I always figured the phrase was figurative. Who knew it was code for "booze carrying whores"?

(Reply) (Thread)

I think that Greenpeace is mostly composed of true nutbars, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

(Reply) (Thread)

My last job, believe it or not, was working for Greenpeace International. Very few are crazy, but most hold fierce, sometimes irrational, beliefs in a cause. On average they are technophobic (this is particularly difficult for me to tolerate). They are also very well-meaning. They also know this shit isn't very effective on its face, but the purpose is to raise popular awareness.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Wow, from Greenpeace to Imperialist! Cool.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Sir, those would be *organic* nutbars!

MWD
GP non-technophobe

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

We have too many laws. How long can we go on making hundreds of new laws every year, but never removing any of them?

Laws are designed for the ease of prosecution. It is basically up to prosecutors to decide what is and isnt illegal (what laws in their toolkit to apply to a situation).

This means that pretty much anyone can be arrested and prosecuted based on the whims (or political agendas) of the prosecutors.

If the judicial system is a seperate branch of government, away from the executive branch, why is the country's prosecutorial system under the executive branch?

Next thing you know you'll be lynched just for being a liberal.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, the idea was that the country as a whole could manage to elect an executive who would prosecute fairly... OK, so much for that one, but at least it's still up to the judicial branch to try them!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, but you run into situations like Kevin Mitnick where he was never tried, just held in prison for years.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

> How long can we go on making hundreds of new laws every year, but never removing any of them?

That's funny, when I went to thomas.loc.gov and did a search on "repeal", I got fifty bajillion results. I guess they do remove laws sometimes.

The judicial system in the sense of the judicial branch of government is only responsible for judicial review, or the ultimate interpretation of laws. This has nothing to do with the prosecution of criminal law, only in the sense that a lower court's decision in a criminal case may ultimately be interpreted differently by a higher court. If you are accused of commiting a crime, there's not a way for your trial to go to Supreme Court, at least in determining your innocence, guilt, or punishment.

When a case in which the government is involved, a federal attorney from the Department of Justice represents the United States in the case, which is why it is part of the executive branch. If it was part of the judicial branch, anyone with a case against the United States would have both the Supreme Court and the prosecutor in the same branch of government.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

This means that pretty much anyone can be arrested and prosecuted based on the whims (or political agendas) of the prosecutors.

I'm not normally one to go around spouting Ayn Rand quotes, but that one about ruling innocent men and creating a nation of law-breakers might be appropriate here.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Greenpeace says the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute the organization rather than just the activists who boarded the APL Jade freighter is a sea change in policy, and a conviction would throttle free speech everywhere.

Only Greenpeace would do something as dumb as trespass another's property to express their viewpoint and call it "free speech."

(BTW, I'm pretty sure that the reason they had to charge the organization with sailor mongering was to circumvent jurisdictional issues WRT trespass on the open seas. It wasn't piracy; I guess that's what was left on the books to slap 'em with.)

(Reply) (Thread)

You know, I actually didn't even think about that when I read it, and I'm extremely pro-property rights.

Agreed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't have much sympathy for the argument of, "you didn't technically do anything illegal in our jurisdiction, so we had to charge you with this bullshit law left over from the caveman days."

Getting Capone on tax evasion was not exactly the feds' finest hour.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

My (now aborted) reply exactly...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

related is the puzzling line:

"It will be very chilling because advocacy groups whose members chose to engage in acts of protest which happen to violate the law will be loathe to act at all."

which comes across as "gosh, breaking the law as part of political protest might have legal repurcussions?"
Granted, in this case, the specific invocation of that law is pretty goofy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

(BTW, I'm pretty sure that the reason they had to charge the organization with sailor mongering was to circumvent jurisdictional issues WRT trespass on the open seas. It wasn't piracy; I guess that's what was left on the books to slap 'em with.)

Which sounds to me like a political action on the part of the prosecuter. Does it make sense that they simply want to charge them with _anything_ and so they dig this up?

This law doesn't even come close to being violated in spirit. GreenPeace activists were hardly bring booze to seduce these "sailors."

It's a bullshit charge. The administration shouldn't be attacking this group because it lobbies and protests against it's current policies.

I am also very much for private property. However I hardly see how my valuing private property and hanging a banner to expose a bunch of criminals actually needs to result in these charges.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I propose those Greenpeace activists should dress up as pirates and talk like pirates.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've seen it happen, though admittedly not as an action... ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My favorite line in the article:

"It will be very chilling because advocacy groups whose members chose to engage in acts of protest which happen to violate the law will be loathe to act at all."

(Reply) (Thread)

That is a pretty stupid quote as-is, but I think I can decipher what they were trying to say:

• Organization X says "hey kids, let's go picket Megalomart!"
• Some Black Block dumbass smashes a window;
• Organization X gets charged instead of (or in addition to) the B.B.D.

Which leads to the chilling effect of

• Organization X says, "oh, let's not organize this protest, because the repercussions -- in the event that someone who does not even work for us does something illegal -- are too severe."

The craziness here is that Greenpeace-as-a-whole is being charged with something-like-kidnapping, in addition to the individuals who actually committed a crime being charged with something-like-tresspassing. I'm all for those individuals being charged, and I'm sure they expected it (that's part of the cost of civil disobedience, and they knew it.)

The irony here is that Greenpeace is getting the smelly end of the Corporate Person stick: usually it's much more of a shield than a liability.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

selective enforcement of law = lame

(Reply) (Thread)

im just waiting to see them try to apply rico laws against groups like this.

(Reply) (Thread)

For the record, I work at GreenPeace International, so feel free to rip into me just on the merit of that alone. These aren't the statements of my employer, blah blah blah.

This lawsuit is an attempt to crush political opposition of the current administration. If you are in support of this type of action, you should think about the chilling effect a precedent of this nature sets.

This type of political fingerpointing is a mistake no matter who it's against.

The people that should have gone to jail that day were the people bringing in illegally logged wood. They were breaking the law, plain and simple. They continue to do so even now.

GreenPeace activists breaking the law in my opinion isn't questionable in this case. It seems reasonable that boarding a ship to drop a banner is against some maritime law. However, this doesn't fit the crime at all. If anything these people shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. It doesn't seem reasonable to go after GreenPeace for exposing a criminal smuggling operation, does it?

If you happen to agree that Bush and Ashcroft shouldn't proceed. If you think this absurd set of charges that could utterly destroy GreenPeace, as well as every other non-profit or political organization in the U.S.A. should be stopped, please let them know.

This lawsuit is absurd and it's being used as an attempt at pulling a thorn of truth out of the side of the worst environmental administrations the USA has ever seen.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well... I wasn't going to rip into you, but...

You do realize, in your above post, you equated GreenPeace with Capone, and though it was a tricky move by the Feds, most are glad they got him off the streets, since he was a BadMan™.

Hope you took this comment in the joking tone it was meant,
-bZj

Though, this comment: "It doesn't seem reasonable to go after GreenPeace for exposing a criminal smuggling operation, does it?" has the obvious reply of "Should I not be arrested for shooting a murderer?" Selective enforcement indeed....

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

my understanding is that the ship they hung the banner on was involved in crimminal activity. i assume that the prosecutor went after the owners of the ship for their violations?

oh, wait, this is america.

well, you folks get what you elected (i voted for the dems so it's not my fault).

howard dean's formed a group to get more progressives elected - somewhat like ralph reed did for the anti-christians in the 80's. i suggest that those of you still willing to live in america, god love ya, consider running for office themselves.

for instance someone could quit grousing about nightclub closing times and get on the city council...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)