Eco-Terrorism

Here is an OpEd in Sunday's edition of The Washington Examiner, in which Law Professor Glenn Reynolds asks a few questions about Mr James Lee, the Eco-Bomber, or "Warmabomber" as Professor Reynolds calls him.

For those who don't remember, Mr Lee went into the Discovery Channel Lobby in Silver Springs, Maryland, and took hostages.  He was armed with bombs and a gun (which later turned out to be a starter pistol, although the police reported the bombs were real enough).  In the end only Mr Lee died, and that is unfortunate, in that no one deserves to die and further, we are thus denied a chance to understand what was driving him.

At this point what we know is that he believed the Discovery Channel should have been running shows envying against people having children.  He objected to shows like

"Kate Plus 8" and "19 Kids and Counting."

and, per the Globe:

"He said the network should air "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.""

The press has been circumspect about Mr Lee's views on humans and the planet, views which were definitely not positive.  This line from the end of a Washington Post article perhaps gives a hint:

They tried to humanize the hostages, who Lee referred to as "parasites" at one point.

However, Professor Reynolds gives us the scoop on Mr Lee's views and they are not pretty.

Someone asked if Professor Reynolds was writing tongue in cheek and the response is here.

So, I end up with three questions about this incident:

1. Do we think that environmental terrorists are a threat to the nation or just something on the wind, passing by and of no concern to us as citizens?
2. Do we think that the MSM did an adequate job reporting the views of Mr James Lee, or did it fall to people like Professor Reynolds to keep the People informed?
3. Will we see more of this kind of terrorism in the relatively near future (read my lifetime)?

Regards  —  Cliff