|
21 Jan 04 - 09:30 AM (#1097796) Subject: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Bobert Well, gol danged! What the Hell is this, Russia? Looks as if the Bush administration is dusting of an 1872 that prohibited pimps from boarding a ship while it was entering a port against two members of Greenpeace who boarded a ship in MIami harbor wearing tee-shirta that read "Greenpeace illegal forest crime unit", trying to draw attention to an illegal importation of Brazilian mahogany. So the Bush administartion is Hell bent on prosecuting this civil disobedience under a law that has only been used once and that was in 1890 when even the judge in that case felt the language of the law was "inartistic and obscure". But, with the penalties being so harse ($20,000 and 5 years in prison) it's just the kind of law that make Bush, Ashcroft and company smile ear to ear. Now ain't this something? If I wanta get a bunch of folks together, put white sheets over us with white hoods and intimidate the crud outtta some black folks, that's fine! But if wanta draw attention to an illegal importation of wood cut from the rain forests be peacfully trespassing (at best) with a banner then I'm looking at stiff fines and long prison terms. Oh, this is going to go a long way towards making people feel like they have 1st ammmendment protections, isn't it. greenpeaceusa.org Bobert |
|
21 Jan 04 - 09:34 AM (#1097799) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: mack/misophist Ashcroft, and by implication the bush, is probably the most active and effective enemy the Constitution has had for quite a while. |
|
21 Jan 04 - 11:18 AM (#1097899) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Walking Eagle What Constitution? |
|
21 Jan 04 - 11:42 AM (#1097926) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: mooman Seems to me the White House is about ready for some deforestation... Peace moo |
|
21 Jan 04 - 10:54 PM (#1098459) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: artbrooks I don't care much for Bush, and I don't care much for Greenpeace. Boarding a ship without regard for the safety of the crew, who had nothing at all to do with where their cargo came from, should be criminal under some law if not that one. Wasn't it Greenpeace that killed a crewman a number of years ago when they blew up a whaling ship? |
|
21 Jan 04 - 11:47 PM (#1098493) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Mooh Bush has killed more... Mooh. |
|
22 Jan 04 - 06:48 AM (#1098595) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Hrothgar It was Greenpeace that had a crewman killed when the Frogs blew up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour. |
|
22 Jan 04 - 08:51 AM (#1098627) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: GUEST Greenpeace is now and always has been a completely non-violent direct action organization which occassionally uses civil disobedience to stop and/or draw attention to environmental looters. I'm not familiar with this particular case, but if the circumstance is what Bobert described, ie that two Greenpeace members boarded a cargo ship wearing t-shirts that drew attention to the fact the ship was carrying illegal cargo, artbrooks suggestion is just downright looney. I'm quite sure that the Greenpeace action made the crew feel pretty uncomfortable. But the crew bloody well ought to feel uncomfortable if they are involved in illegal trade. |
|
22 Jan 04 - 09:51 AM (#1098684) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Bobert It goes a bit further than what I reported, GUEST. In using a 135 year old law that hasn't been used but once (1890) to make simple trespassing a felony it sends a real chill to anyone who might want to protest the actions of a corporation or governemnt. It also may open the way for John Ashcroft to get into the internal finaces of Greenpeace. This does not bode well fir a group that is a watchdog for the environment. As for the killing of a sailor, I am not aware of this incident but it surely is not part of Greenpeace's mission statement or the way they have used non-violent civil disobedience to blow the whistle on those who trash our world to make a buck. Maybe Artbrook's will provide us with the details?... I would be beyond shock to find that any death occured because of a premeditated plan by Greenpeace to use violence against it's fellow man. Bobert |
|
22 Jan 04 - 10:53 AM (#1098736) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Peg Good god, do people STILL think Greenpeace blew up that ship? Hard to believe that misunderstanding is still alive and well... Greenpeace was protesting underwater nuclear explosions (conducted by the French) near the Moruroa (sp?) Atoll, which, being near Australia and New Zealand was in what had been designated a nuclear-free zone. Greenpeace's boat, the Rainbow Warrior, was blown up and a photographer and crewman were both killed. The French government was never indicted for this crime, as it was deemed an accident. I used to work for Greenpeace in the 1980s and was having to explain away this misunderstanding a lot in those days...pity it's still out there. |
|
22 Jan 04 - 11:49 AM (#1098765) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: GUEST,Oryx It was recently said by David King, the UK government's chief scientist, David King, that Climate change is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. He singles out the United States for "refusing to countenance any remedial action now or in the future" to curb its own greenhouse gases, which are 20% of the world's total, even though it has only 4% of the population. If this is true, we should be waging war on Bush, not the terrorists! Read Margaret Attwood's latest book, 'Oryx and Crake' for a chilling and realistic look at life in the not-too-distant future. Where do we stop? |
|
22 Jan 04 - 11:55 AM (#1098769) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: GUEST,petr its interesting how things get twisted around. The French blew up the Rainbow Warrior and at least one crew member, a Greenpeace photographer was killed. A more radical group - the Sea Shepherd society, scuttled some Norwegian whaling ships a few years ago - no one died. |
|
22 Jan 04 - 12:19 PM (#1098784) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: mooman Supporting Guest, Oryx's point you can also Get the Teeshirt! Peace moo |
|
22 Jan 04 - 09:29 PM (#1099254) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: artbrooks Thank you, Peg-that's the incident I was remembering, apparently incorrectly. |
|
23 Jan 04 - 04:04 AM (#1099423) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Hrothgar After the Raimbow Warrior was blown up, two of the French secret agents involved (of moderate competence) were caught, tried, and jailed. The French government (under that well kmown socialist, Francois Mitterand) sprung them by blackmailing the Kiwis over their trade with Europe. |
|
24 Jan 04 - 12:56 AM (#1100173) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: CapriUni Peter Wilcox, who was captain of the Rainbow Warrior at the time she was sunk, is a long-time friend to my family (my mother was president of the Clearwater organization, and she was one of the ones to hire him to captain the sloop Clearwater, back in '75), though I haven't communicated with him for a while now. He is one of the gentlest spirits I've ever had the pleasure of knowing; I cannot imagine him involved with any organization that would deliberately or recklessly endanger another. This is the first I've heard of the version of the story where Greenpeace was responsible for sinking the ship... How long has that version of the story been floating around? Reminds me of the game "telephone"... |
|
24 Jan 04 - 09:31 AM (#1100330) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Bobert Ytah, GUEST, Oryx, we should be fightin' Bush rather than the "terrorists" (a term I am getting less and less comfy with). Hey, it's been said the one guy's terrorist is another freedom fighter. Well, when you have a guy who is Hell bent on leading a country to increased consumption, even if it means invading others folks countrise to get at their stuff to consume and all the while not even beleiving in global warming, it's mighty hard to see this same person as a freedom fighter. And thanks for those of you who have taken the time to disprove the accusation made earlier in this thread that Greenpeace had been involved in blowing up a ship. It doesn't jive with what they are all about. And, lastly (for now) I am very concerned with the underhanded practices that Bush and his cronies are using to stifle disent and protest. Like I mentioned before, these guys don't give a danged about the Bill of Rights, other than 2nd Ammendment rights for any crackpot criminal to have a gun???... Go figure? Bobert |
|
24 Jan 04 - 06:04 PM (#1100614) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Willie-O Interesting folk processing there Art. Just to clarify, ONE Greenpeace crew member, the photographer, died in the sabotage scuttling of the Rainbow Warrior. And the culpability is well documented... Greenpeace does banners, they might do blockades. They are a hugely successful organization largely because they understand how to use the media to provide publicity which helps their cause (with some exceptions, notably the "fundraising scandal" of a few years ago). And they understand very well that moving into the arena of violence would have them quickly vilified and lose their effectiveness. That particular point was what caused Paul Watson, who favoured more radical "direct action" to break away from Greenpeace and start the Sea Shepherd Society. Art maybe you should learn more about such organizations before you decide what you don't like? I'm thinking you probably don't like the Sea Shepherd Society, fair enough. Greenpeace is right there with the Sierra Club as a respectable, established middle-of-the-road environmental organization, why would you have a problem with that? Bill |
|
24 Jan 04 - 08:40 PM (#1100712) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Gareth Hmmm ! GWB Jnr & the French in alliance - Over the threat green peace is to society. Gee - I feel so safe. Gareth |
|
25 Jan 04 - 04:27 PM (#1101128) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton "Good god, do people STILL think Greenpeace blew up that ship? Hard to believe that misunderstanding is still alive and well..." Peg, it's the same sad old story. Repeat a lie long enough and someone will believe it. Anyone for finding WMD's in Iraq? Frank |
|
26 Jan 04 - 10:14 AM (#1101706) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Willie-O Yeah, it's interesting how since the expression "eco-terrorism" was coined, a lot of popular fiction has re-written history and referred to such non-events going back to the early 70's when the environmental movement was actually in its innocent infancy--and was frequently scorned by the "real radicals" as a bunch of middle-class elitist reformers. Turned out, in the long run, that organizations which clearly espouse non-violent ideals have a lot more staying power in North American society than those that propose to storm the bastions by force. The powers that be know how to deal with the latter... W-O p.s. Art, I think we have a friend in common--have you co-written scholarly papers with my old buddy Roland Kushner? |
|
26 Jan 04 - 12:11 PM (#1101809) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Wolfgang Several of you seem to assume that artbrooks refers to the Rainbow Warrior and gets mixed up who was killed and by whom. That is a very farfetched inference with no foundation in artbrooks's post. The incident he recollects seems to be a completely unrelated incident to me. However, 'Blowing up' a whaling ship is not Greenpeace's method of action. I've searched long for killings during or related to Greenpeace actions. Greenpeace members as victims you can find in those searches. But nonmembers of Greenpeace killed by or during a Greenpeace action you will not find. The closest to the incident I guess artbrooks had in mind is this: In December, the pressure group was slammed by the Minster of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries of Japan who called the group "inhumane". He referred to an incident in which Greenpeace activists had prevented the staff of a Japanese whaling ship from leaving their ship, near Australia. Reportedly, a crew member committed suicide following the incident, which also involved a fire on the whaling ship. (1999) Wolfgang |
|
26 Jan 04 - 03:02 PM (#1101920) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: artbrooks Willie-O, one of the reasons I don't like Greenpeace is the hoards of paid missionaries that clog the sidewalks of the university campus where I spend a lot of time. I don't like the Sierra Club because, when I was a member, they sold (or gave) my name and address to multiple other organizations, of which the Sierra Club itself was the most conservative. I currently belong to the Nature Conservancy and Rails to Trails Conservancy, among others, which I consider to be organizations dedicated to accomplishing something rather than annoying other people. Harassment, legal or not, does nothing except get peoples' backs up and harden their attitudes. As for my unfortunate misunderstanding about the ship, please see my response of 22 Jan 04 - 09:29 PM, and I have nothing further to say about it. |
|
27 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM (#1102703) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Nerd Art's not to blame for an honest mistake. But there ARE people to blame for spreading lies. Eco-terrorism, which the government would like you to fear, essentially doesn't exist. Even the most radical environmental groups draw the line after the destruction of PROPERTY. Now I admit that to have one's truck or ship destroyed can be devastating, but these folks believe that if you use a piece of equipment to break the law, then why not have it destroyed by others breaking the law? Philosophically, they're saying you get hoist with your own petard. Poetic justce, you might say. But they do NOT harm or kill people. The incidents of spiked trees leading to injuries for loggers, for example, all turn out to be done by either mad property-rights advocates, or people trying to give environmental groups a bad name. If an environmental group spikes a tree they mark it as such, so the tree will not be cut down. Otherwise why even do it? Greenpeace is a good example. They take the "peace" part of their name seriously. But they are constantly painted as "terrorists," by corporate interests who would LOVE to have the Patriot Act begin working for them. It's scary and it should stop! |
|
27 Jan 04 - 07:51 PM (#1102974) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: CapriUni I'm still curious, though. From what Peg said, it seems that the version of the story where Greenpeace was responsible for the death of a sailor, wasn't just a misremembering by Artbrooks. Does anyone know where that alternate version of the story came from? |
|
27 Jan 04 - 08:09 PM (#1102995) Subject: RE: BS: Bush v. Greenpeace........... From: Willie-O Fair enough Art, I didn't mean to get on your case. Um, "hoards of paid missionaries clogging the sidewalk?" I don't think they're that careless with their money. "The incidents of spiked trees leading to injuries for loggers, for example, all turn out to be done by either mad property-rights advocates, or people trying to give environmental groups a bad name." Nerd, do you have any references for these statements? Useful if they can be backed up. The very few examples on record BTW of people being injured by spiked trees occurred in sawmills, not to loggers. (because a logger fells a tree with a cut that is below and parallel to a hidden spike, but a sawmill blade can't miss it.) It's slightly disingenuous to say that eco-terrorism flat out doesn't exist. But you are essentially right, such acts going beyond the area of destroying property are extremely rare. (However, destroying property frequently creates risk to people and animals...) There is a stupid game some people play though, which I have observed, "more-radical-than-thou", which mostly consists of people implying they're going to do things Environmental activists generally have been on the receiving end of terrorism and violence, yet these incidents really get buried in the news. (e.g. Earth Firsters Judi Bari/Darryl Cherney's car being bombed with them in it, and later David Chain was killed by a falling tree.) Willie-O |
