DOJ silencing political opponents

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-15 09:07pm

Obscure 19th century law used to lable Greenpeace "criminal conspiracy"

Now I'm no fan of greenpeace... but this is way beyond any reasonable standard. I'm praying Bush gets his ass thrown out of office. If not... well who exactly decides who falls under the second part of the "enimies foreign or domestic"?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 09:12pm

Well then greenpeace shouldn't have committed breaking and entering
on that ship.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-15 09:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:Well then greenpeace shouldn't have committed breaking and entering
on that ship.

Onlt trouble with the DOJ useing that law is that it is not relivant to what the greenies did.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 09:21pm

Stuart Mackey wrote: Onlt trouble with the DOJ useing that law is that it is not relivant to what the greenies did.

Cry me a river, ever hear of RICO? Been misused too much. And besides
all greenpeacers should be run over by supertankers they're protesting.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-11-15 09:31pm

Shep, I can't stand greenpeace either, but I think you are missing the big picture here.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-15 09:31pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Onlt trouble with the DOJ useing that law is that it is not relivant to what the greenies did.
Cry me a river, ever hear of RICO? Been misused too much. And besides
all greenpeacers should be run over by supertankers they're protesting.

I couldnt care less, if they havent been 'sailor mongoring' then this is like arresting someone for posstion of cocaine when they have a bag of iceing suger.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 09:34pm

Ender wrote:Shep, I can't stand greenpeace either, but I think you are missing the big picture here.

If this is a step towards putting ALF and ELF in pound-me-up-the-ass
prison, from the peons to the masterminds behind their websites, I'm all
for it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-11-15 09:39pm

Members of the organization committed an illegal act, therefore the organization itself is a criminal conspiracy. I'll inform Mr. Ashcroft that some members of the NRA are in prison. That should take care of them.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 09:45pm

Durandal wrote:Members of the organization committed an illegal act, therefore the organization itself is a criminal conspiracy. I'll inform Mr. Ashcroft that some members of the NRA are in prison. That should take care of them.

Does the NRA openly endorse and tell it's members to violate firearms laws
the way Greenpeace endorses it's members violating all kinds of laws in
the act of protesting? No. Then sit down.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-15 10:07pm

on a more philosophical vein, I think we're all tired of the bullshit
methods that the radical environmentalists use to "protest"
whatever the fuck it is they're protesting at the moment, from
releasing deadly minks into the wild that devastate natural
ecosystems, to spiking trees with deadly spikes that maim
loggers, to breaking and entering all sorts of places,
and they have the gall to call it 'freedom of speech'.

Sure, freedom of speech is blowing an abortion doctor's head off,
if you want to put it that way, or putting acid into abortion clinics

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-11-15 11:56pm

MKSheppard wrote:on a more philosophical vein, I think we're all tired of the bullshit
methods that the radical environmentalists use to "protest"
whatever the fuck it is they're protesting at the moment, from
releasing deadly minks into the wild that devastate natural
ecosystems, to spiking trees with deadly spikes that maim
loggers, to breaking and entering all sorts of places,
and they have the gall to call it 'freedom of speech'.

Sure, freedom of speech is blowing an abortion doctor's head off,
if you want to put it that way, or putting acid into abortion clinics

This is irrelevant. The use of obscure really old laws is just dirty. it's legal, but it's dirty.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-16 12:07am

You know, I think the bells are tolling for Greenpeace. It looks like the organization is about to collapse.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-16 12:10am

Worlds Spanner wrote: This is irrelevant. The use of obscure really old laws is just dirty. it's legal, but it's dirty.

We couldn't put Al Capone away for all the shit he did, but we got him
on tax evasion charges.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-16 12:12am

This is irrelevant. The use of obscure really old laws is just dirty. it's legal, but it's dirty

Why is it dirty?

Granted, the law wasn't aimed at Greenpeace and it's rarely been used, but the last time I looked trespassing wasn't a protected First Amendment activity.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-16 12:26am

To be perfectly honest, I am not overly fond of greenpeace either. They release the animals n, and bomb the reseach firms I will be working in.. perhaps with me in them...

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-11-16 12:33am

Then get them for fucking breaking and entering or whatever the maritime equivalent is. If they're not sailor mongering then this law just doesn't apply. I don't like their tactics but we can't do anything to them unless they do something unlawful. We just cant pick a random law and charge them with it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-16 05:43am

The court will throw this case out and/or quash this law.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-16 11:18am

I have to say though... in this particular casse, their rights are being violated...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-16 11:34am

Vympel wrote:The court will throw this case out and/or quash this law.

We'll see

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-16 12:14pm

Well lets look at this issue with a bit of noun replacement...

The NAACP is being prosecuted under a 200 year old "criminal conspiracy" law, due to an incident involving a sit-in in Birminham Alabama

Same thing, different people.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-16 02:33pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well lets look at this issue with a bit of noun replacement...

The NAACP is being prosecuted under a 200 year old "criminal conspiracy" law, due to an incident involving a sit-in in Birminham Alabama

Same thing, different people.

Except the NAACP hasn't burned down white schools, vandalized property, maimed people, and generally acted like enviro-hooligans. It's all well and good for you to compare the organizations goals, but one also has to look at the means of that. And when it comes down to it Greenpeace has adopted something of "by any means necessary" tactics.

This might not be the case to do it, but Greenpeace ought to be called to account for it's criminal tactics.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-11-16 04:55pm

The only way they should be able to prosecute the entire organization is if they can find that the people in charge of Greenpeace knew about the occupation of the ship before it occured, or if they planned it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-16 05:26pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well lets look at this issue with a bit of noun replacement...

The NAACP is being prosecuted under a 200 year old "criminal conspiracy" law, due to an incident involving a sit-in in Birminham Alabama

Same thing, different people.
Except the NAACP hasn't burned down white schools, vandalized property, maimed people, and generally acted like enviro-hooligans. It's all well and good for you to compare the organizations goals, but one also has to look at the means of that. And when it comes down to it Greenpeace has adopted something of "by any means necessary" tactics.

This might not be the case to do it, but Greenpeace ought to be called to account for it's criminal tactics.

would agree, they need to answer for those activities... Hell, I dont appreciate them bombing myy future place of employment between my Bachelors and Masters degrees(reseach labs) But this case simply ist the right one to do it...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-11-16 05:30pm

kojikun wrote:The only way they should be able to prosecute the entire organization is if they can find that the people in charge of Greenpeace knew about the occupation of the ship before it occured, or if they planned it.

They aren't charging the Greenpeace people, instead the corparte entity Greenpeace. Most likely it's going to be fined heavily and lose their status as a non-profit charity.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: would agree, they need to answer for those activities... Hell, I dont appreciate them bombing myy future place of employment between my Bachelors and Masters degrees(reseach labs) But this case simply ist the right one to do it...

Depends on if they can win.

But the fact is that Greenpeace is breaking the law and encourages it's members to do so as well. They aren't conducting civil disobedience but rather malicious and dangerous acts. Charge 'em for this anything else they can make stick I say.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-11-16 06:03pm

kojikun wrote:The only way they should be able to prosecute the entire organization is if they can find that the people in charge of Greenpeace knew about the occupation of the ship before it occured, or if they planned it.

Or if the organization is incorperated, meaning Greanpeace is a reconized enity of its own.