# News Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

1. Jan 5, 2004

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Jan 5, 2004

Staff Emeritus
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.

3. Jan 5, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

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

4. Jan 5, 2004

Yeah. It sucks when laws are broken.

5. Jan 5, 2004

### amp

LOL... yeah and when is it piracy

to protest
Draconian measures to be sure.

6. Jan 5, 2004

### 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!

7. Jan 5, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Fire hoses. Its all about the fire hoses.

8. Jan 5, 2004

### 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?

9. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

10. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

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.
"

11. Jan 6, 2004

### phatmonky

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

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. :)

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
12. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

13. Jan 6, 2004

### 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)

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.

14. Jan 6, 2004

phatmonky

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.

Agree, 100%.

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

15. Jan 6, 2004

### phatmonky

Re: phatmonky

Exactly why there is a trial.

16. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

17. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

18. Jan 6, 2004

### kat

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031211-105742-9875r.htm

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

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.

19. Jan 6, 2004

### Zero

Well, if Greenpeace is complicit in a bombing, you let me know, ok?

20. Jan 6, 2004

### phatmonky

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

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

21. Jan 6, 2004

### 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.

22. Jan 6, 2004

### Zero

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

23. Jan 6, 2004

### 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!!)

24. Jan 6, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

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.

25. Jan 7, 2004

### 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...