement home. It's a no-lose scenario.


I applaud you. A voice in the wilderness, speaking out against the views majority of seriously mentally challenged who thrives on sensationalism to win on emotions than on rational and critical thinking such as yours.

Sadly, that's how the minority few wants it to be - rousing of the mob to achieve their own personal agendas, using falsehoods, half truths and outright lies to fool the naive and innocent into becoming canon fodder when they are roused enough to break the laws of society.
edit on 31-5-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
perhaps if they had a large group with them(perhaps 20-40 people) they might have gotten lighter charges.
However, these charges are way over the top. I have a feeling that the judge, the lawyers, and the prosecuters are just trying to make a name for themselves!



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Catholic church is a terrorist org just look at their history, they've tortured and killed millions of innocent people in the name of GOD. So saying a nun is a terrorist and a part of the terrorist organization must be appropriate.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join