Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

kat

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

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





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.

Zero

Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?[:D]

phatmonky

I guess other illegal actions don't count???


I didn't realize you had brought the subject up earlier in the thread.

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.

Zero

So, you are saying that the government's claim is that Greenpeace is a naval piracy group with ties to prostitution?

Mr. Robin Parsons

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!!)

russ_watters

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. 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.

Mr. Robin Parsons

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...

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.

Zero

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.

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.

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.

Zero

Thanks for elaborating...*cough*jerk*cough*



[g)]

russ_watters

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

Zero

If you can explain how anything Bush does would be considered 'conservative', I'd appreciate it...but not in this thread, of course![6)]

amp

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.

Zero

No, that isn't what Russ said...although it does seem to be government policy.

Let's not get sidetracked, ok?

Njorl

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