Selective Presecution and Freedom of Speech...

Originally posted by acludem
And by the way, did any of you read the part about the suspected ILLEGALLY exported mahogany? Were those who were smuggling this in charged? Or should they escape prosecution because all they did was cut down a few endagered trees? The broke the law also, and I don't hear any of you calling for their heads.

acludem

Should we call for their heads based on suspicion alone? Was it proven that they had an illegal shipment?

What WAS proven was that Greenpeace broke the law, and now they will be punished for doing so.
 
It all comes down to the ends justifying the means for certain types of activists.

I am quite certain that Bully would have his knickers in a twist over Pro-life activists picketing in front of an abortion clinic (even though they have a perfectly legal right to do so).
 
Once upon a time such an act would probably have been called piracy. No one would have cared what their intentions were, they were illegally trying to board a ship not their own on the high sea. Pirates were shot or hung when caught. Would you rather they be prosecuted under those laws? I'm sure they are still on the books somewhere.

Greenpeace is being charged with trespassing, they are being charged under a law that was originally designed to stop prostitutes from advertising themselves.

The fact is if they are innocent of these crimes then they will be exonerated. When that happens post that article, and I will complain about wasted tax dollars.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
I read the article and don't feel the need to do so again. THEY BROKE THE LAW. Who cares if it was from 1872? And you didn't answer my questions!

"Should I scour my local law books for the least frequently applied laws, and then selectively break them? Would I be in the right if they haven't applied them lately? How long does it have to be in between charges before a law is no longer a law?"

So, the folks who participated in the civil-rights actions in the sixties, acting in violation of the law shouldn't have done so? Peaceful protest has done much to further the human condition, and will continue to do so only as long as it is protected. You've bought the administration's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Dissent must be supressed, it is unpatriotic, it is unchristian...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Peaceful protest has done much to further the human condition, .

how is illegally trespassing, boarding of a PRIVITE ship and planning to deface part of it......Peaceful????? the Issue is greenpeace and Illegal boarding of a ship...not the 60s...
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
So, the folks who participated in the civil-rights actions in the sixties, acting in violation of the law shouldn't have done so? Peaceful protest has done much to further the human condition, and will continue to do so only as long as it is protected. You've bought the administration's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Dissent must be supressed, it is unpatriotic, it is unchristian...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

I have no problem whatsoever with those who protest. When they break the law they crossed the line. So no, those protesting in the sixties shouldn't have done so.

Peaceful protesting is protected. Breaking the law, regardless of what you're doing, is always illegal!

This is not propoganda. It's simply right and wrong. Why can't you understand that?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
So, the folks who participated in the civil-rights actions in the sixties, acting in violation of the law shouldn't have done so? Peaceful protest has done much to further the human condition, and will continue to do so only as long as it is protected. You've bought the administration's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Dissent must be supressed, it is unpatriotic, it is unchristian...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

It's the trespassing that's the problem. They have rights to free speech, not to trespass. Do you really not see the difference? I've never met anyone as brazenly intellectually dishonest as you.
 
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Does Greenpeace need to break the law to project their message?

And is breaking a law a right?
why not, peta does, or is borderline anyway.
 
Yeah, I know what you mean Johnney. It seems that law breaking is part of the protesting tactic, the act of breaking the law draws more attention to their atcivities. I guess there message alone doesn't warrant much attention.
 
Originally posted by MtnBiker
Yeah, I know what you mean Johnney. It seems that law breaking is part of the protesting tactic, the act of breaking the law draws more attention to their atcivities. I guess there message alone doesn't warrant much attention.

Too true.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
It's the trespassing that's the problem. They have rights to free speech, not to trespass. Do you really not see the difference? I've never met anyone as brazenly intellectually dishonest as you.

Hmmm...And the so called "right-to-lifers" aren't trespassing when they block the entrance to an abortion clinic? Or are they exercising their right to free speech?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Peaceful protest has done much to further the human condition, and will continue to do so only as long as it is protected. You've bought the administration's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Dissent must be supressed, it is unpatriotic, it is unchristian...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah.

Protest alone has done nothing to further this country or helped the human condition in any way. Protest personfies the major problem w/ liberals. It is a lot of talking about a problem and little or no actual problem solving. Liberals see a problem and say "We have to make sure everyone knows about this travesty." Conservatives are more apt to say, "Let's cut the crap and solve this."

And i hate to keep coming back to this with you Bully, but i have to ask again; How is this administration keeping you form dissenting, calling you unpatriotic(I haven't heard the admin call anything unpatriotic yet) or professing your faith?
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Hmmm...And the so called "right-to-lifers" aren't trespassing when they block the entrance to an abortion clinic? Or are they exercising their right to free speech?

What one party does shouldn't have an effect on the other. Don't try to make excuses for Greenpeace. They broke the law and they are being punished.
 
I'm going to say this ONE more time. The two members of Greenpeace involved in this protest were charged and paid their debt to society. Now OVER A YEAR LATER John Ashcroft is coming back and charging Greenpeace (the entire organization, not just the two protesters) with a completely separate crime under a law designed to prevent prostitutes from advertising for saloons by boarding incoming ships and making certain "offers". Many of you don't seem to get that. Greenpeace IS NOT being charged with trespassing.

The anti-choice activists at abortion clinics have been properly restrained from harassing women and blocking clinic access (the great majority of women accessing these clinics are there for purposes other than abortion). They can stand and picket all they want. They can shout epithets, so long as they don't threaten anyone. As an ACLU member I would stand up for their right to do so.

This new prosection of Greenpeace is ONLY for political reasons, it has no other purpose than to harass Greenpeace and attempt to curtail their protests, that most of the time do not involve boarding ships.

acludem
 
quote.....
This new prosection of Greenpeace is ONLY for political reasons, it has no other purpose than to harass Greenpeace and attempt to curtail their protests, that most of the time do not involve boarding ships.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ that most of the time do not involve boarding ships....but this one time in question they did and are going to have to pay the price.... you dont suppose that the org known as Greenpeace overstepped there bounds on this one...I am sure that they have boarded other ships in the past with little fanfare...not anymore!!!!! I could be wrong but isnt a ship at sea concidered a soveng[sp] country????I am not with you on this one acludem
 
I'm going to say this ONE more time. The two members of Greenpeace involved in this protest were charged and paid their debt to society. Now OVER A YEAR LATER John Ashcroft is coming back and charging Greenpeace (the entire organization, not just the two protesters) with a completely separate crime under a law designed to prevent prostitutes from advertising for saloons by boarding incoming ships and making certain "offers". Many of you don't seem to get that. Greenpeace IS NOT being charged with trespassing.

And I'll say this one more time, THEY BROKE THE LAW and now they will be punished.

What the law specifically prohibits is unofficial boarding of a ship about to arrive at its destination - which is technically what Greenpeace did.

The anti-choice activists at abortion clinics have been properly restrained from harassing women and blocking clinic access (the great majority of women accessing these clinics are there for purposes other than abortion). They can stand and picket all they want. They can shout epithets, so long as they don't threaten anyone. As an ACLU member I would stand up for their right to do so.

That's wonderful, but has absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace.

This new prosection of Greenpeace is ONLY for political reasons, it has no other purpose than to harass Greenpeace and attempt to curtail their protests, that most of the time do not involve boarding ships.

They broke the law. There are no if's, and's or but's about that!

You still haven't answered my questions:

"Should I scour my local law books for the least frequently applied laws, and then selectively break them? Would I be in the right if they haven't applied them lately? How long does it have to be in between charges before a law is no longer a law?"
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
What one party does shouldn't have an effect on the other. Don't try to make excuses for Greenpeace. They broke the law and they are being punished.

Uh huh...A law that has not been enforced in a century. If they wanted this to be something other than a farce, I should think they could have found something a bit more contemporary. But , you see, it's not about the law, it's about stiffling dissent. I am truly sorry that you either can't or don't want to, see the truth of this.

And, your absolutist interpretation of law is the greatest flaw in any legal system. Laws which are absolute are inhuman and inhumane.
 
There are all sorts of ancient laws on the books that aren't enforced. There have been entire books written about weird laws that are still on the books. The abortion clinic part was in response to a comparison made in earlier post. Greenpeace may have technically violated the law, but to wait 15 months after the incident and then charge them is clearly politically motivated. You've never offered any argument to the contrary. Not every law that has been passed in the entire 215 year history of this country should be enforced equally. When you drag up an old law that hasn't seen the light of day in 120 years for the sole purpose of charging someone you don't like with a crime that's political prosection, regardless of innocence or guilt. The purpose of this prosecution isn't to enforce the law but to intimidate Greenpeace. That's what is going on here.

acludem
 
Uh huh...A law that has not been enforced in a century.

Ok, I'll ask YOU these questions too then:

"Should I scour my local law books for the least frequently applied laws, and then selectively break them? Would I be in the right if they haven't applied them lately? How long does it have to be in between charges before a law is no longer a law?"

If they wanted this to be something other than a farce, I should think they could have found something a bit more contemporary. But , you see, it's not about the law, it's about stiffling dissent. I am truly sorry that you either can't or don't want to, see the truth of this.

And none of that changes the fact that they broke the law.

And, your absolutist interpretation of law is the greatest flaw in any legal system. Laws which are absolute are inhuman and inhumane.

Then do your best to fight against laws you don't believe in. Until then, the law is on the books, and Greenpeace broke it.

Let's not forget common sense here either, why the hell should these dipshits have ANY right to row a boat up to a ship and board it without permission? These guys were rightfully charged and I'm happy that they are taking action on the organization that promotes such ridiculous actions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top