• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments


Oh, lookee! The FBI is out trying to catch of those nasty right-wing terrorists Janet Napolitanao warned us about:

Joining the ranks of  Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the FBI has added animal rights extremist Daniel Andreas San Diego to its “Most Wanted Terrorists” list, becoming only the second American citizen and the only domestic terrorist to ever appear on the list.

Federal agents say they have evidence that ties San Diego to bombing two Bay Area firms in 2003, a biotechnology firm, and at Shaklee Corp., a nutrition and cosmetics company. The explosions caused minor damages and no injuries.

What is an animal-rights "extremist"? Can someone even believe animals have rights and still be mainstream? Oh, well, no matter, since I've gone and lost the office pool. I bet that an environmental nut would be the first domestic terrorist to make the most-wanted list.

Here's today's quiz. The story doesn't mention who the other American on the list is. Who is it?

Answer: Adam Yahiye Gadahn, who grew up in California and is wanted for his work overseas as a translator and consultant for al Qaida. He is believed to be in Pakistan.


tim zank
Tue, 04/21/2009 - 9:49am

Wowsers, what a coincidence the Feds decided to add him to the list right now. Kind of like the "budget slashing" announcement a day after they noticed 500,000 angry citizens with real jobs on the news. (well some of the news)

This administration isn't transparent, they're frickin' blatant. From the bravado of "The One" to the wise-ass demeanor of Gibbs, to the outright lies of Emmanuel, and the flat out indifference of Napolitano you can see the message clearly, we're large and in charge m-f'ers and we don't care what you want or think. Period.

Michael B-P
Tue, 04/21/2009 - 10:36am

That wasn't a coicidence. They all watched last week's episode of "Numbers" in which a brilliant-yet-bipolar PETA activist and his buddies show up on campus in full black with ski masks to blow up a lab and then later take a couple of hostages. I just hope my pets weren't watching.

Tue, 04/21/2009 - 10:39am

"Can someone even believe animals have rights and still be mainstream?"

I think so. Legislation designed to prevent animal cruelty, for example, usually enjoys substantial support. If a blastocyst or a brain dead human is deserving of our moral consideration, surely a fully-functioning, sentient dog is as well.

I don't think merely having the proper genetic make-up is sufficient to convey moral rights on humans. Some component involving self-awareness and/or the ability to be aware of suffering seems to be involved, and some non-human creatures should share in some degree of moral protection as well.

Leo Morris
Tue, 04/21/2009 - 10:57am

There is a difference between supporting the prevention of cruelty to animals and believing those animals have rights in the same sense that humans do. Rights involve reasoning and reciprocity, the ability that animals do not have to make moral choices or enter into social contracts.. We respect each other's rights as human beings because we understand it is in our best interests to do so.

Michael B-P
Tue, 04/21/2009 - 11:50pm

Doug is completely right about the insufficiency of genetics alone to "convey moral rights on human." Someone or something needs to be doing the "conveying," i.e., an agent acting to convey such rights, and presumably therefore one with an interest in doing so. But I think he may be confusing moral rights with moral choices. The sentient dog cannot, as far as I know, make a moral choice. On the other hand, a sentient human can do so. Some will maintain that because humans may lawfully intervene on behalf a mistreated dog that this somehow implies a dog's right to protection; when in actuality it is the act of intervening to prevent cruelty which is a legal right (some would say obligation) bestowed on the human who intervenes to protect the dog.