In the past, I've identified the two parts of AR and Eco terrorism: on the one hand, you have the legal activities of the provocateurs: those who post inflammatory rhetoric on web pages and speak it in meetings, who identify targets (specific individuals, their families, friends and people doing business with them, and companies with whom they are associated), who provide information about various techniques to harass, intimidate, extort and coerce (paint stripper on cars, bricks through windows, character assassination, threatening phone calls, fire bombs, etc.), and who provide a forum for triumphal reporting of any bad deeds against the target that might, perforce, happen.
Oh - and provocateurs "don't condone" violence, but they're quick to understand the motives of anyone who is moved to violence against "animal torturers" or against people who, in their opinion, "rape the environment."
What the provocateurs do is perfectly legal: they don't directly incite people to do bad deeds, or recruit them for that purpose. They just create a situation which is likely to appeal enough to some anonymous lost soul - one amongst many unlost souls in the audience - that s/he will exercise a little initiative and take illegal terrorist action against a target. The provocateurs, with a notable exception or two, pay no price for the violent people they enable.
On the other hand, you have the actual terrorists - the anonymous lost soul whose rightous ideological id was born and became enraged by the rhetoric, and who was moved to use the tactics of intimidation against the target. These are the "useful idiots."
This is the person who, if anyone is to be caught and thrown in the slammer, will be the one. This is the person who takes the chances and pays the price.
I call these people "useful idiots" (a term first used by Joseph Stalin to describe Communist dupes), a prime example being William Cottrell, a person whose ideological commitment to a loopy ideal led him to ponder the whys and wherefores from the inside of a jail cell, where he awaits a trial that could send him up the (environmentally impure) river for some 35 years. (Mr. Cottrell, you may remember, was the fellow who allegedly torched 125 SUV's.)
Now, we learn that Mr. Cottrell will "hope to use his mental state" as a defense to avoid full retribution:
LOS ANGELES -- Lawyers for a graduate student indicted in a series of firebombings and vandalizing of sport utility vehicles hope to use his mental state as a defense during trial.
William Jensen Cottrell, 24, a physics student at the California Institute of Technology, was indicted in March in connection with damage and destruction of about 125 vehicles at car dealerships and homes in August 2003 in the San Gabriel Valley. Authorities said the attacks caused $2.3 million damage.
Cottrell's lawyers said last week that a defense expert has diagnosed him with Asperger's syndrome, which also is known as "high-functioning autism."
They filed court notices indicating their intent to raise the issue during trial, and hope to argue that the condition made him incapable of arson conspiracy.
Mayock's co-counsel, Marvin Rudnick, alluded to such a defense in March when he mentioned Cottrell in reference to the 2001 film "A Beautiful Mind," which focuses on a schizophrenic math genius.
Those who have Asperger's syndrome tend to take matters too literally and are prone to bouts of confusion, the lawyers said.
They also argue Cottrell could have been duped into participating in the vandalism spree.
"If 'Rain Man' was adopted by Jesse James, would 'Rain Man' be a criminal?" Rudnick told the Pasadena Star-News.
Cottrell faces a nine-count indictment, including one count of using a destructive device in a violent crime, and could sentences ranging from 35 years to life in prison if convicted. His trial is set to begin Oct. 26.
Interesting stuff. The "I couldn't help it" defense would essentially concede that Mr. Cottrell did the deed, that the evidence against him is sound and that the testimony of the FBI agents and their witnesses will be rock solid. If you want to see the affidavit outlining the evidence against Mr. Cottrell, you can download it in pdf format here.
The affidavit suggests to me that Mr. Cottrell's defense is a defense of last resort, the only one which his lawyer has available.
Frankly, I think that the "I couldn't help it because I have Asperger's syndrome" defense is a non-starter. If I were the prosecutor, I'd ask the defense's expert witness if every person with Asperger's syndrome was an arsonist and a person who was unable to resist the call of some loopy ideology to torch a legal business. And if all people with Asperger's syndrome aren't ideologically driven arsonists whose goal it is to perfect the world, why should we cut Mr. Cottrell any slack? If others with Asperger's syndrome can control themselves, why can Mr. Cottrell not?
If I were a juror, I'd want to answers to these same questions.
To me, the affidavit paints a picture of Mr. Cottrell as an arrogant young man who thought he was smarter than the average FBI yokel and who felt he was acting on behalf of a higher calling. He knew right from wrong, as evidence by the steps he took to cover his tracks. He just thought he was too smart to get caught.
And how very disappointing it must be for the Eco-extremist faithful to see their hero cut and run for the shelter of the "I couldn't help it defense." In essence, with the "I couldn't help it" defense Mr. Cottrell's claiming he was snookered into doing something foolish and destructive he wouldn't otherwise have done, had he been of completely sound mind!
So - rather than choosing to be a hero and using the trial for a bully pulpit to advance The Ecological Cause, he chose to be the mental incompetent - a victim of Asperger's syndrome - who acted only because he couldn't help himself.
Or so I would argue.
Brian