Final Sentencing in Oregon Eco-Sabotage Cases

Civil Rights Outreach Committee

For Immediate Release: August 1, 2007


Contacts:
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR, 503-295-6400, 503-490-7333

Final Sentencing in Oregon Eco-Sabotage Cases
Politically motivated prosecution continues as federal judge reconsiders Jonathan Paul’s sentence


Eugene, OR – Judge Ann Aiken today will revisit the sentencing of Jonathan Paul, an animal liberationist whose 51-month sentence was disputed during his initial June 5 sentencing hearing. Paul was the last of ten grand jury-indictees within the District of Oregon who were sentenced as a part of the government’s “Operation Backfire” prosecution. Paul was one of only three defendants who did not receive a “terrorism” enhancement to their sentences. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken declined to follow the government’s recommendations with regards to Paul but concluded that most of the other young activists convicted should be branded and punished as terrorists, potentially restricting their communication and visitation privileges while serving prison sentences ranging from three to 13 years, even though none of the arsons resulted in any injuries or loss of life.

In a general opinion concerning all defendants, Judge Aiken argued that a “federal crime of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury.” The terrorism enhancement provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines was then applied to most defendants. Prosecutors have complete discretion to utilize this enhancement, choosing to label environmental defendants as “terrorists.” The Department of Justice, however, appears to have a different standard for right-wing crimes, and has failed to label numerous murders of doctors who perform abortions by right wing zealots as acts of terrorism. Judge Aiken interpreted the enhancement broadly, cobbling together connections among government agencies and the targets of the vandalism, primarily private businesses. None of the acts of property damage injured anyone.

“The imposition of terrorism enhancements on sentences of these activists sets a dangerous precedent that could result in additional politically motivated prosecutions branding activists as ‘terrorists,’ said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Portland-based Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. “This precedent could also be exploited by the federal government to seek greater prison time for political activists engaged in traditional acts of civil disobedience.”

The government and the court both repeatedly tried to convince the public that the use of the terrorism enhancement was neither ‘political’ nor intended to label these defendants as ‘terrorists.’ Neither statement could be farther from reality. The government has consistently tried to punish these crimes differently for political reasons at a significant cost to our civil liberties and constitutional protections.

Public statements by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are evidence of the political motivations behind Operation Backfire. Soon after Jonathan Paul’s arrest and a new indictment reflecting additional charges and defendants (the first round of “Backfire” arrests took place a month earlier in December 2005) Gonzales held a high profile press conference with FBI head Robert Mueller to announce the fruits of the FBI round-up. More recently, the Department of Justice released a press statement by the Attorney General wherein he accused the Oregon defendants as carrying out a campaign of “domestic terrorism,” and praised the lengthy sentences as “notice to others.”

“Gonzales’ statements come at a time when his actions interfering with other prosecutions have politicized the Department of Justice, bringing into question the motivation behind Gonzales’ decisions,” said Queral.

Former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias, told the Eugene Weekly that he thought the Oregon prosecutions appeared to be politically motivated. About the environmentally motivated property damage that injured no one, Iglesias said: "It seems to me what happened here should not fit my traditional definition of what terrorism is."

In what can only be seen as a politically self-serving statement, Attorney General Gonzales and the FBI identified a group of people who have never harmed a living thing as the ‘number one domestic terrorist threat’ to this country. That characterization tends to belittle acts of mass murder like the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center attacks, and is insulting to victims of those horrific events. Prosecuting acts of property destruction as “terrorism” gives Attorney General Gonzales a justification for the Bush Administration’s intrusive domestic spying programs and to continue the harassment, investigations and prosecution of dissenting voices. Anyone concerned with civil liberties should be scrutinizing the government’s motivations in this case.