I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate, from my understanding (and I could be wrong) he wasn't/ isn't being prosecuted for actually being involved in any arson, but of having information pertaining to it and not reporting it to the authorities. I think the plea (whatever it entailed) cut his sentence from a possible 3 years to 1 year.
I don't think he would have been in a higher security facility if he had refused any cooperation, but again that's my understanding, and I may have it wrong.
You're right about the charge being for failure to report the felony, but I suppose that in itself isn't especially informative. We have no idea what they threatened to charge him with, it's likely he plead to a lesser charge. But, again, we can't know.
As far as the specific facilities where sentences are seved, that all gets negotiated in plea agreements, and has a great deal to do with what kind of charges are plead to. Again, it strongly suggests leniency in light of his cooperation.
informing" doesnt automatically mean giving names, everybody assumes that is what it means tho.
as kurt has said, david was NOT involved in the action. this just proves how fucked up things get, as you have said david was involved in arson.
i need far more than a few court papers suggesting certain things. cooperating, informing, it doesnt tell me enough.
We can't know David's involvement, so yes, you are correct that it's improper to discuss him as having been directly involved in any arsons. We don't know one way or the other.
As far as what we do know, I don't care if he gave names, or just information. Why would that be any better? helping the FBI investigate the environmental movement is not ok, whether you give names or not. Simply because we don't know the extent
of his cooperation, the fact of his having cooperated is not called into question.