I knew some girls in Halifax who were quite good at sailor mongering.

Interesting post Omni nitrogen fixing crops would go a long way in nutrient depleted soils too.


/but I disagree about greenpeace, they do a lot of asshat things, but this one is cool.

There isn't an awful lot of subsistence farming in the Amazon clearances, TheOmni. Mostly they're cleared to graze beef herds. It's your cheeseburgers fault, not the treehuggers.

Re your comment about GM crops being the savior of subsistence farmers, in fact the reverse is true. Not through any fault of the plants (although they have serious faults), but because of the fact that GM crops are patented, and to use them a farmer must abide by the rules the company lays down. With normal crops, farmers routinely save seeds from the harvested crop sold to sow next year. GM companies forbid this practice, on pain of lawyering (some GM crops have genetic triggers which render saved seeds infertile) A GM farmer would have to buy seeds every year, thus making them dependent on the crop company.

Prostitutes, greenpeace, both after the wood.......

/greenpeace, the only thing that sucks harder than Duke.

Greenpeace.....well, at least they're not as awful PETA. There are times that Greenpeace does things that are cool. Sometimes.

Greenpeace... Prostitutes......

Even if you don't agree with Greenpeace and their sometimes controversial methods, using this law appears to be a load of bullcrap.

A Greenpeace Amazon campaigner, Paulo Adario, said a mahogany tree could be bought in the Amazon for $US30. Once turned into dining tables and chairs for sale in New York or London, that same tree could be worth as much as $US120,000.

Holy sh*t, that's a decent return!
I've been going about this all wrong... drug dealing and white slavery aren't where the money is... it's in f*cking furniture.

Seeing that the captain didn't just shoot the greenpeace invaders, they're getting off lightly.

Whatever you think about Greenpeace, usage of this law is complete BS.

And let's not forget that the article states the ship they boarded was up to it's ass in contraband wood.

Heaven forbid they stop a crime in progress. More Ashcroft idiocy.

I hope Ashcroft digs up some centuries old law against being an assclown and puts the TheOmni in stocks.

"A Greenpeace Amazon campaigner, Paulo Adario, said a mahogany tree could be bought in the Amazon for $US30. Once turned into dining tables and chairs for sale in New York or London, that same tree could be worth as much as $US120,000."

Sounds like a good profit...perhaps Greenpeace should just get in on the deal...help pay the court fees.

Shave the whales. Pave the rainforest.

Greenpeace, PeTA and the rest of the euphorians are finally getting farked with the way they have been farking with everyone else. Its just karma.

Alright.

I'm as anti dirty hippy as the next guy, but I've got to declare shenanigans on this one.

I wonder if the Feds are just as eager to prosecute the people bringing in the contraband wood? Would be nice to know.

Prostitutes coming to whisk me to shore and hold me in bondage? Where do I sign up?

The lack of respect for the environment is so weird to me. Who isn't invested in making sure our planet is clean and safe? Does capitalism really mean that much to you?

can't wait till they are charged with one of the many new terrorism laws the next time the pull crap like that in US water.

i have no respect for the greenpeace people, they are terrorists. terrorists with good intentions.but still terrorists.

F*cking hell. This is as dumb as it gets. So a company ILLEGALLY chops down an endangered type of tree, so Greenpeace protest and THEY go to court?

Just shows how f*cked up the good ol' US of A is.

You're all slating Greenpeace as if they were the next PETA, but really, Greenpeace are right most of the time. Which pi$ses of the governments no end. The French government blew up one of Greenpeace's boats (Killing a few people..) and the American Government are laying against them some BS law from over 100 years ago. Christ.

dukkhapoop "i have no respect for the greenpeace people, they are terrorists. terrorists with good intentions.but still terrorists."

Yerah, sure. Terrorists who happen to give a sh*t about our earth and don't want to see it destroyed. Asshat.

George Bush officially announces War on Environment in:

3..
2..
1..

Jesus. Anyone else notice that since 2001, the word terrorist is used to describe pretty much anything?

When someone calls Greenpeace terrorists, you know they're slaves of the system.

Maybe the british should have hunted down and firing squadded those damn terrorists at the Boston tea party.

Greenpeace thinks that the environment needs help. PETA thinks that all animals should be released from human bondage. Al Qaeda thinks that the USA is evil.

All three groups think that their cause is so righteous that laws don't apply to them.

All three groups think that their cause is so righteous that laws don't apply to them.

you're implying that greenpeace knew about this law? did you know about it?

Yerah, sure. Terrorists who happen to give a sh*t about our earth and don't want to see it destroyed. Asshat

So does that mean that if I don't like the ELF either, that I am an asshat? (and if you don't know what ELF is, look it up, of course all they are is a group that cares about the earth).

DasNibblet And you're saying that the environment doens't need help? Really, do you think it's doing fine on its own? At the moment, i think it needs all the help it can get. I take it you've never really travelled abroad, or seen the effects of logging, oil slicks etc on the environment. If you havn't, STFU as you're in no position to preach.

PETA's goals are unrealistic - we depend on animals to live.

Similarly, Al Qaedas goals are unrealistc - they can't get rid of America (But thinging about it.. would that be so bad..?)

All three groups think that their cause is so righteous that laws don't apply to them.

you're implying that greenpeace knew about this law? did you know about it?

No I'm not implying that. But it sounds like you're implying that ignorance is a valid excuse.

/save the spinach

ColombianDrugLord:

The good news is that he plans on prosecuting the War on the Environment with as much skill and finesse as every other war he's set out upon.

As far as I could tell from a quick google on the subject there is a Brazilian ban on logging mahogany. So there were not (I don't believe anyway) any us laws broken by the freighter. That being said, while I don't like greenpeace for personal reasons, this is a bit over the top.

Wow. We've moved from Greenpeace to Al-Queda and ELF in less than 30 posts. All without Weaver95!

Bravo people. Bravo.

in order for "think that their cause is so righteous that laws don't apply to them" to have any relevance in this situation, greenpeace would have had to know about the law. that is, unless you're talking about the group in general.

Naarjtie
I'd like you to point out exactly how you think I'm saying that the environment doesn't need help. Otherwise, quit trolling.

Naarjtie

F*cking hell. This is as dumb as it gets. So a company ILLEGALLY chops down an endangered type of tree, so Greenpeace protest and THEY go to court?

Just shows how f*cked up the good ol' US of A is.

You're all slating Greenpeace as if they were the next PETA, but really, Greenpeace are right most of the time. Which pi$ses of the governments no end. The French government blew up one of Greenpeace's boats (Killing a few people..) and the American Government are laying against them some BS law from over 100 years ago. Christ.

Why do you hate America so much?!?

Yeah, it's kinda sad that a group tries to enforce a law because nobody else is, and they get thrown in jail for it. I'm sure that Georgie would like the remove the laws banning the trading of Mohagany just like he's trying push to have international laws banning elephant ivory banned.

His explanation for the latter is that all these companies have all this ivory that they can't do anything with. Tough titty toenails.

...
terrorists?
could someone please explain to me what in great googly moogly could possibly be called terrifying about greenpeace? jesus christ.

TheOmni

That vast majority of the land cleared IS due to farming, I'll agree. Land is cleared to grazing crops, coffee, etc. and they only get a few years out of it due to the shallow depth of the nutrients. (Hence the continual need to slash and burn.)

But logging still threatens numerous species. You're not just destroying trees (many of which are at risk or endangered species or sub-species), but you're also destroying the food and shelter for a number of other animals and plants. Not to mention the destruction of species just to GET to those plants.

Greenpeace may seem to go too far at times, but that's only because they're fighting a desperate and losing battle against greed, ignorance and apathy. We'll probably never overcome greed, but at least there is a very slim chance of overcoming ignorance and apathy.

I wish I could find the quote Ashcroft made recently where he subtly threatened anyone who saw fit question this administration. I dunno about you, but I'm gonna party like it's 1984!

I remember reading about this a long time ago. The law being used to charge them sounds like it fits their situation very nicely (despite the law being written for a different problem long ago). This article was pretty biased towards Greenpeace's sake, I'll try to hunt down some more information or articles that actually includes the law in question.

Whether I have contraband or not on my ship is really irrelevant when some group who "thinks" I do boards it. This is about Greenpeace overstepping their bounds. That is what we have the coast guard and other governmental agencies for. Not so a bunch of self-righteous pricks can feel good about themselves.

Raz: The Sheeple don't take well to multiple enemies, they used to fight the Communists, before that the Germans, before that the Spanish. "Terrorists" are just the new enemy to simplify things for the Sheeple. Anything that is against Big-Business, America, the Republican Party or Halliburton is either a Terrorist or Terrorist supporter.

someone post the ashcroft quote culbeda is talking about...i really want to see it

Dirty hippies should have just sank the damn ship.

/Do a job and do it right.

Raz
Maybe the british should have hunted down and firing squadded those damn terrorists at the Boston tea party.

Uh, they wanted to. That's why the British military took over Boston for a few years, to prevent civil unrest. The Boston Tea Party bunch were terrorists for sure, but since the winner writes the history books, we call them revolutionaries. It's all a question of semantics.

And this ship-boarding thing came up on Fark a long time ago, is this the same story?

Aaah, I found a great rebuttal. I really wish the media would do 5 minutes of checking the other side before writing such great biased article. That rebuttal is found here http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=12088&page=3.

---------------------------------------

There seems to be quite a few problems with the way the Green Peace and some of the media is portraying this.

Many media reports, Green Peace and apparently a "law specialist" named "Turley" (where do I know this name from?) are saying that the charge placed "under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against "sailor-mongering". This is EXTREMELY misleading. I believe what they are referring to is this : Section 2194. Shanghaiing sailors.
Quote:
"Whoever, with intent that any person shall perform service orlabor of any kind on board of any vessel engaged in trade and commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or on board of any vessel of the United States engaged in navigating the high seas or any navigable water of the United States, procures or induces, or attempts to procure or induce, another, by force or threats or by representations which he knows or believes to be untrue, or while the person so procured or induced is intoxicated or under the influence of any drug, to go on board of any such vessel, or to sign or in anywise enter into any agreement to go on board of any such vessel to perform service or labor thereon; or Whoever knowingly detains on board of any such vessel any person so procured or induced to go on board, or to enter into any agreement to go on board, by any means herein defined - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

I don't even believe this could be called "obscure" as it was amended and updated as recently as 1996.

But when you read the actual charges here: GREENPEACE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY BOARD CARGO VESSEL
You find that the actual charge is:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2279.
which can be found here: Section 2279. Boarding vessels before arrival
Quote:
"Whoever, not being in the United States service, and not being duly authorized by law for the purpose, goes on board any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination, before her actual arrival, and before she has been completely moored, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. The master of such vessel may take any such person into custody, and deliver him up forthwith to any law enforcement officer, to be by him taken before any committing magistrate, to be dealt with according to law. Again, I don't see how this can be called "obscure" when it's been amended and updated recently."

I really hate this type of B.S., I have a lot more faith in causes when they aren't busy B.S. in the public.

Of course this gets even deeper when you see where it may all lead.
At the very least it creates an international issue, if we allow citizens to break maritime law...and then find that indeed the brazilians were breaking the law....it gives the U.S. a weaker stance. Also, at this point ships have two options to protect themselves from illegal bording of their ship. They can physically threaten and fight off those boarders or present them to an authority for prosecution. Which is exactly what the shipmates did.

The other issue is that greenpeace did not just "drop of volunteers after bussing them in" those present were also employees on green peace owned ships. The green peace ships also "attempted to evade law enforcement ships". That creates a bit of an issue as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in October.

Of course if the U.S. wins the case against Green Peace then there is an even larger issue that will effect green peace. It has to do with the recent issues of missuse of funds that threaten it's tax exempt status in the U.S.. specificly diverting funds given for educational purpose to use in situations like this...money allocated for illegal actions are not tax exempt.

Ankhst
The Abu Ghraib pix would barely be a rumor -- anyone involved who is in any way likely to say anything to their own families about this stuff (let alone the press) would be thrown in the chipper-shredder faster than you can say "who wants chili?"

haha, that's going in the act.