11 Defendants Indicted on Domestic Terrorism Charges; Blamed for Arsons

January 20, 2006

  • January 23, 2006 at 12:46 pm
    Russ T Nail says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So does this mean that these acts would NOT be covered by the Insured\’s policies, and NOT covered under any TRIA endorsement?

  • January 23, 2006 at 1:53 am
    Horst Shu says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would argue it\’s malicious mischief…for it to be terrorism under the expired act, it would have to be perpetrated on behalf of \”any foreign person or foreign interest\” and this was not the case here. In fact, it would be difficult to say that it was done on behalf of any interest; it sounds like it is alleged that the attacks were the work of the defendants acting in concert, on their own, and it does not state that it was done on behalf of any organization that authorized the actions.

  • January 23, 2006 at 2:43 am
    I.M. Hipp says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The organizations that authorized the actions were Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. If people can be convicted under RICO for protesting at abortion mills, these jackasses ought never to see the light of day again and pay treble damages in fines and restitution. In short, their lives are rightly over for all intents and purposes – and we are all better off as a result.

  • January 23, 2006 at 2:45 am
    Arthur Ciszek says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So you are stating that the ETA in Spain or the IRA in Northern Ireland are not terrorists? They are not representing a \”foreign power\” per se, but they do use terror as a tactic for supporting their respective causes. Your explanation is mystifying…



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*