## Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5742-9875r.htm

 It's been more than 100 years since the federal government prosecuted anyone for "sailor mongering," the criminal act of luring sailors with promises of prostitution and liquor off of ships and into port. But that's the charge facing environmental group Greenpeace USA after members boarded a container ship near the Port of Miami without permission to protest illegal shipments of mahogany from the Amazon. The two members of Greenpeace who actually boarded the vessel last year plus four others pleaded no contest and spent a weekend in jail, but the U.S. Attorney's Office obtained a grand jury indictment against the...
and more links found here:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/se...e;s=greenpeace You'll find each search subject has both a link to the forum thread and the source of the article.

This is interesting:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031120.shtml

 After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.

an aside: Didn't the Catholic Church pay out millions to the victims in the pedophile cases?

Phatmonkey- I brought up the Anti-abortionist because often people feel a little bit differently in cases where the people breaking the law are not fighting for something they see as just, but I'm sure you're aware of that already.

 Originally posted by phatmonky If a bomber bombs an abortion clinic, or endangers workers/patients, the law will continue to those who supported said actions in anyway but vocally. Money, information, etc. Is all conspiracy to commit a crime, and worse. I'm not sure what the anti abortion crowd has to do with this conversation though, but atleast you understand the way the law works.
Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?[:D]

 Originally posted by Zero Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?[:D]
I guess other illegal actions don't count???

 Originally posted by kat Phatmonkey- I brought up the Anti-abortionist because often people feel a little bit differently in cases where the people breaking the law are not fighting for something they see as just, but I'm sure you're aware of that already.
I didn't realize you had brought the subject up earlier in the thread.
 Greenpeace is being sued under some formerly-hidden 1872 law dealing with "sailor-mongering", whereby pirates lure crews of their ships to brothels. This is a case of the Attorney General, ashcroft, spending much time to find some law, somewhere, to selectively prosecute a group that he and the adminstration he serves does not like.

 Originally posted by Dissident Dan Greenpeace is being sued under some formerly-hidden 1872 law dealing with "sailor-mongering", whereby pirates lure crews of their ships to brothels. This is a case of the Attorney General, ashcroft, spending much time to find some law, somewhere, to selectively prosecute a group that he and the adminstration he serves does not like.
So, you are saying that the government's claim is that Greenpeace is a naval piracy group with ties to prostitution?
 So other then the articles mention of "The Bush Administration", normal policies in governments are usually such that the authority to enact such a prosecution is not in the 'Chief Executives' hands, but that of the Attorney General, so it tell/s/mells of "Politics" right in it's reporting... Long time ago, I was sent mail, from Greenpeace, asking for donations, I wrote them back, and asked them to stop mailing me, asking me for money, That really brought them into the mailbox...apparently I needed to send them a "registered letter" () to prove that I had requested, of them, to 'cease and desist'.....'guerilla' tactics against people they want money from....something about the words "No respect" comes to mind... (as did someone {Who? was in Charge of greenpeace? back then?...rhetorical Q!) else 'come to mind' (at that time) but that's 'nother story alllllllll-together!!)

Mentor
 "sailor mongering,"
That article puts those words in quotes but then quotes the law and that term isn't in it. So where does that term come from? It just looks to me like that law is the maritime equivalent of breaking and entering or tresspassing.
 So, you are saying that the government's claim is that Greenpeace is a naval piracy group with ties to prostitution?
No, the article says that that was the intent of the law and the law is being misused (or is obsolete). I'm not so sure.
 Well, boarding a ship at Sea is something that needs legal protections, going in under a Sign of Greenpeace would only make someone like myself suspicious of the intents, and true nature, of the persons attempting boarding...would want to know that there are legal protections in place, even if it is an old, "out of date" law (revision would assist) as it is better to have something to protect you, rather then nothing.... Greenpeace protesters have been in trouble before, no doubt it will occur again, Civil disobedience is NOT a legal right, simply a practice that garners attention...that is usually why it is used, to draw attention to a cause...

Mentor
 Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons Greenpeace protesters have been in trouble before, no doubt it will occur again, Civil disobedience is NOT a legal right, simply a practice that garners attention...that is usually why it is used, to draw attention to a cause...
To reiterate, for something to be "civil disobedience" it must be illegal. Greenpeace admits they are breaking the law because they know that that will give them publicity. And for a group that WANTS to be out on the fringe, bad publicity is good publicity.

Also, Greenpeace envokes "civil disobedience" because they want to put themselves in the same category as MLK. Disgraceful. MLK and his followers broke unjust laws. Greenpeace breaks JUST laws to protest unrelated activities by others that are not illegal but they deem unjust. Big, big, big difference.

 Originally posted by russ_watters To reiterate, for something to be "civil disobedience" it must be illegal. Greenpeace admits they are breaking the law because they know that that will give them publicity. And for a group that WANTS to be out on the fringe, bad publicity is good publicity. Also, Greenpeace envokes "civil disobedience" because they want to put themselves in the same category as MLK. Disgraceful. MLK and his followers broke unjust laws. Greenpeace breaks JUST laws to protest unrelated activities by others that are not illegal but they deem unjust. Big, big, big difference.
The "big" difference is in your head Russ...which is why we don't vote on free speech, you dig? They believe it enough to get arrested, so for them it is the same as what MLK did...we don't get to decide for other people what causes they support, or what sort of speech they choose to express themselves with. You can arrest people who break a law, but it is another thing to try to shut down entire organizations.

Mentor
 Originally posted by Zero The "big" difference is in your head Russ...which is why we don't vote on free speech, you dig?
No, sorry, you're just missing the difference. Never fear, I will elaborate.

If a law says you can't sit at the back of the bus and you sit at the back of the bus, you are breaking the law. You go to court and instead of convicting you and throwing you in jail, the court overturns the law as being unjust. Thats the type of thing MLK and his followers did.
If the law says no tresspassing and you tresspass to hang a sign saying 'abortion is murder,' it isn't civil disobedience because the law you broke has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the cause you are fighting. When you go to court, is the judge going to overturn Rowe v Wayde for the sake of your tresspassing case? No, the subject of RvW and the morality of abortion won't even come up because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the law that was broken.

And how you connect that to free speach, I can't fathom. Are you saying you can break some laws for the purpose of free speach? You'd have a tough time convincing a judge of that - but good luck trying that on your next speeding ticket. "Your honor, I was traveling at 95mph as an expression of my individuality...."

So: "civil disobedience" is breaking an unjust law. If the law that you break isn't the law that is unjust (or isn't at least related to it), then its not civil disobedience.

 Originally posted by russ_watters No, sorry, you're just missing the difference. Never fear, I will elaborate. If a law says you can't sit at the back of the bus and you sit at the back of the bus, you are breaking the law. You go to court and instead of convicting you and throwing you in jail, the court overturns the law as being unjust. Thats the type of thing MLK and his followers did. If the law says no tresspassing and you tresspass to hang a sign saying 'abortion is murder,' it isn't civil disobedience because the law you broke has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the cause you are fighting. When you go to court, is the judge going to overturn Rowe v Wayde for the sake of your tresspassing case? No, the subject of RvW and the morality of abortion won't even come up because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the law that was broken. So: "civil disobedience" is breaking an unjust law. If the law that you break isn't the law that is unjust (or isn't at least related to it), then its not civil disobedience.
Thanks for elaborating...*cough*jerk*cough*

[g)]
 Mentor Always happy to be of help. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance. [:D]

 Originally posted by russ_watters Always happy to be of help. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance. [:D]
If you can explain how anything Bush does would be considered 'conservative', I'd appreciate it...but not in this thread, of course![6)]
 that its OK to break the law as long as you are cheif exec and you build a false, misleading, erroneous, deceitful web of lies to make your contradictions appear reasoned, its OK. Yeah, thought so.

 Originally posted by amp that its OK to braek the law as long as you are cheif exec and you build a false, misleading, erroneous, deceitful web of lies to make your contradictions appear reasoned, its OK. Yeah, thought so.
No, that isn't what Russ said...although it does seem to be government policy.

Let's not get sidetracked, ok?
 Recognitions: Science Advisor International laws are very touchy. Greenpeace is foolish to use them as venues for protest. Wait until the ship is docked, and protest the unloading. Shipmasters have a lot of power. They have this because, at sea, they have fewer legal protections. This stunt was very dangerous. Boarding a ship illegally could easily get you shot. It was also counterproductive. Because American citizens boarded a Brazilian ship, the US government is put in a position of weakness vis a vis the Brazilians. Had the Brazilians been caught with the lumber, with no other complicating circumstances, the Brazilians would have the weaker hand. An effective protest would be to establish a good paper trail to a retailer of either furniture or lumber. Picket it, and inform its consumers. Cost somebody somewhere money in a way that they connect to smuggling. Give someone with a financial stake incentive to stop smuggling. Njorl