MSNBC:U.S. takes hard line on Greenpeace

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Link

Nov. 14 ? When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: ?President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.? Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a day?s work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft?s attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.
Ahhh....seems quite normal to charge a whole organization with a obscure 1872 law...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,527
4,946
126
It's not Greenpeace that the Bush admin has a problem with, it's Peace in general. ;)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Damn . . . beat me to it. Minister Ashcroft must be stopped. I'm not sure it's fair to blame Bush for all of Ashcroft's BS but I don't see rectifying Ashcroft's penchant for probing America's rectum without removing George, the Lesser.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
You people are pathetic... Greenpeace illegally boarded a ship. The government has every right to prosecute them to the full extent of the law, whether it was created in 1872 or 2003. Don't like it? Go change the "obscure" law.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You people are pathetic... Greenpeace illegally boarded a ship. The government has every right to prosecute them to the full extent of the law, whether it was created in 1872 or 2003. Don't like it? Go change the "obscure" law.
Sure, let's forget any notion of the punishment fitting the crime. It's all zero tolerance and clamp down on anyone who might dissent, isn't that right Grand Master Opie?
 

JackStorm

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2003
1,216
0
0
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.

But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.

But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
When a group authorizes its members to commit illegal acts, I have no problem with using whatever law is on the books to take that group down.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Selective prosecution is also illegal. Considering that this law has only been used twice, the last time being in 1890, I'd say it fits the definition. Lots of laws from the past are still on the books, concerning all kinds of conduct deemed perfectly acceptable by today's standards. It would scare most folks half to death to find out what's illegal, if all of these ancient unrevised statutes were actually enforced.

Pure harassment- get used to it, if you're planning on votig for Bush in 2004...
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Selective prosecution is also illegal. Considering that this law has only been used twice, the last time being in 1890, I'd say it fits the definition. Lots of laws from the past are still on the books, concerning all kinds of conduct deemed perfectly acceptable by today's standards. It would scare most folks half to death to find out what's illegal, if all of these ancient unrevised statutes were actually enforced.

Pure harassment- get used to it, if you're planning on votig for Bush in 2004...
No... Greenpeace is the definitition of harassment.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
I thought ashcroft was too busy herding people into free speech zones? I guess he took a break.
 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113

Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...
Hundreds, no ka-zillons of crimes were committed by Greenpeace. These murderers have to be stopped before they destroy the world! That banner would have brought civilization as we know to an end. What horrible people these people are. How dare they try and protect the environment and promote world peace!!!!



Are you GWB's long lost bastard child that is trying to get daddy's favor by bashing a group that promotes peace and protects the environment (obviously conflicting with bush's agenda) ?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: daniel1113

Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...
Hundreds, no ka-zillons of crimes were committed by Greenpeace. These murderers have to be stopped before they destroy the world! That banner would have brought civilization as we know to an end. What horrible people these people are. How dare they try and protect the environment and promote world peace!!!!



Are you GWB's long lost bastard child that is trying to get daddy's favor by bashing a group that promotes peace and protects the environment (obviously conflicting with bush's agenda) ?
It's funny that Greenpeace is allowed to commit crimes as long as it is for a "good cause". However, the government isn't allowed to use perfectly legal means to prosecute those that break the law without harsh criticism.

There is a difference between promoting the environment/world peace and commiting crimes, VioletAura.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.

But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...

Too bad Asscroft doesn't feel the same way about securities laws, white collar crime, and government contractor crime. He could keep himself busy for a long time just in those areas with a lot more effect on bettering Americans lives. Of course who cares that Ken Lay and his buddies ripped off investors for 10s of billions of dollars. "Kenny boy" donated several millions to Bush. That has to count for something. I think Greenpeace is going wrong by not donating to the Rebublican Party. If they just did that small thing then they too could break the law with impunity. Asscroft looks the other way for those folks.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.

But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...

Too bad Asscroft doesn't feel the same way about securities laws, white collar crime, and government contractor crime. He could keep himself busy for a long time just in those areas with a lot more effect on bettering Americans lives. Of course who cares that Ken Lay and his buddies ripped off investors for 10s of billions of dollars. "Kenny boy" donated several millions to Bush. That has to count for something. I think Greenpeace is going wrong by not donating to the Rebublican Party. If they just did that small thing then they too could break the law with impunity. Asscroft looks the other way for those folks.
Yawn. Greenpeace already sends all of their donations to the liberals.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113

Yawn. Greenpeace already sends all of their donations to the liberals.
Yeah...those damn liberals are eeeeeeevvvvil. We need the conservatives to come and save us from the liberal scourge of the land!

:p

 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: daniel1113

Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.

Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...
Hundreds, no ka-zillons of crimes were committed by Greenpeace. These murderers have to be stopped before they destroy the world! That banner would have brought civilization as we know to an end. What horrible people these people are. How dare they try and protect the environment and promote world peace!!!!



Are you GWB's long lost bastard child that is trying to get daddy's favor by bashing a group that promotes peace and protects the environment (obviously conflicting with bush's agenda) ?
It's funny that Greenpeace is allowed to commit crimes as long as it is for a "good cause". However, the government isn't allowed to use perfectly legal means to prosecute those that break the law without harsh criticism.

There is a difference between promoting the environment/world peace and commiting crimes, VioletAura.
Oh no, some one is harshly criticising the goverment they should be thrown in jail along with the rest of the Terrorist.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Originally posted by: Lucky
When a group authorizes its members to commit illegal acts, I have no problem with using whatever law is on the books to take that group down.
Kind of like the republican party? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS