|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A North Bay man has been named to the FBI’s most wanted terrorists list for the alleged animal rights-related bombings of two East Bay companies in 2003, including Pleasanton’s Shaklee Corp.
Daniel Andreas San Diego, now 31, disappeared following the bombings on Aug. 28, 2003, of the Emeryville biotechnology firm Chiron Inc., and on Sept. 26, 2003, of the Pleasanton health and beauty products company Shaklee Corp.
No one was injured in the early-morning explosion at Chiron. A second bomb set to detonate an hour later was found and the area was cleared before it went off, according to the FBI.
At Shaklee, a bomb wrapped in nails exploded but there were also no injuries. The FBI accused San Diego of planting all three bombs.
An animal rights group called the Revolutionary Cells took responsibility for both bombings at the time, claiming both companies had business ties with another firm that tested product on animals.
FBI spokesman Joe Schadler said the agency was not willing to comment on any potential groups affiliations that San Diego may have had.
According to the FBI, San Diego professed to be active in the animal rights movement and had expressed extreme views about the use of violence in achieving the goals of the movement.
“As a society we cannot sit idly by and allow violence to become an acceptable solution for social and political problems,” Charlene Thornton, special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Francisco office, said in a prepared statement.
The statement said San Diego’s alleged actions had set an example to others in the animal rights movement, noting two August 2008 fire bombings in Santa Cruz by “individuals espousing similar beliefs.”
A federal grand jury in 2004 indicted San Diego — who grew up in San Rafael and is the son of retired Belvedere City Manager Edmund San Diego — on two counts of destroying or attempting to destroy property with explosives and two counts of use of a destructive device in a crime of violence.
The FBI offered a $250,000 reward in 2006 for information leading to his arrest.
San Diego is only the second American to be named to the FBI’s most wanted terrorists list, which includes Osama Bin Laden. The only other U.S. citizen is Adam Yahiye Gadahn, 30, also indicted in California for allegedly providing material support to Al Qaeda.
“Mr. San Diego and those like him are every bit as great a threat to the peace and security of the United States as any foreign terrorist,” said Thornton.
Schadler said the decision to name San Diego a most wanted terrorist was intended to heighten the visibility of the case in order to locate him.
“We don’t have any reason to believe he’s still in the Bay Area,” said Schadler.
The FBI said San Diego travels internationally and should be considered armed and dangerous. He wears eyeglasses and has several distinctive tattoos, including a circular one on his chest featuring burning hillsides and the words, “It only takes a spark.”
He is also a committed vegan, eschewing either eating or wearing animal products, the FBI said.
According to the FBI, San Diego graduated from San Rafael’s Terra Linda High School, briefly attended Los Medanos College in Brentwood, lost a job at a high-tech company in February 2003, and later tried to launch a vegan bakery in Schellville in Sonoma County, but the business failed.
For more information about San Diego on the FBI list, click here
“lost a job at a high-tech company in February 2003”
They outsourced his position to HP in Dearborn, which was a miserable failure, and eventually brought that position back in-house. Funny what can happen to those who get outsourced!
I was shocked when I learned that he’s the prime suspect in the bombing. What’s my former co-worker doing bombing my hometown?! I do believe he needs to be brought to justice, but I am concerned at the changes in the laws right before he committed his crime that could result in his rights to due process being stripped away.
This is a country with a people that supposedly values the ideas and rights enshrined within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What good do we do by ourselves if we can suspend those rights for criminals who haven’t even killed anyone (the bombing was very early in the morning with no people around) merely for the expediency of justice, when we can afford those rights to much much worse criminals such as Charles Manson?
Does Shaklee use animals in their testing of products?
No. There is some relationship between Shaklee and some lab that does do animal testing. That’s why they and the company in Emeryville were targeted.
Stacey
“What good do we do by ourselves if we can suspend those rights for criminals who haven’t even killed anyone (the bombing was very early in the morning with no people around) merely for the expediency of justice, when we can afford those rights to much much worse criminals such as Charles Manson?”
I see your point, but the law is the law, regardless of when the crime was committed or who it didn’t hurt. The risk of injuring a person was real, maybe a guard during a swing-shift or an executive who went in early because they had a project pending were both a possibility of being hurt or worse. My spouse works here in town and has been at work when a project deadline was near and very late into the night/morning. I would wager these activists couldn’t have known they wouldn’t have hurt anyone. And it isn’t the point. The law merely is there to point out what someone did wrong not discuss their intentions or motivations. If you want mercy or grace, that is an argument for a different court of justice.
This guy committed a terrible crime and needs to be brought to justice. At any time you choose to do something so dangerous and frightening, especially after 9/11, you have to know you will be punished – any other message sent by law enforement is a welcome mat for potential criminals.
He is a terrorist. I lived in the UK at the height of the IRA terror campaigns and have seen what happens when a bomb goes off.
Anyone who does this is a terrorist. What would have happened if a cleaner came to the building to work and could not get a sitter and brought her child. Bang… bomb goes off a child is dead plus a mother. Nail bombs are one of the worse and most cruel devices you can employ. It kills those in close proximity, and horribly maims those not so close.
I do not agree with animal testing but this is a extremist who needs to be caught put in Jail and the ley thrown away if the evidence exists.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/shaklee-corporation-statement-regarding-fbi/story.aspx?guid=%7BFDAD4761-3C93-4B40-B1ED-5F165C243CA2%7D&dist=msr_9
Market Watch.
PRESS RELEASE
Shaklee Corporation Statement Regarding FBI Announcement on Domestic Terrorism
Last update: 12:38 p.m. EDT April 21, 2009
PLEASANTON, Calif., Apr 21, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) — As a socially-responsible company, Shaklee does not conduct animal testing, we have never conducted animal testing, and we will never conduct animal testing. We have never done business with any lab that conducts tests on animals.
Shaklee’s corporate headquarters was bombed years ago by an individual who mistakenly targeted us for animal testing which had nothing to do with us or our products and was in fact conducted separately by a pharmaceutical corporation that owned Shaklee at the time (we have been independent since 2004). Unfortunately, the record of this misguided act of violence sometimes creates confusion that erroneously links our company with animal testing. Nothing could be further from the truth and we appreciate this opportunity to correct the record.
SOURCE: Shaklee
Shaklee Corporation
Puja Sabharwal, 925-924-2225
PSabharwal@shaklee.com
or
Lippe Taylor
Erica Rosen, 212-598-4400 ext. 125
Erosen@lippetaylor.com
The law,
I don’t think you see my point. You’ve focused upon my statement about intent and completely disregarded the essence of my argument regarding stripping rights. Habeas corpus, for example, one of _the_ founding principles of Western-style democracy, freedom, and liberty from the Middle Ages, has been repeatedly suspended since 9/11 in the name of the War on Terror, even for US citizens. I believe one of the Founding Fathers had some words regarding trading away rights for the appearance of safety, but I’m not going to look it up now.
I agree with you regarding bringing criminals to justice. As I wrote above, I believe he needs to be brought to justice.
There is nothing in this article about this person having his rights stripped away and not getting due process. Changes in the laws regarding Habeas Corpus have made our country safer. Terrorists should not be treated as mere criminals as is popular by many who may not have thought this through…enemy combatants are not mere criminals and this person is a terrorist and should be brought to justice with the full penalty of the law…Additionally, the fact that this guy lost his job is no excuse for his violent behavior and has no relevance…many have lost jobs for a wide variety of reasons without resorting to violence or criminal behavior. As far as American rights go, one need only to pay attention to see that more individual rights are being taken away and threatened by the current administration than ever before in our history.
Hi Stacey,
I did get your point and I absolutely understand your argument about being a US citizen protected by the Constitution, etc, but my point, and whether I adequately addressed it for you or not, is, and I do not to be curt, but is to earnestly say that whether pre 9/11 or post, this guy broke the law on the books at the time. I don’t care if he was an Eagle Scout up to the day he commited this crime. The point is, those of us that don’t break the law don’t need to worry about having our “rights stripped”. When you set out to do harm, no matter to person or property, then you deserve consequences. I think you are too narrowly applying the law how you want it, although I know you are absolutely not defending this guys actions – you just disagree with the severity of punishment as compared to others.
I see your point, but I, for one, am glad for the Patriot Act. I have no problem with giving up a little of my privacy – since I have zero to hide – for law enforcement to be able to do their job against those that would try to harm my fellow citizens of this country. That goes for wire-tapping my phone, my library records, and my belongings when traveling by plane. And I also have zero problem with the justice system intruding on those who would seek to do others harm and “their rights”. I just don’t see this as a slippery slope issue. As far as I am concerned, our rights are not stripped from us, they are handed over when we make choices that are dangerous. Since the liberal media and liberal courts want to give so many rights to what I believe to be combative terrorists, I think that the government needs more bite in their bark since the ACLU and the like want to give these terrorists our rights. As far as your friend being a US citizen: He deserves what he gets and you know what? Honestly? I think he might even deserve a worse fate especially when considering the opportunities that this country affords each citizen and afforded him. He could have gone through the legal system to deal with his grievences of alleged animal cruelty. Instead, he chose to take grave actions into his own hands and I think he is almost worse than a terrorist in Afghanistan who has nothing and believes they can’t accomplish anything without the acts of violence.
I take logic seriously and there is one principal I hold to…and I refer to it as the spectrum rule. If a rule or a law is a good one, it should hold true no matter what circumstance it is applied to big or little, simple or complex. For instance, if you want your child to obey you, then you need to demonstrate from an early age what you expect of them. Then you need to expect that they will test the limits and it is your job as a parent to enforce those limits. Why? Then the child is able to learn and predict well in advance of the action what the consequences for their actions will be. They may do a transaction in their head to decide if action is or is not worth the consequences, but they will know for sure that the consequences will come. Consequences are a deterrant. If we offer a set of deterrants for one person, but not another, what kind of message is that sending? It doesn’t work in a family, or a nation.
I think that your ex-co-worker knew he would be in trouble if caught. He certainly did the “math” and decided it was worth it. I’m sorry if that isn’t popular, but the man needs his consequences. I see your point about being these consequences being more severe than other offenders, and that is unfortunate that we now live in a time where we need harsher punishments for deterrants, but we then need to refine our legal system so it works as a deterrant for everyone.
The reason such harsh penalties exist is because others are getting away with things they shouldn’t and that isn’t right either.
While I understand the difficulty you have with the law at this point, because of principals you think it is violating, I just fundementally disagree that the law has gone too far. This man deserves what he is going to get. I guess people should think a little more before committing crimes, big or small in the eyes of the law.
I think the good news in this scenario, is that this man is so lucky he didn’t kill another person. I’m SO thankful for that and I know you are as well as you sound like a very reasonable and caring person.
The law,
Thanks for the response. I find it somewhat strange that you mention what you refer to as the “spectrum rule” and yet here is an example that I see where we’re not holding to our good laws. We’ve subverted our laws. Congress had to pass a resolution in 2007 to restore Habeas Corpus because of this subversion that was occurring. I also don’t agree at all with you regarding giving up some privacy, etc. You and I may go about our business happily under the impression that we’ve done no wrong and have nothing to hide only to find ourselves one day with our backs up against a wall. It was Ben Franklin, by the way, who came up with the quote I had in mind earlier: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
One other thing; he was a co-worker. I can’t claim him as a friend. I didn’t really know much about him. He worked mostly graveyard shift.
Stacey-
A little delayed in my response, but I understand your perspective better. In reference to Ben Franklin and your point to relenting our liberties, I guess at this point all I can say to you is that One cannot always anticipate the deterrants needed to ensure liberties. Who would have thought we would have used the Atomic Bomb to get Japan’s attention? Or pass Jessica’s or Megan’s Laws to protect from child predators? We have fundemental principals in our laws to protect our liberties and what we live by, but sometimes our laws have to be improved to stop those who would try to harm us and subvert the existing laws. At times, someone who isn’t the focus of the law get’s caught, much like a rabbit who gets stuck in a fence built around a garden designed to keep out deer – if the deer desides to try and enter, he could be impailed. There is no way a rabbit could do as much damage as a deer to the garden, but both are guilty of doing wrong in the eyes of the gardener.
Relatedly, I watched a news program about this same guy today and I thought of our discussion thread. I think another question we should be asking is why now what this guy moved to the FBI’s list? I always wonder about what else is going on that needs a distraction. Just look at this thread…everyone has very strong emotions about an animal rights activists…and if we are busy here discussing this, what are we missing??
Just something to consider. Neither “sides” of the government does much for me these days…
The Law,
you said, “The law merely is there to point out what someone did wrong not discuss their intentions or motivations. If you want mercy or grace, that is an argument for a different court of justice.”
You are not too smart, In replying to Stacy you proved her point and disproved your own. If the law is only there to point out what they did wrong and not what their intentions were then there is no room for what if’s or hypothetical situations in which some employee stayed late and was injured. It simlpy did not happen. No one was injured. What he did was wrong and he should not get away with bombing a building but he cannot be punished as if someone was injured or killed in the blast.
At the time of the terrorist bombing the pharmaceutical parent company was located on the third floor of Shaklee Corporation.
At the time of the terrorist bombing the pharmaceutical parent company was located on the third floor of Shaklee Corporation.
wh0cd489945 [url=http://advairdiskus2017.com/]advair 250/50[/url]
wh0cd121963 [url=http://erythromycin24.us.org/]Erythromycin[/url]
Ugh. “…a bomb wrapped in nails…” That’s nasty stuff. To me, it shows intent to hurt/maim people in addition to destroying property.
The guy is obviously a nut job, as are all of the extreme wacko-animal rights advocates, regardless as to whether he intended to kill, maim or just scare people.
Shaklee doesn’t test on animals, so this domestic terrorist didn’t take the time to do his research while building his explosive device.
He should be made an example of, just in case any of the other PETA-types decide to put animlas before humans and kill in their namesake.