News Bush clamps down even further on freedom of speech

[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