News Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

[Adam]

In a move unprecedented in its history, the US government has indicted an entire organization - Greenpeace USA, Inc. (the Greenpeace entity in the US) - for the peaceful protest activities of its supporters.

http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/feature/miami/index.php

 

[selfAdjoint]

THe problem is not just with the Bush administration any more. The entire Congess, both houses, conspired in the stealth passage of the Patriot II tyranny, which Bush signed on the same day as Saddam''s capture was announced. Where were the Democrats? Why was there not even an attempt to filibuster this slime? Where was Teddy? Where Hillary? Sunshine soldiers, fair weather friends.

 

[russ_watters]

This case has little to do with free speach and a lot to do with PIRACY.

One violation of U.S.C. section 2279, which prohibits persons, "not being duly authorized by law for the purpose," from "[going] on board any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination, before her actual arrival, and before she has been completely moored".

Something to remember about civil disobedience is it (by its very name) includes breaking the law. And sometimes, the law you break will be enforced.

 

[Adam]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Yeah. It sucks when laws are broken.

 

[amp]

LOL... yeah and when is it piracy

to protest

... a ship carrying wood illegally exported from the Brazilian Amazon.


The activists made it clear by their appearance, words and actions that they were engaged in a peaceful effort. The fact that the activists had "Greenpeace" on their boats and clothing helped to reassure the crew of the Jade that the people coming on board were peaceful and safety conscious. When they boarded the ship, using a ladder hanging from its side, they brought with them a banner reading, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging".

...snip...

...prosecuted an entire organization for free speech related activities, and they are trying to do it without a jury trial.

(order reversed for emphasis)...instead of intercepting the contraband and prosecuting the smugglers,...

Draconian measures to be sure.

 

[member 5645]

The fact that the activists had "Greenpeace" on their boats and clothing helped to reassure the crew of the Jade that the people coming on board were peaceful and safety conscious. When they boarded the ship, using a ladder hanging from its side, they brought with them a banner reading, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging".

hahaha, am the only one that doesn't fully trust some people boarding my vessel, despite the fact that they are carrying greenpeace signs?? Hell, that might make me even more concerned about how crazy they might get!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by phatmonky
hahaha, am the only one that doesn't fully trust some people boarding my vessel, despite the fact that they are carrying greenpeace signs?? Hell, that might make me even more concerned about how crazy they might get!

Fire hoses. Its all about the fire hoses.

 

[kat]

If they were pro-lifers "peacefully" trespassing to put up a sign protesting abortion...would you feel the same way? Or is the right to break the law by trespassing and/or piracy to protest only acceptable when we support their stance?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
If they were pro-lifers "peacefully" trespassing to put up a sign protesting abortion...would you feel the same way? Or is the right to break the law by trespassing and/or piracy to protest only acceptable when we support their stance?

Yep, I would feel exactly the same way...arrest the trespassers, but leave the organization alone, so long as things stay at the level of peaceful protest.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, I would feel exactly the same way...arrest the trespassers, but leave the organization alone, so long as things stay at the level of peaceful protest.

Anyone want to find me a link on all this besides the greenpeace site itself? If greenpeace funded these people or helped them do this in anyway, then these people were acting as agents of greenpeace. Just as you do not sue a worker, you sue the company.






Also, I love this...


They say "prosecuted an entire organization for free speech related activities, and they are trying to do it without a jury trial."

But the last line says "A trial is scheduled to take place this fall.
"

 

[member 5645]

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-08-05/s_7210.asp
"Arrest warrant issued for Greenpeace in Miami ship boarding"
HAha, just making it worse for themselves.

Prosecutors charged that the group boarded the Singapore-registered ship last year under the mistaken belief that it was carrying contraband mahogany from Brazil.

WHAT?! Oh man, Ican't wait to find more information on this (none readily available on a google search)! If there was no mahogany, the bickering about the 'smugglers' is a moot point!

The arrest warrant was issued in August, the orginal boarding happened in 2002. Adam, I think you are getting lazy on your damnation of the Bush admin. :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Anyone want to find me a link on all this besides the greenpeace site itself? If greenpeace funded these people or helped them do this in anyway, then these people were acting as agents of greenpeace. Just as you do not sue a worker, you sue the company.

By this logic, you can shut down all right-to-life organizations, since they usually bus in the protesters who get arrested. You can shut down the Catholic Church for pedophilia, and shut down either of the political parties in this country.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
By this logic, you can shut down all right-to-life organizations, since they usually bus in the protesters who get arrested. You can shut down the Catholic Church for pedophilia, and shut down either of the political parties in this country.

Bussing someone for a peaceful protest is a lot different than funding someone if you KNOW they are planning on breakign the law (ie, illegally boarding a ship)

The Catholic church should be held accountable for the priest it knew were pedophiles, but did not make others aware of.

Again, the accountability goes as far up the chain as the information and support for the illegal act goes.

If greenpeace knew what these people were intending to do,and gave any more than vocal support for it, there is a case.

By the way, read the article - the illegal boarders have all agreed to plea deals. I believe there is more to this story.

 

[Adam]

phatmonky

Bussing someone for a peaceful protest is a lot different than funding someone if you KNOW they are planning on breakign the law (ie, illegally boarding a ship)

How do you know they organisation as a whole was aware of the intentions of those few people? That's one heck of an assumption.

The Catholic church should be held accountable for the priest it knew were pedophiles, but did not make others aware of.

Agree, 100%.

If greenpeace knew what these people were intending to do,and gave any more than vocal support for it, there is a case.

If the organisation organised the boarding, they should be hit for it. If they didn't, then Bush should leave them alone.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Adam


If the organisation organised the boarding, they should be hit for it. If they didn't, then Bush should leave them alone.

Exactly why there is a trial.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Bussing someone for a peaceful protest is a lot different than funding someone if you KNOW they are planning on breakign the law (ie, illegally boarding a ship)

In the case of the anti-abortion folks, they know where tehy can legally go, and if they break the law it was certainly planned ahead of time.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
In the case of the anti-abortion folks, they know where tehy can legally go, and if they break the law it was certainly planned ahead of time.

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.

 

[kat]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031211-105742-9875r.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/search?m=all;o=time;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/joelmowbray/jm20031120.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.

 

[Zero]

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?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?

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.

 

[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]

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?

 

[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]

"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.

 

[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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Zero]

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*

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Always happy to be of help. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance.

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

 

[amp]

So what Russ said means

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]

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?

 

[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

 

[kat]

There seems to be quite a few problems with the way the Green Peace and some of the media is portraying this.

Many media reports, Green Peace and apparently a "law specialist" named "Turley" (where do I know this name from?) are saying that the charge placed "under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against "sailor-mongering". This is EXTREMELY misleading. I believe what they are referring to is this : Section 2194. Shanghaiing sailors

Whoever, with intent that any person shall perform service orlabor of any kind on board of any vessel engaged in trade and
commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or on
board of any vessel of the United States engaged in navigating the
high seas or any navigable water of the United States, procures or
induces, or attempts to procure or induce, another, by force or
threats or by representations which he knows or believes to be
untrue, or while the person so procured or induced is intoxicated
or under the influence of any drug, to go on board of any such
vessel, or to sign or in anywise enter into any agreement to go on
board of any such vessel to perform service or labor thereon; or
Whoever knowingly detains on board of any such vessel any person
so procured or induced to go on board, or to enter into any
agreement to go on board, by any means herein defined -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.

I don't even believe this could be called "obscure" as it was amended and updated as recently as 1996.

But when you read the actual charges here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/Greenpeace.html
You find that the actual charge is:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2279.

which can be found here: Section 2279. Boarding vessels before arrival

Whoever, not being in the United States service, and not being
duly authorized by law for the purpose, goes on board any vessel
about to arrive at the place of her destination, before her actual
arrival, and before she has been completely moored, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The master of such vessel may take any such person into custody,
and deliver him up forthwith to any law enforcement officer, to be
by him taken before any committing magistrate, to be dealt with
according to law.

Again, I don't see how this can be called "obscure" when it's been amended and updated recently.

I really hate this type of B.S., I have a lot more faith in causes when they aren't busy B.S.in the public.

Of course this gets even deeper when you see where it may all lead.
At the very least it creates an international issue, if we allow citizens to break maritime law...and then find that indeed the brazilians were breaking the law...it gives the U.S. a weaker stance. Also, at this point ships have two options to protect themselves from illegal bording of their ship. They can physically threaten and fight off those boarders or present them to an authority for prosecution. Which is exactly what the shipmates did.

The other issue is that greenpeace did not just "drop of volunteers after bussing them in" those present were also employees on green peace owned ships. The green peace ships also "attempted to evade law enforcement ships". That creates a bit of an issue as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in October.

Of course if the U.S. wins the case against Green Peace then there is an even larger issue that will effect green peace. It has to do with the recent issues of missuse of funds that threaten it's tax exempt status in the U.S.. specificly diverting funds given for educational purpose to use in situations like this...money allocated for illegal actions are not tax exempt.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kat
I really hate this type of B.S., I have a lot more faith in causes when they aren't busy B.S.in the public.

I could smell it, but quite frankly, I'm too lazy to research it to find out for sure - good post. Lotta effort.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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!)

Spent time thinking bout this one, cause I recall that their activity bothered me, lots, and I remember why now, it is how they got my mailing address, I had given it to them when I had donated money to them, $20 or $25 dollars, and what is written above is what followd their reciept of my money/DONATION (to them)...I recall it now as I recall that that was one of the things that peeved me so much was that the number/volume of petitions for money, to me, from them, approached easily a mailing cost near (or above/over) what I had given them as Donation, (wasn't difficult to calculate) so they were effectively using my donated money to harrass me for more money, peeved my pretty good, especially after I had specfically requested that they cease and desist completely. (pointed out that value loss thing too)

P.S. Good references Kat

 

[GreyBeaver]

Got this letter this afternoon, though I'd share

Thanks to you, it's working!

I just want to let everyone in the United States know that in spite
of the heightened Orange Alert status across our great land, we have
so far thwarted Al Qaeda terrorism, and we have our lawmakers, our
police forces, and our Homeland Security Agency to thank for it.
Of course, there have been a number of assaults and murders in our
cities. This is not terrorism; this is drug business as usual.
Please do not be alarmed, as crime is expected to rise due to
increasing poverty and suspension of certain government services
which helped the poor. We hope the poor people take advantage of
remaining programs to give them jobs, namely their local Armed
Forces Recruiting Centers. While we use depleted uranium weapons in
order to keep Saddam's and Al Qaeda's nuclear threat away from us, we
still have thousands of sick troops needing to be relpaced by fresh
Americans. Yes, America, we are creating jobs!

I am also proud to report that absolutely no nuclear terrorism has
been launched against the United States by Saddam Hussein's agents.
I hope everyone is eternally thankful that we were fortunate enough
to stop his diabolical plans before he could plan them.

I am aware that there have been some inconveniences. These have been
for the public good. There was a name on a British passenger list
which could have been an Al Qaeda sympathizer, and it turned out to
be a little boy, but for your protection, we canceled two flights.
It is also a small but necessary inconvenience that we have had to
keep some of the subversive Greens Party/Ralph Nader supporters from
boarding airplanes. This is because our protective agencies know
that the Greens members are opposed to the status quo, and as our
President has stated: "If you're not for us, you're a terrorist."
Or maybe it was something else. At least, that's the way it works
at Homeland Security.

These heightened security measures, combined with self-protection
measures such as plastic bags over our heads taped shut with duct
tape, are designed to protect us from the known threats which we
cannot divulge at this time due to national security reasons.
However, they are real threats, as witnessed by the leaked
information of a piece of paper with Arabic letters on it found in an
Arizona desert, proving that Al Qaeda troops are in our country and
on the march. We do not want to alarm you with such information;
whoever leaked it will be shot. (Or sent to Guantanamo for
questioning.)

We want you to keep on traveling, especially by air, keep on watching
CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and other government news sources, and keep on
working more and more hours for less and less money so you can buy
new SUV's and more gasoline to help keep our country great, and our
private country clubs expanding. If you know of anyone who is not
supportive of all of this administration's efforts to secure the
country and the world at all costs, please report him/her to Homeland
Security immediately.

God Bless America!

---A Loyal American