Considering the ELF and the ALF as serious domestic terrorist threats is a joke.

No doubt Being avowed terrorists, making terrorists threats, kidnapping, torture, arson is a big effing joke.

Most of the KKK action I have seen in the news involves idiotic parades through predominately minority areas of cities and towns (or at least demands to be allowed to do so). Not outright murders.

And all racially motivated murders do not equal action by the KKK as an organization.

I'm not saying they aren't committing crimes. I'm saying placing them on the wanted list above groups that have killed people is insane.

So hypothetical - say the KKK never lynched anyone, they simply placed crosses in front of black people's homes and maybe burned the home down when no one was there. Is that terrorism? After all, it's just simple "property damage" according to Tlaloc.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as such:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I would say based on the definition, groups like ALF and ELF fit the definition of terrorism pretty well.

But the monetary loss isn't small, and people may see their businesses and livlihoods destroyed.

As opposed to being murdered which opens up all kinds of economic doors...

I'm not saying they aren't committing crimes. I'm saying placing them on the wanted list above groups that have killed people is insane.

Which is a bigger threat the ELF of the KKK? One has a record of toe tags. The other doesn't. Question answered.

Not to mention that choosing to use arson as a tool to state their cause is extremely risky, just because somebody hasnt died that doesn't mean they won't.

Even *IF* that happens they still aren't murderers. Guilty of homicide? Sure. But there's a big difference between someone who *WANTS* to kill (see KKK above) and someone who didn't mean to and just made a mistake (see hypothetical fantasy ALF/ELF).

It is a sick society that ranks property damage a worse crime than deliberate premeditated murder.

But the monetary loss isn't small, and people may see their businesses and livlihoods destroyed.

Not to mention that choosing to use arson as a tool to state their cause is extremely risky, just because somebody hasnt died that doesn't mean they won't.

All that said I am not too keen on enhancement of sentences based on motivations, I am not a fan of hate crimes legislation and I am not a big fan of the various RICO statutes-I think we should simply define the crimes and punish according the crime committed-whether they did it for the fun of it, or did it to make a political statement.

I think it says that we treat groups who commit thousands of crimes more seriously than those who commit a handful.

Perhaps then Critical Mass should be the #1 terrorist organization. They violate thousands, if not millions, of traffic laws every time they have a gathering.

Or maybe the severity of the crime is rather important. Serial Jaywalkers are far less serious than even one time murderers, and all that, wouldn't you say?

On the other hand, while I'm not a fan of RICO, isn't this exactly the sort of thing it is supposed to handle? A group of people conspiring to commit a series of crimes.

To consider something a hate crime means that the state must necessarily judge thoughts rather than actions. A slippery slope indeed. Mr. Orwell was, once again, quite prescient on this topic.

What does that say about our values?

Similarly mobsters and gangsters should recieve harsher sentences not because their crimes were worse but because of their voluntary association with groups that encourage such crimes, meaning once again they are more likely to re-offend.