Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Selective prosecution is a constitutional issue- "equal protection under the law" and all that... resurrecting an obscure statute not used since 1890 pretty much fits the definition...
Originally posted by: Lucky
When a group authorizes its members to commit illegal acts, I have no problem with using whatever law is on the books to take that group down.
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I may be mistaken but wasn't that one of the grounds used to overturn the Texas sodomy statute? I know privacy was at the forefront of that decision but my understanding of released excerpts was that justices questioned the selective application of sodomy laws against homosexuals.I'd love to read some court opinions supporting your view.
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Greenpeace needs to be put in it's place for the hundreds of crimes it has committed over the past 22 years.
Obvisouly the little slaps on the wrist that Greenpeace has been given over the past 22 years weren't enough...
Hundreds, no ka-zillons of crimes were committed by Greenpeace. These murderers have to be stopped before they destroy the world! That banner would have brought civilization as we know to an end. What horrible people these people are. How dare they try and protect the environment and promote world peace!!!!
Are you GWB's long lost bastard child that is trying to get daddy's favor by bashing a group that promotes peace and protects the environment (obviously conflicting with bush's agenda) ?
Ummmm, yeah. Greenpeace is the SS shock-troops of a radical left political wing.
They suck. If they were so smart why not figure a way of protesting without breaking the law?
But that would require imagination, and we cant have any of that.
They arent saving anything, just pissing everybody off. (If you ever went to college in Calif you know what I mean)
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Yes, let us silence those lame radicals, they stir up too many headlines to be any good. Let the 3 Mile Islands and Toxic Love Canal incidents go unoticed.
if Corporation A was dumping fun toxics B in your backyard, you would want Greenpeace on your side
Originally posted by: jjsole
We've got some f'n criminals in charge of our government. :|
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.
But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
LOL using that stupid movie as an exampleOriginally posted by: AAjax
What I meant by the college part was greenpeace has a great history of harassing students. Ever seen the movie PCU? Im not kidding, you allmost had to beat these people off while walking accross the quad. Very confrontational and downright rude. I have no problem with saving the enviroment (darn good idea actualy) but I have a huge problem with greenpeace.
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Even though I'm someone who feels nothing but contempt for that fvcktard Ashcroft. I would just like to point out that Greenpeace isn't exactly the best organization to be defending. They're known for breaking the law over and over again, to get what they want. In my "opinion" the world would be better off without both Ashcroft and Greenpeace. Both are extreme and go overboard when forcing/enfocing their opinion ( in Ashcrofts case, law) on others.
But DealMonkey has a point, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Clearly the world would not be a better place without Greenpeace. Greenpeace brought many crimes against the environment up in the the light. They expose States and corporations that are violating environmental issues to the public. Without them alot less would be done to protect our world. And now tell the me crimes they have done: Heinous crimes like putting banner up in places without permission boohoo big crime.... and whyt is trespassing compared to blowing up a ship (possibly with ppl on board - dunno) as done by the french secret service in the 70's or 80's, dunno if (other) governments committed other crimes against them but I think greenpeace is usually more peaceful than the ones they are fighting against
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The individuals involved have already accepted responsibility for their actions, and were obviously willing to do so from the start. The use of the sailor mongering statute is apparently the only was Ashcroft Inc could attack the Greenpeace organization.
There are other protest organizations that break the law on a regular basis- anti-abortion groups, for example. It seems doubtful that the current DoJ will attack them at all, let alone invoke Rico statutes or similar... The boycott against the construction work in Texas is a good example of where organized crime statutes could be used, but, of course, they won't be...
Pure partisanship is the trademark of the Bush Admin, everything is political. No trick is too low in pursuit of their agenda, no act or omission too shameful for them to employ.
Get used to it, if you intend to vote Republican. May have to get used to it anyway, once the non-verifiable electronic voting system is in place...
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The individuals involved have already accepted responsibility for their actions, and were obviously willing to do so from the start. The use of the sailor mongering statute is apparently the only was Ashcroft Inc could attack the Greenpeace organization.
There are other protest organizations that break the law on a regular basis- anti-abortion groups, for example. It seems doubtful that the current DoJ will attack them at all, let alone invoke Rico statutes or similar... The boycott against the construction work in Texas is a good example of where organized crime statutes could be used, but, of course, they won't be...
Pure partisanship is the trademark of the Bush Admin, everything is political. No trick is too low in pursuit of their agenda, no act or omission too shameful for them to employ.
Get used to it, if you intend to vote Republican. May have to get used to it anyway, once the non-verifiable electronic voting system is in place...