Reader comments
Feds seek to block activist's global warming defense

Necessity is a common defend in America. Sure you assaulted someone with a club meaning to inflict harm but he was rapping a girl.

You have the right to use any defense you think will work. At the end of the trial you must sell the jury.

If you've been down to the Green River area, you know that it is a barren wasteland. Why not use it for something useful? Of course we'd need to make sure that there is responsibility and accountability for minimizing pollution and the impact on the water supply.

If that can be done then I don't see a reason why not to explore for oil and gas in the area.

I can't fault the guy for trying his best to thwart it based on his beliefs, but part of being a protester is getting caught, going to jail (for not very long) and drawing attention to your cause.

That's probably what will happen, but in the end I don't forsee it as a bad thing to mine for oil and gas in one of the most barren places on Earth.

"barren waist land?" Spoken like a true money at all cost, forget the consequences capitalist. I would say that is in the eye of the beholder. The green river area is a rich ecosystem that should be used responsibly.

So the ends justify the means?

This trial is selective prosecution, a waste of time, and a waste of my tax dollars. Surely there are more Federal Crimes like the drugs coming across the border, tax evasion, murder where my tax dollars would be better spent!

Q: How many eco-terrorists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Incandescent or Compact Fluorescent?

The great wizard of global warming, Hanson, in a tv news interview, said these leases should not have been blocked. There goes his defense.

Calling these lease areas some of Utah's "most pristine and spectacular wilderness" is like putting "Ugly Betty" at the top of the Hot 100 list.

I'm reminded of an Iraqi who threw a pair of shoes at former President Bush.

Obviously somebody like these "barren wastelands." And if someone is willing to fight for those areas, you can bet there's a lot more wishing him well.
I'm glad he did that, and I hope he wins.
And global warming is real. Don't believe me? All you have to do is wait. It will be obvious soon enough.

Now you know why Pat Shea is not a criminal defense attorney.

...make a right.

His arguments sound like those who would bomb abortion clinics. Abortion is bad but you just can't take the law into your own hands.

DeChristopher's protest is much ado about nothing. Even if global warming is happening, the CO2 emissions from all of fossil fuels in the leases he bid for won't make a measurable difference in the atmocpheric CO2 concentration.

It's time that one of these likely sincere, but wacked out, environmentalists gets what is coming to him under the law. He knew the risks--he's going to pay the price. Good luck, Pat Shea, in proving your global warming defense. It's unprovable under any available facts that human activity has more than a negligible impact on global warming (or cooling). Just shows what a circus act the global warming crowd is.

Tim DeChristopher acted on behalf of the public interest, and especially all who love the canyon country. Forty years ago nobody cared about these lands. Now it's a national issue, and for good reason.

Save the planet, kill a deer: Deer: emit CO2, destroy carbon sequestering plants, produce copious amounts of methane, and tample new unauthorized trails throughout public lands.

I don't think there's anyone here who can say they don't believe DeChristopher has strong environmental beliefs, and that he took the actions he did because of them. That much is clear regardless of whether one thinks is opinions are full of crap or not.

Frankly, it's really disturbing to me that the prosecution in this case now wants to bar him from using the truth as his defense. (Not the truth about global warming, mind you. The truth about his motivations.)

If he's barred from using the truth, then how is he expected to defend himself? Make something up?

Obviously the feds are worried (as they should be) about potential jury nullification. But lets face it. The concept of jury nullification exists for a reason. To protect people from being nailed by unjust laws.

If the Kanab folks who drove ATV's up the Paria last week get charged (a big if, in this state), they're going to hoping for a good healthy does of jury nullification themselves. Good for the goose, as they say.

I am passionately against illegal immigration. But if I started rounding up and deporting illegal aliens on my own the government would throw the book at me. Pat Shea certainly would, if he were the government prosecutor. And I think I could even drum up some great global warming justification for slowing America's population growth - but Shea wouldn't care for those, personally or professionally.

Liberals seem to think that they have a moral right to ignore any law they believe is immoral. They believe their convictions grant them the right to avoid "doing the time." They would never grant the same right to conservatives who oppose laws for moral reasons. The attitudes of liberal officials to conservative lawbreakers is "throw the book at 'em."

DeChristopher is no hero. The people who treat him as such are idiots or extremists. His actions occurred after Obama was already elected, and he clearly thought - if he even bothered to think - that Obama either wouldn't prosecute him or will pardon him.