The FBI needs to get it’s priorities straight….

29 Apr

2 posts in one week!  Is everyone shocked and amazed?  It’s just like it was back before the “day job” entered my life and my free time flittered away… I miss you, free time.

So, let’s have a show of hands of anyone who’s heard of Daniel Andreas of San Diego… anyone?  This is interesting (or at least it is to me).  Daniel Andreas is  on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted terrorist list, and he’s an American.  That’s not what’s interesting.  What IS interesting is that his crimes hurt noone, didn’t intend to hurt anyone, and he is in no way involved in any terrorist cells or threatening organizations.  Daniel Andreas is a political and environmental activist.

In 2003, Andreas was involved in the bombing of 2 Northern California corporate offices- Chiron Corp (a biotechnology firm) and Shaklee Corp (a nutrition and cosmetics company).  No one was injured in the bombings, and these companies were targeted because of their ties to companies that did animal testing.

Now, I understand that big bombs are bad (but little bombs are fun, right?  No one can argue with that because we all set off little bombs all day long on the 4th of July).  And I’m not down with any group taking extreme measures like this because it taints the message of the whole activist community.  When animal rights activists (or any other type of activists) bomb companies for their cause, it just gives the general population cause to lump us all together as “wacko’s” and dismiss the cause altogether.  That’s not cool.  As much as we like to say “That company needs to go up in smoke”, it’s just not the proper way to get your point across or be heard.  Educating the public, and getting the public to rally behind your cause is the best way to make change happen.  Company’s are swayed by public opinion… and if public opinion is that animal rights activists are a bunch of violent wack-a-do’s who care more about bunnies than human lives- well, I don’t think that’s really a message that sits well with Average Joe American. Right?

But what I find really interesting is that because of these actions, Andreas is now on the same FBI list as Osama bin Laden.  Really?  How the hell does this make sense?  Yes, this guy took some extreme measures to let people know his opinion- but no one was even hurt, let alone killed.  It was just property damage.  How the hell does this put him in the same league as terrorists who are down with suicide bombings and taking down as many people as they can?  I don’t think Andreas’ actions warrant this kind of a manhunt… and I certainly don’t think that putting a $250,000 reward on his head is necessary, either.

Doesn’t the FBI have better things to do with their time, or more important people to look for?  I would think that with everything that’s going on in the world,  a guy who destroyed some property in the name of a political cause (and not even a political cause that’s tied in ANY way to terrorism) wouldn’t really be someone to go after.  Is this what my tax money is going to?  I’ve gotta say, this is a pretty big pile of bullshit.

That’s all for this evening.  Hopefully I’ll be able to write more again this week… we’ll see if my schedule allows it…..

(I apologized if this post comes across as babble, or has grammatical blunderings.  Sully is in a manic mood, and even though he’s been told to play quietly to calm down- he’s been popping his head into my office every 30-45 seconds to tell me every single thing that is going through his brain.  How do I know it has been every 30-45 seconds?  After the 15th time he popped his head in, I began timing him.  My brain is now tired from his brain’s mania.)

Advertisements

24 Responses to “The FBI needs to get it’s priorities straight….”

  1. Sonic Charmer April 29, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    If you aren’t down with the sort of measures he took & don’t think the whole activist community should be tainted by association with him (and I agree!), then why do you care whether he’s on the most-wanted list?

    You don’t identify with him and aren’t associated with him. Right? So why are you reacting as if you are?

  2. Kristen Ferrell April 29, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    As much as I’m really not into his methods, to put him on an FBI Most Wanted list up there with individuals who have murdered people, or made plans for bombing public places, or who are serious threats to the public is REALLY extreme and unwarranted. It throws undue negative attention to positive causes, and I’m pretty disgusted that my tax money is going towards hunting down a man who really doesn’t pose a social threat. The other people on the FBI’s most wanted list are truly scary people, who have caused serious destruction to people’s lives with their actions. All Andreas’ did was make a mess and cause a couple of insurance agencies to pay for the damages.

    It’s nonsense to go after someone in such an extreme way for destruction of public property (which I don’t agree with- but honestly, if no one was hurt, I don’t care about it). And it’s double-nonsense to now throw political activists into the same group as terrorists when they haven’t hurt anyone. And as a political and environmental activist, I find it scary that activism (though his was extreme- no one got hurt) can be lumped in with terrorism.
    It just doesn’t sit well with me.

    And I think that the FBI should have better things to do their time.

    • kfcsicko May 18, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

      Maybe we should give him a medal? Or, we could let him come home and date our sisters? No, on second thought, let’s bbq his ass in molasses.

  3. Sonic Charmer April 30, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    I don’t know what criteria the FBI uses to create their ‘most wanted’ list. It is apparently not something as simple as ‘most people killed’.

    I don’t agree it ‘throws undue negative attention’ to positive causes. I had never heard of this man until you pointed him out. You’re the one who brought him to my attention and keeps linking him with your cause. But I’m perfectly able to separate his acts from your cause. Aren’t you?

    How can you say you don’t want your tax money to go to hunting him down? He is a criminal, he committed crimes (allegedly). The government is supposed to use tax money to try to catch criminals. Are you saying you don’t want him caught, and prosecuted? But why not – if you don’t identify with him and don’t approve of his methods? (hence my orig. point) Or if so, then you’ll have to accept that the government will use tax money to try to hunt him down…

    I’m not sure what you mean by “go after someone in such an extreme way”. Should they go after him in a “gentle” way? How exactly? What “extreme way” are you talking about in the first place? All they’ve really done that I can see is put him on some list. And what “better things” should the FBI do with their “time”? (What “time” did it take to put him on a list?) It’s now sounding like you don’t want this guy caught. Can that really be what you’re saying? Why would you say that if you don’t approve of what he did? Or do you?

    It’s not nonsense to throw him in with terrorists. If he committed those acts, he is a terrorist by definition (=one who uses violence to achieve political ends). That’s what “terrorist” means. And it’s not “activism” that can be lumped in with terrorism. It’s terrorism (=violence to achieve political ends). If you’re not planning on using violence to achieve political ends, you have nothing to be “scared” about. Or are you saying that there’s not a sharp difference between “activism” of a form you support and terrorism, after all?

    Finally, you say “if no one was hurt, I don’t care about it”. Maybe this is the real issue. Others do. And certainly law enforcement does. As they’re supposed to. Best,

    • kfcsicko May 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

      We shouldn’t throw him in with terrorists; We should throw his worthless, vegetarian ass in prison. The little punk wouldn’t last a week.

  4. Kristen Ferrell April 30, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    People placed on the FBI’s most wanted list have a dramatically increased amount of manpower geared towards finding them. They’ve already done global searches for Andreas in Germany, the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, France, Spain, Denmark, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Argentina, the Philippines, and Chile- and they’re currently scouring Costa Rica for him. To me, that’s extreme for someone who hasn’t hurt anyone, and that’s alot of time and man-power put towards someone who just destroyed property… especially when a couple of the other people on the list are as follows:

    Osama bin Laden- we all know who he is
    Ayman Al-Zawahiri- founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged with Al-Qaeda in 1998 to help with all that has gone down these past few years
    Ali Atwa- participated in the hijacking of a commercial airliner which resulted in assualts and deaths of passangers
    Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi- participated in the attack of the USS Cole and killed 17 people
    etc., etc., etc……
    Those are just a few on the top 10 terrorist list. The general top 10 list has kidnappers of children, people who murdered their families in open and public places, people who gunned down multiple innocent bystanders during robberies and heists- individuals who caused serious trauma and pain.

    I think what I said above is pretty straight-forward. Yes, bombings are bad. And terrorism is scary. But there’s a difference between acts that are solely intended to kill and hurt people, and acts that are intended to destroy property. Both are bad… but the destruction of property doesn’t warrant global searches and insane rewards for the individual’s capture. Especially when the others on the list have such extreme behaviors attached to their name. I’m not sure why this is difficult to understand. And yes- with all the terrifying people who do monstrous things to others in this world, the FBI DOES have better things to do with their time and more vital targets.

    I didn’t mean to come across as callous when I said “if no one was hurt, I don’t care about it”… it’s more that I care MORE about dead people, destroyed families, and people who’s goals are the destruction of large groups of innocent individuals than a couple corporate headquarters getting trashed. You can rebuild corporate headquarters… you can’t rebuild lives lost and families destroyed.

    Sure, the guy broke the law and his actions weren’t good or anything I would personally condone… BUT it’s a matter of priority (which is the heading of this blog), and I don’t think that Andreas’ actions are a high enough priority to be lumped in with murderers, kidnappers, plane hijackers, or people involved with 9-11. It’s silly to put him in the same league with these others, and treat him as a “terrorist”. No matter what the technical definition of “terrorism” may be, it means something entirely different in this day and age to the average citizen.

    • kfcsicko May 18, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

      He’s worth $250,000 in reward money, and that’s all his punk ass will ever be worth, except that satisfying feeling I’ll have if I ever get ahold of him.

      • Kristen Ferrell May 22, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

        I’m going to take all the comments you left on here as your attempt at humor, because for you to actually want inflict violence on someone because they destroyed property (and inflicted NO violence on anyone) is ignorant to the point of hilariousness… unless it was your building that got bombed (but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that it wasn’t).

        And to your comment above about his “worthless vegetarian ass” not lasting a week in prison… I’m 5’4″, weigh 108 pounds, haven’t eaten meat in almost 20 years (since I was 14)- and I can pin my husband who is twice my size and built like a bull. We spry little vegetarians have far more energy and stamina than fat ass meat eaters who’s poor pathetic systems are forever inches away from heart attacks and strokes. And we little people hold up pretty well in prison… we don’t have all those clogged arteries making it difficult for blood to get to our brains- so we fight smart (instead of relying solely on grotesque meat-eating girth for intimidation). Smart fighting beats out fat fighting any day of the week.
        We will outlive the carnivores and take over the world.
        Amen.

  5. Sonic Charmer April 30, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Hmm. I’m using the plain English meaning of the word, I’m not sure what meaning you are using. webster.com:

    Main Entry:
    ter·ror

    […]

    4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

    As for this,

    But there’s a difference between acts that are solely intended to kill and hurt people, and acts that are intended to destroy property.

    One can easily become the other. Bombs are indiscriminate things and do not necessarily respect ‘intent’. Depending on where this was, there could have been people working late, janitorial staff, security, passersby… He evidently decided to take that risk. He lacks that right and is a criminal and a terrorist. I have no problem with the FBI going after him, nor do I have a problem prioritizing his pursuit as they see fit. I am not privy to the details of the FBI’s staffing and budgetary constraints to be able to say they’re spending ‘too much’ time/energy/whatever looking for him as opposed to doing other things. Unless you are, you have little tangible basis I can see for complaining about his placement on this list.

    • Butcherbaby May 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

      “intent” actually DOES matter, and that’s why we have different legal definitions for “murder” and “manslaughter”, and different legal degrees of such, heavily based on the INTENT of the defendant when they committed their crime.

      • Sonic Charmer May 2, 2009 at 4:31 am #

        Yes intent matters to the legal outcome. Never said it didn’t, so not sure what your point is. Read what I wrote again – namely, try to actually read what it is that I said doesn’t respect intent. Hint: it wasn’t ‘the law’.

        • Butcherbaby May 22, 2009 at 5:07 am #

          no, it was “bombs”. but “guns” don’t respect intent either, nor do “tire irons”, “kitchen knives”, or “cars” for that matter- all off which can be used to purposely maim, injure, or kill people. dick cheney didn’t get thrown in jail for shooting a friend IN THE FACE. why? well other than favoritism for the VP, it was because of his lack of INTENT. if i were to drive my car through a crowd of pedestrians, the legal ramifications would be much greater than if i chose to drive it through the storefront of a business after hours. and if either outcome were the result of being hit by a drunk driver, or run off the road by a semi, or suffering a stroke, the penalties would be minimal to none.
          and since you are either completely obtuse or enjoy asking WHY WHY WHY like a two year old, that’s all i’m going to say on the matter.

          • Kristen Ferrell May 22, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

            VERY good point!!!!

            I especially liked the Dick Cheney reference.
            😉

  6. Kristen Ferrell April 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    You really think that a guy who trashes 2 empty corporate fully insured buildings and harms no one is in the same category of social danger as bin Laden and should be hunted down with the same force and man power?
    Do you really not understand what I’m saying?
    Do you not understand that there are levels of crime and intent, and that lesser crimes should be handled with lesser severity? Or is it really that black and white to you? It’s a pretty severe thing to be one of the top hunted individuals by our country… and I think the crimes should fit being put into that category. And especially to be labeled as a “terrorist” (which, in this day and age, you can throw the dictionary definition out the window because that word is far more menacing than it ever was before) is pretty harsh… and I feel isn’t deserving of his crimes. Yes, he’s a criminal- but come on. To throw him into the same group as terrorists who have committed truly horrendous acts of death and destruction is a bit of a stretch. I’d rather they put my tax dollars towards individuals who might bring a bomb into an airport or public transit stations (who’s number 1 intent is to kill people), than a man who trashed a couple empty buildings 6 years ago because of animal testing.
    I don’t understand where the confusion is.

  7. Sonic Charmer April 30, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    I never said “same category of social danger”. Nor did I say “same force and manpower”. As far as I know there is no rule requiring the FBI to use exactly, mathematically, the “same force and manpower” for each person on the most-wanted list. Presumably, they allocate force and manpower according to the specifics of the suspect. How much force and manpower do you think they *should* allocate to looking for this guy? What makes you so convinced that they’re not currently allocating exactly the right amount? After all, that would require actually knowing how much force/manpower they’re currently allocating – which you most certainly don’t know. (Right?)

    Look, I do understand what you are saying about degrees and distinctions (though I’m not as willing as you are to throw actual definitions of words out the window). What I’m saying is that this observation alone doesn’t add up to a good reason to object so strongly to someone being on a “most-wanted” list. The “most-wanted” list is allowed to contain a wide variety of people and criminals; why can’t it?

    What I still don’t understand is why you even care. You speak of what they “put your tax dollars towards” but the actual fact is that you have absolutely no idea how many, if any, of your tax dollars per se they are spending on trying to apprehend this person vs that person at any given time. That simply cannot be the real reason you object so much. What is?

  8. Kristen Ferrell April 30, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Don’t be mistaken… this is most certainly not something that keeps me up at night. I really don’t care as much as you’re assuming I do. I use this little blog as a venting tool to point out bullshit where I see it- whether people agree with me or not also is something I don’t lose any sleep over, or give a second thought to.

    I think I stated my case clearly enough above. And I get grumpy when I have to repeat myself.
    You asked “What I still don’t understand is why you even care.” I care because I don’t feel it’s right (for all the reasons I previously stated). What I don’t understand is why you care so much about why I care or object to it? This seems to be really affecting you… and honestly, it shouldn’t.

  9. Rhonda April 30, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    I think I get what you’re saying. I read what they say about the person. Is it that you don’t like the way they described his reason behind the bombings? They say violence and horrid and don’t really go into his radical agenda they just deem him as a criminal on the spot. The only harm I see of this is that a lot of people probably lost their jobs which could have been their only ways of surviving and I am not talking about the corporate executives who will probably get paid anyways I am talking more of the other employees no one really sees, such as janitors perhaps. I understand why the man wanted to act out, because a lot of people just talk and he is more of a show man, and he looks harmless in the picture they have of him. He just didn’t think out his actions all the way through and the consequences he will face. In this day and age, you see prisons overpopulated with people who were no social threat, yet you see pedophiles, rapists and child molestors getting off in an average of two years.

    • Kristen Ferrell April 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

      This is the kind of shit I’m talking about. There are human MONSTERS roaming the streets destroying lives left and right- and Andreas is on the top 10 list as a terrorist. It’s ridiculous! THIS is an example of backwards priorities.

      As for people losing their jobs- I doubt that. Major corporations have major insurance- the mess Andreas made of the buildings probably temporarily put some people out of work until repairs were made- but then everyone back to work as usual. I’m only assuming with this, so take that for what it is.

  10. whitney May 1, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    yeah, it is pretty ridiculous…

    haha, i read most the back and forth comments you had with sonic charmer and it was pretty aggravating for him (or her) to pick at every little word you typed and they took it soooo literally.
    ‘”time?” what “time” is the fbi using?’ blah, blah… my god, is it THAT hard to understand what you’re trying to say? no! sheesh.

    • Kristen Ferrell May 1, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

      It’s true- I have no idea the exact amounts of extra minutes that go into the search for Andreas, or how those exact minutes translate into the exact cost of our tax money… but common sense needs to come into play here. And when someone is on the list of top people on the planet that the US government is after, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that they’re getting considerably more time and effort than the average wanted criminal. So if that assumed added effort is going towards Andreas (where I feel his crimes don’t warrant such an increase of manpower), and not towards all the other monsters on the planet who have actually KILLED people… that’s irritating.

      I like using common sense. It makes things much easier.

  11. Butcherbaby May 1, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    i think sonic charmer needs to take “debate 101” again. i am all for arguing as the devils advocate, but you really need to have more behind your stance than wordier versions of “no they didn’t” and “how do YOU know?”.

    and i agree with you- what he has done is certainly not enough to warrant manhunts in FOURTEEN countries- and if sonic can’t see that alone as an indicator of just how much time and energy the FBI has spent trying to apprehend a vandal with a message, then nothing you say is going to get through their thick head.

    • Sonic Charmer May 2, 2009 at 4:29 am #

      Butcherbaby, I wasn’t trying to ‘debate’ her and I don’t have a ‘stance’ per se. I was trying to ask her questions to learn what (if anything) her view was based on. Read my first comment again.

      • Butcherbaby May 2, 2009 at 4:39 am #

        *I was trying to ask her questions to learn what (if anything) her view was based on.*

        AND SHE SAID IT- several times. go back and read the OP and all the comments again. she is pissed that the FBI would waste the resources they COULD be spending to arrest far worse criminals. i mean, my brother- a career criminal for over 20 years with a rap sheet like a phone book- has certainly committed far more crime than this guy, and i dare say a lot more personal suffering, but he’s not on the “10 most wanted list”. that is saved for the real big, real advanced, real HORRIBLE criminals, not petty theft drug addicts or people who commit advanced vandalism. you ask Kristen what her “real” (seemingly secret) reason for her rant is, when anyone else can see it plain as day. what is YOUR “real” reason for insisting that what she says isn’t really what she means?

  12. Sonic Charmer May 2, 2009 at 4:46 am #

    Actually, I was content with the answers I got from her & learned what I wanted to know (‘what (if anything) her view was based on’). Only came back cuz you keep mentioning me for some reason,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: