MSNBC:U.S. takes hard line on Greenpeace

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Selective prosecution is a constitutional issue- "equal protection under the law" and all that... resurrecting an obscure statute not used since 1890 pretty much fits the definition...
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Selective prosecution is a constitutional issue- "equal protection under the law" and all that... resurrecting an obscure statute not used since 1890 pretty much fits the definition...
I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
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.

I agree with this as a basic premise regarding crime in general. Regardless of the obvious problem Greenpeace seeks to remedy their way is not our way. The way and only effective way is through the ballot box. If Mr. Bush cannot seem to make policy consistent with the human species and indirectly everything else, that should be another reason to elect someone who will.
A protester protesting something I support will irritate me if they do so in a manner that violates my rights or those of others.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.
Might have been, but then again I don't recall many people doing what greenpeace did and not getting prosecuted for it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.

Here ya be... :D

the basics and the courts opinion

edit... the three blind mices are an interesting read... I think.. Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting. (at the bottom of the page (link))
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
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) ?

Ummmm, yeah. Greenpeace is the SS shock-troops of a radical left political wing.
They suck. If they were so smart why not figure a way of protesting without breaking the law?
But that would require imagination, and we cant have any of that.


They arent saving anything, just pissing everybody off. (If you ever went to college in Calif you know what I mean)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Aajax,
Ummmm, yeah. Greenpeace is the SS shock-troops of a radical left political wing.
They suck. If they were so smart why not figure a way of protesting without breaking the law?
But that would require imagination, and we cant have any of that.


They arent saving anything, just pissing everybody off. (If you ever went to college in Calif you know what I mean)
Well, part of what you say has merit, IMO. However, what they say or rather, the message is quite accurate, again IMO! Well most of it, anyhow.
I don't think I understand the 'college in Calif' part, though.
The only way to get the message into law is to get the Congress and or the State via the people to enact the laws that mandate that philosophy. Not too many folks care too much about whales and dolphins and trees and spotted owls when they have their own problems and they don't see a nexus. They need creating the nexus betwix their concerns and mine!
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
Yes, let us silence those lame radicals, they stir up too many headlines to be any good. Let the 3 Mile Islands and Toxic Love Canal incidents go unoticed.


if Corporation A was dumping fun toxics B in your backyard, you would want Greenpeace on your side
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Yes, let us silence those lame radicals, they stir up too many headlines to be any good. Let the 3 Mile Islands and Toxic Love Canal incidents go unoticed.


if Corporation A was dumping fun toxics B in your backyard, you would want Greenpeace on your side

I'd call the police. Greenpeace folks don't have arrest powers (to my knowledge). There is no right to violate another persons rights inherent in the right to assemble and protest. The rule of law is blind and this is good.
If it is illegal then it is illegal. The edification of the population of 'greenpeace issues' through legal means is legal.
 

endo1234

Junior Member
Nov 18, 2003
11
0
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
We've got some f'n criminals in charge of our government. :|


You definitely are right about that. Read "The Big White Lie" by the most successfull DEA agent in history and you will beging to see how far the rabbit hole really goes. Levine also wrote a few other books like "Deep Cover" and has a radio show if you want to find out about the crooks in our government. But I tell you one thing the Bush administration aren't crooks. It takes a crook to know a crook... and I don't know president Bush... wink wink...



P.S. good luck tracing my e-mail account .... and no I'm not a hacker, or a thief, or a violant man.

Double P.S. Stay in school, even the bad guys have to get an education, or atleast the ones that don't want to go to jail. Hell, all the guys in Cali (not California) went to Harvard.
 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
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.
Clearly the world would not be a better place without Greenpeace. Greenpeace brought many crimes against the environment up in the the light. They expose States and corporations that are violating environmental issues to the public. Without them alot less would be done to protect our world. And now tell the me crimes they have done: Heinous crimes like putting banner up in places without permission boohoo big crime.... and whyt is trespassing compared to blowing up a ship (possibly with ppl on board - dunno) as done by the french secret service in the 70's or 80's, dunno if (other) governments committed other crimes against them but I think greenpeace is usually more peaceful than the ones they are fighting against
 

wacki

Senior member
Oct 30, 2001
881
0
76
well said B00ne .... most of the stuff Greenpeace does I'm ok with. But when they start spiking trees on land that has been ok'd for logging for years and cause millions in damage and hurt loggers, then I have problems. But then again those are the lowest common denominator of greenpeace.
 

AAjax

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2001
3,798
0
0
What I meant by the college part was greenpeace has a great history of harassing students. Ever seen the movie PCU? Im not kidding, you allmost had to beat these people off while walking accross the quad. Very confrontational and downright rude. I have no problem with saving the enviroment (darn good idea actualy) but I have a huge problem with greenpeace.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: AAjax
What I meant by the college part was greenpeace has a great history of harassing students. Ever seen the movie PCU? Im not kidding, you allmost had to beat these people off while walking accross the quad. Very confrontational and downright rude. I have no problem with saving the enviroment (darn good idea actualy) but I have a huge problem with greenpeace.
LOL using that stupid movie as an example
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: B00ne
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.
Clearly the world would not be a better place without Greenpeace. Greenpeace brought many crimes against the environment up in the the light. They expose States and corporations that are violating environmental issues to the public. Without them alot less would be done to protect our world. And now tell the me crimes they have done: Heinous crimes like putting banner up in places without permission boohoo big crime.... and whyt is trespassing compared to blowing up a ship (possibly with ppl on board - dunno) as done by the french secret service in the 70's or 80's, dunno if (other) governments committed other crimes against them but I think greenpeace is usually more peaceful than the ones they are fighting against
I don't care how much good Greenpeace has or hasn't done. As soon as its members break the law, they should be punished. PERIOD.

Plus, I'm sure I could list just as many cases in which Greenpeace has harmed people, buldings, machinery, etc. as you could list "good" things it has done.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
The individuals involved have already accepted responsibility for their actions, and were obviously willing to do so from the start. The use of the sailor mongering statute is apparently the only was Ashcroft Inc could attack the Greenpeace organization.

There are other protest organizations that break the law on a regular basis- anti-abortion groups, for example. It seems doubtful that the current DoJ will attack them at all, let alone invoke Rico statutes or similar... The boycott against the construction work in Texas is a good example of where organized crime statutes could be used, but, of course, they won't be...

Pure partisanship is the trademark of the Bush Admin, everything is political. No trick is too low in pursuit of their agenda, no act or omission too shameful for them to employ.

Get used to it, if you intend to vote Republican. May have to get used to it anyway, once the non-verifiable electronic voting system is in place...
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The individuals involved have already accepted responsibility for their actions, and were obviously willing to do so from the start. The use of the sailor mongering statute is apparently the only was Ashcroft Inc could attack the Greenpeace organization.

There are other protest organizations that break the law on a regular basis- anti-abortion groups, for example. It seems doubtful that the current DoJ will attack them at all, let alone invoke Rico statutes or similar... The boycott against the construction work in Texas is a good example of where organized crime statutes could be used, but, of course, they won't be...

Pure partisanship is the trademark of the Bush Admin, everything is political. No trick is too low in pursuit of their agenda, no act or omission too shameful for them to employ.

Get used to it, if you intend to vote Republican. May have to get used to it anyway, once the non-verifiable electronic voting system is in place...
Get used to it if you intend to vote... pure partisanship is the trademark of every administration. Liberals are guilty of it too. Hard to believe, huh? :)
 

wacki

Senior member
Oct 30, 2001
881
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The individuals involved have already accepted responsibility for their actions, and were obviously willing to do so from the start. The use of the sailor mongering statute is apparently the only was Ashcroft Inc could attack the Greenpeace organization.

There are other protest organizations that break the law on a regular basis- anti-abortion groups, for example. It seems doubtful that the current DoJ will attack them at all, let alone invoke Rico statutes or similar... The boycott against the construction work in Texas is a good example of where organized crime statutes could be used, but, of course, they won't be...

Pure partisanship is the trademark of the Bush Admin, everything is political. No trick is too low in pursuit of their agenda, no act or omission too shameful for them to employ.

Get used to it, if you intend to vote Republican. May have to get used to it anyway, once the non-verifiable electronic voting system is in place...
Whats with you hating republicans and texas? Anyone that claims that all republicans are evil might as well say all germans are nazis, all blacks are crackhead thieves, all jews are ....

Seriously, If your going to label everyone belonging to a group you might as well join the KKK or one of those anti-government militia's.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY