NationStates Jolt Archive

A chain email I got. If this is for real, then its pretty screwed up. I've bolded the most pertinent bits, but I recomend you read all of it.

Dear friends,

For the first time ever, the US government has decided to prosecute an entire organisation for exercising its right to free speech through non-violent protest.

The trial begins on May 17th, and results from a protest against an illegal shipment of mahogany headed for the Port of Miami in Florida two years ago. Unable to find a suitable law against calling attention to environmental crimes, the Attorney General has charged Greenpeace under an obscure 19th-century law designed to stop prostitutes from boarding sailing vessels.

If we are found guilty, it will mean being branded a criminal organisation

While Greenpeace is in the dock, those who logged, imported and sold the illegally imported mahogany continue to operate.

Not only is this a wholly unwarranted and politically motivated attack on an organisation that was attempting to prevent a crime, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for the future of free speech and the right to civil protest in the US. It could also be used as an example in other countries to curb non-violent direct action. The case has been attacked in articles and editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Miami Herald. Senator Patrick Leahy of the US Judiciary Committee wrote to US Attorney General John Ashcroft saying his selective prosecution of Greenpeace could "have a chilling effect on free speech and activism of all kinds." Al Gore called the case "highly disturbing" in a speech to MoveOn members. Fellow environmental and civil rights groups have rallied to demand Ashcroft drop the case. But Ashcroft's not listening.

Now it's your turn to make sure we don't let this case go unchallenged. We need your help. Sign on to our letter demanding Bush and Ashcroft prosecute illegal loggers rather than Greenpeace. To date, 37,000 people have joined this appeal. We want to have 50,000 signatories by Monday. We need to show the US government that people all over the world are watching this trial. We need to remind them they can't silence Greenpeace without silencing everyone who supports Greenpeace.

Don't let Bush and Ashcroft silence you. Take action now:

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/10048/action_id/195.html

Find out more about the case below:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=472552

Meet some of the people involved and the history of the action and prosecution:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-04-29/feature.html/1/index.html

Send this fun animation about the case to your friends:

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/8035/article/931.html

They're going to make Greenpeace a criminal organisation based on archaic anti-prostitution laws. Quite how this legal marvel will be acomplished is beyond my non-legal brain, but the insanity just blows your mind.

How is he justifying using the prostitution law on Greenpeace? Any links to sites showing his reasoning? While I generally support Greenpeace, there methods in the past have sometimes been less than pure and have more resembled guerilla actions rather than legitimate protests. What were they planning on doing that opened this avenue of attack?

How is he justifying using the prostitution law on Greenpeace? Any links to sites showing his reasoning? While I generally support Greenpeace, there methods in the past have sometimes been less than pure and have more resembled guerilla actions rather than legitimate protests. What were they planning on doing that opened this avenue of attack?
Regardless of what you think of Greenpeace (they're not my favourite guys either), prosecuting your political enemies smacks of something dodgy, and I don't seriously believe there could be any kind of prostitutes-aboard-ships conspiracy in the organisation.

How is he justifying using the prostitution law on Greenpeace? Any links to sites showing his reasoning? While I generally support Greenpeace, there methods in the past have sometimes been less than pure and have more resembled guerilla actions rather than legitimate protests. What were they planning on doing that opened this avenue of attack?
Regardless of what you think of Greenpeace (they're not my favourite guys either), prosecuting your political enemies smacks of something dodgy, and I don't seriously believe there could be any kind of prostitutes-aboard-ships conspiracy in the organisation.

Oh, I agree. I don't trust Ashcroft any farther than I can throw one of the cameras he'd like to have installed in everyone's home so he can make sure we're all good little, god-fearing Amuricans. However, before I sign my name on their protest, I'd at least like to know why he thinks he can nab them under what appears to be a laughably implausible argument. The man may be pure, concentrated evil, but he's not stupid, so if he's trying this, it means he thinks he can get away with it. I'd like to know why.

How is he justifying using the prostitution law on Greenpeace? Any links to sites showing his reasoning? While I generally support Greenpeace, there methods in the past have sometimes been less than pure and have more resembled guerilla actions rather than legitimate protests. What were they planning on doing that opened this avenue of attack?
Regardless of what you think of Greenpeace (they're not my favourite guys either), prosecuting your political enemies smacks of something dodgy, and I don't seriously believe there could be any kind of prostitutes-aboard-ships conspiracy in the organisation.

Oh, I agree. I don't trust Ashcroft any farther than I can throw one of the cameras he'd like to have installed in everyone's home so he can make sure we're all good little, god-fearing Amuricans. However, before I sign my name on their protest, I'd at least like to know why he thinks he can nab them under what appears to be a laughably implausible argument. The man may be pure, concentrated evil, but he's not stupid, so if he's trying this, it means he thinks he can get away with it. I'd like to know why.Its not completely clear from their site, but it looks like some female Greenpeace members snuck abord a ship that was bringing an illegal cargo, and theres a law on the statue books thats designed to prosecute brothel owners who send prostitues aboard ships to steal money off the crew and/or drug them and render the ship unable to function, and so... they can now prosecute Greenpeace as if they were brothel owners.

This seems so fantastic that its almost more likely that I've got it wrong. I'm looking over the site more now.

No, I am actually correct.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-04-29/feature.html/1/index.html


Hillary Hosta agrees. The blond, six-foot-tall massage therapist calmly carving up a vegetarian omelet was convicted of illegally boarding the APL Jade, a merchant vessel that Greenpeace suspected of mahogany smuggling, three miles out from the Port of Miami in April 2002. The smugglers got away, but the activists were charged with breaking an 1872 law that hadn't been implemented in more than a hundred years. The sparse case law on record suggests the statute, which forbids unauthorized persons from boarding a ship about to arrive at its destination, was originally written to keep shady characters from luring sailors to houses of ill repute on shore. That June, Hosta and the other activists hit with the charge pled no contest. Case closed. Then thirteen months later a federal grand jury indicted Greenpeace USA for the same crime, accusing the organization itself of conspiracy to commit "sailor-mongering." As silly as the charge may sound, the impact of a conviction could be quite serious.

First having a ship blown up for peaceful protest (the Rainbow Warrior), now being put in the dock for being ON the dock... :roll:

No one better use the excuse that even old laws should be followed, I'll barrage you with examples of why that's not true.

No, I am actually correct.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-04-29/feature.html/1/index.html


Hillary Hosta agrees. The blond, six-foot-tall massage therapist calmly carving up a vegetarian omelet was convicted of illegally boarding the APL Jade, a merchant vessel that Greenpeace suspected of mahogany smuggling, three miles out from the Port of Miami in April 2002. The smugglers got away, but the activists were charged with breaking an 1872 law that hadn't been implemented in more than a hundred years. The sparse case law on record suggests the statute, which forbids unauthorized persons from boarding a ship about to arrive at its destination, was originally written to keep shady characters from luring sailors to houses of ill repute on shore. That June, Hosta and the other activists hit with the charge pled no contest. Case closed. Then thirteen months later a federal grand jury indicted Greenpeace USA for the same crime, accusing the organization itself of conspiracy to commit "sailor-mongering." As silly as the charge may sound, the impact of a conviction could be quite serious.

Right, here we have the problem. While I agree that if this law specifically forbade prostitutes from boarding ships, then it would be a blatantly illegal charge. However, the law itself, while admittedly uniforced, simply forbids "unauthorized persons" from boarding a ship. The original intent of the law aside, I highly doubt any of those Greenpeace activists had anything approaching authorization to be there, regardless of if their motives were to lure sailors to brothels or stage some protest against the mahogany shipment. While Ashcroft's decision to pursue this matter under this law is certainly suspect, Greenpeace's declaration blends the letter of the truth to make it appear that they were doing nothing wrong. Basically, and as usual, both sides have made questionable decisions and made it hard to know which side to support.

A chain email I got. If this is for real, then its pretty screwed up. I've bolded the most pertinent bits, but I recomend you read all of it.

Dear friends,

For the first time ever, the US government has decided to prosecute an entire organisation for exercising its right to free speech through non-violent protest.

The trial begins on May 17th, and results from a protest against an illegal shipment of mahogany headed for the Port of Miami in Florida two years ago. Unable to find a suitable law against calling attention to environmental crimes, the Attorney General has charged Greenpeace under an obscure 19th-century law designed to stop prostitutes from boarding sailing vessels.

If we are found guilty, it will mean being branded a criminal organisation

While Greenpeace is in the dock, those who logged, imported and sold the illegally imported mahogany continue to operate.

Not only is this a wholly unwarranted and politically motivated attack on an organisation that was attempting to prevent a crime, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for the future of free speech and the right to civil protest in the US. It could also be used as an example in other countries to curb non-violent direct action. The case has been attacked in articles and editorials in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Miami Herald. Senator Patrick Leahy of the US Judiciary Committee wrote to US Attorney General John Ashcroft saying his selective prosecution of Greenpeace could "have a chilling effect on free speech and activism of all kinds." Al Gore called the case "highly disturbing" in a speech to MoveOn members. Fellow environmental and civil rights groups have rallied to demand Ashcroft drop the case. But Ashcroft's not listening.

Now it's your turn to make sure we don't let this case go unchallenged. We need your help. Sign on to our letter demanding Bush and Ashcroft prosecute illegal loggers rather than Greenpeace. To date, 37,000 people have joined this appeal. We want to have 50,000 signatories by Monday. We need to show the US government that people all over the world are watching this trial. We need to remind them they can't silence Greenpeace without silencing everyone who supports Greenpeace.

Don't let Bush and Ashcroft silence you. Take action now:

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/10048/action_id/195.html

Find out more about the case below:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=472552

Meet some of the people involved and the history of the action and prosecution:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2004-04-29/feature.html/1/index.html

Send this fun animation about the case to your friends:

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/8035/article/931.html

They're going to make Greenpeace a criminal organisation based on archaic anti-prostitution laws. Quite how this legal marvel will be acomplished is beyond my non-legal brain, but the insanity just blows your mind.

forgive me if im wrong, but you're british right? why do you even care, its not your country :?

forgive me if im wrong, but you're british right? why do you even care, its not your country :?

"For no man is an island, entire of itself
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"

Right, here we have the problem. While I agree that if this law specifically forbade prostitutes from boarding ships, then it would be a blatantly illegal charge. However, the law itself, while admittedly uniforced, simply forbids "unauthorized persons" from boarding a ship. The original intent of the law aside, I highly doubt any of those Greenpeace activists had anything approaching authorization to be there, regardless of if their motives were to lure sailors to brothels or stage some protest against the mahogany shipment. While Ashcroft's decision to pursue this matter under this law is certainly suspect, Greenpeace's declaration blends the letter of the truth to make it appear that they were doing nothing wrong. Basically, and as usual, both sides have made questionable decisions and made it hard to know which side to support.Theres a fine line, crossed by this law, between the actions of Greenpeace members and the Greenpeace organisation itself. This kind of thing does not apply to corporations/ and branches or members of that corporation in the same fashion, so why to the whole organisation?

Right, here we have the problem. While I agree that if this law specifically forbade prostitutes from boarding ships, then it would be a blatantly illegal charge. However, the law itself, while admittedly uniforced, simply forbids "unauthorized persons" from boarding a ship. The original intent of the law aside, I highly doubt any of those Greenpeace activists had anything approaching authorization to be there, regardless of if their motives were to lure sailors to brothels or stage some protest against the mahogany shipment. While Ashcroft's decision to pursue this matter under this law is certainly suspect, Greenpeace's declaration blends the letter of the truth to make it appear that they were doing nothing wrong. Basically, and as usual, both sides have made questionable decisions and made it hard to know which side to support.Theres a fine line, crossed by this law, between the actions of Greenpeace members and the Greenpeace organisation itself. This kind of thing does not apply to corporations/ and branches or members of that corporation in the same fashion, so why to the whole organisation?

Again, I am not familiar with the specifics of the law, but my guess as to why Ashcroft is using it as the basis for his suit is that Greenpeace as an orginization knew about the planned boarding and therefore, as they made no move to stop it or disavow the individual protesters actions, they condoned it, which makes them culpable for the behavior of the protesters. Depending on the wording of the law, it sounds like it gives the authorities the leeway to charge not only the actual people on board the ship, but the business or organization that sent them in the first place. So, if a brothel sent a barker or a prostitute on a ship, this law gives the justice system the power to prosecute both the direct offender and the source of that offender.

I'm not saying it's a correct application of the law and Ashcroft's willingness to use it to attack an activist organization speaks more to his own political agenda than to any true desire to do "justice," but he may have a case so long as the law is vauge enough and Greenpeace, at least in my opinion, has also played unfairly by claiming that the law only specifically covers brothel workers and not any organization. Again, if someone can find the text of the specific law in question, this could all be cleared up. However, at this point, both sides are just asking you to take their word that they're telling the whole truth and, the sad fact of the matter is that, in the US of today, very few people know the truth, let alone are willing to tell it.

Again, I am not familiar with the specifics of the law, but my guess as to why Ashcroft is using it as the basis for his suit is that Greenpeace as an orginization knew about the planned boarding and therefore, as they made no move to stop it or disavow the individual protesters actions, they condoned it, which makes them culpable for the behavior of the protesters. Depending on the wording of the law, it sounds like it gives the authorities the leeway to charge not only the actual people on board the ship, but the business or organization that sent them in the first place. So, if a brothel sent a barker or a prostitute on a ship, this law gives the justice system the power to prosecute both the direct offender and the source of that offender.

I'm not saying it's a correct application of the law and Ashcroft's willingness to use it to attack an activist organization speaks more to his own political agenda than to any true desire to do "justice," but he may have a case so long as the law is vauge enough and Greenpeace, at least in my opinion, has also played unfairly by claiming that the law only specifically covers brothel workers and not any organization. Again, if someone can find the text of the specific law in question, this could all be cleared up. However, at this point, both sides are just asking you to take their word that they're telling the whole truth and, the sad fact of the matter is that, in the US of today, very few people know the truth, let alone are willing to tell it.I don't doubt that he has a case. The law frequently denies common sense.

I don't doubt that he has a case. The law frequently denies common sense.

Unfortunately, that's a true statement. :cry:

bump

That's funny, for all the wrong reasons.
To me it fits into the same class of lawsuits as these:
Man wants court order to have dog put down because it bit him. He shot the dog with an air rifle, which is why it bit him.
Man crashes caravan after turning on cruise control, and going back to make coffee. sues company for not making it clear what cruise control is.

This would be quite ludicrous if he won, like those 2 lawsuits were won.

That's funny, for all the wrong reasons.
To me it fits into the same class of lawsuits as these:
Man wants court order to have dog put down because it bit him. He shot the dog with an air rifle, which is why it bit him.
Man crashes caravan after turning on cruise control, and going back to make coffee. sues company for not making it clear what cruise control is.

This would be quite ludicrous if he won, like those 2 lawsuits were won. :shock: :shock:

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

Greenpeace aren't my favorite activist organization either and if this law is indeed on the books in a way that is appropriate, they must be willing to pay the price for their activisim. However, to advocate US warships fire on them is clearly irrational and, if this is truly how you feel, then I am also glad you are not allowed to take the law into your hands.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

This little snippet seems to show that either the US government is getting ever more paranoid or that one part of it doesn't know what another part is doing.

"Since 80 percent of the country's big-leaf mahogany is exported to the United States, Brazil turned to the U.S. government for help. Early in February 2002, Hamilton Casara, who was then president of IBAMA, met with Assistant Secretary of State John Turner in Washington, D.C. In a speech on February 14, President George W. Bush revealed that he had asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to come up with a plan to crack down on illegal logging. Inspectors from the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seized Brazilian mahogany shipments at U.S. ports".

In reply to Greater Valia. This is a global problem and directly and indirectly affects us all. Greenpeace began in Britain too. So I think a Brit like Spoff or me or anyone from any bloody nation not only has a right to be interested but is also entitled do whatever they can to fight the viscious use of an ancient law. The Brazilian government is trying its best to cut back on a trade that brings it $billions. Most other countries do their bit to refuse this endangered species of wood. And Greenpeace have the guts to actually act phyisically to bring the attention of the world to this and other illegal trading. There are only two sets of villains here. The illegal traders and the US government which seems to want to protect them.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

This little snippet seems to show that either the US government is getting ever more paranoid or that one part of it doesn't know what another part is doing.

"Since 80 percent of the country's big-leaf mahogany is exported to the United States, Brazil turned to the U.S. government for help. Early in February 2002, Hamilton Casara, who was then president of IBAMA, met with Assistant Secretary of State John Turner in Washington, D.C. In a speech on February 14, President George W. Bush revealed that he had asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to come up with a plan to crack down on illegal logging. Inspectors from the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seized Brazilian mahogany shipments at U.S. ports".

In reply to Greater Valia. This is a global problem and directly and indirectly affects us all. Greenpeace began in Britain too. So I think a Brit like Spoff or me or anyone from any bloody nation not only has a right to be interested but is also entitled do whatever they can to fight the viscious use of an ancient law. The Brazilian government is trying its best to cut back on a trade that brings it $billions. Most other countries do their bit to refuse this endangered species of wood. And Greenpeace have the guts to actually act phyisically to bring the attention of the world to this and other illegal trading. There are only two sets of villains here. The illegal traders and the US government which seems to want to protect them.

Yes, but in this instance, Greenpeace is also guilty of trying to paint a law as something it materially isn't in order to garner sympathy. It's spin, pure and simple, and both sides are guilty of using it. Ashcroft's once again shown himself to be more about the concerns of big business than justice while Greenpeace has shown that they have no problem using the tactics they claim to fight against in order to further their own cause.

[
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Do you actually know what is happening to our natural world? Are you even vaguely aware that the South American forests are one of the Earths lungs? Do you realise that the wood in question is from trees that take forever to grow? Do you know that these trees are a vital part of the Brazilian eco-system?

[

Yes, but in this instance, Greenpeace is also guilty of trying to paint a law as something it materially isn't in order to garner sympathy. It's spin, pure and simple, and both sides are guilty of using it. Ashcroft's once again shown himself to be more about the concerns of big business than justice while Greenpeace has shown that they have no problem using the tactics they claim to fight against in order to further their own cause.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes I agree with that but it is the US government that is instituting the proceedings. Do you expect Greenpeace to not aquire the best lawyers they can afford to avoid being labelled a 'criminal' organisation?

[

Yes, but in this instance, Greenpeace is also guilty of trying to paint a law as something it materially isn't in order to garner sympathy. It's spin, pure and simple, and both sides are guilty of using it. Ashcroft's once again shown himself to be more about the concerns of big business than justice while Greenpeace has shown that they have no problem using the tactics they claim to fight against in order to further their own cause.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes I agree with that but it is the US government that is instituting the proceedings. Do you expect Greenpeace to not aquire the best lawyers they can afford to avoid being labelled a 'criminal' organisation?

No, absolutely not. They have every right to find the best defence. However, there must be accountability of actions on both sides. It's hard to claim the moral high ground when you sacrifice that morality so blatently. Frankly, I hope Greenpeace wins this one, but by the seeming letter of the law (which, I say again, I am not familiar with this specific law, so I'm going on what Greenpeace itself has described), it's "fair" (whatever that word means anymore) for Ashcroft to prosecute them under it. If they win, they should win because it's a stupid law that's clearly only being selectively enforced, not because it's a "law against prostitution" which therefore doesn't apply to them.

That's pretty crazy.

[

Yes, but in this instance, Greenpeace is also guilty of trying to paint a law as something it materially isn't in order to garner sympathy. It's spin, pure and simple, and both sides are guilty of using it. Ashcroft's once again shown himself to be more about the concerns of big business than justice while Greenpeace has shown that they have no problem using the tactics they claim to fight against in order to further their own cause.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes I agree with that but it is the US government that is instituting the proceedings. Do you expect Greenpeace to not aquire the best lawyers they can afford to avoid being labelled a 'criminal' organisation?

No, absolutely not. They have every right to find the best defence. However, there must be accountability of actions on both sides. It's hard to claim the moral high ground when you sacrifice that morality so blatently. Frankly, I hope Greenpeace wins this one, but by the seeming letter of the law (which, I say again, I am not familiar with this specific law, so I'm going on what Greenpeace itself has described), it's "fair" (whatever that word means anymore) for Ashcroft to prosecute them under it. If they win, they should win because it's a stupid law that's clearly only being selectively enforced, not because it's a "law against prostitution" which therefore doesn't apply to them.Its easy to win a moral highground when your opponents are digging in the dirt. Their highground just isn't as high as it could be.

Its easy to win a moral highground when your opponents are digging in the dirt. Their highground just isn't as high as it could be.

Yes, but if you employ the same dirty tactics that you accuse your opponents of, how can you ever be sure that your actions aren't tainted? There must be accountability on both sides. Ashcroft's day of reckoning will come (indeed, given the clear panic mode at the White House, the FedEx guy may be knocking at his door with a great big box of "What He Deserves" all ready for him), but Greenpeace isn't helping it's case by muddying the waters.

Its easy to win a moral highground when your opponents are digging in the dirt. Their highground just isn't as high as it could be.

Yes, but if you employ the same dirty tactics that you accuse your opponents of, how can you ever be sure that your actions aren't tainted? There must be accountability on both sides. Ashcroft's day of reckoning will come (indeed, given the clear panic mode at the White House, the FedEx guy may be knocking at his door with a great big box of "What He Deserves" all ready for him), but Greenpeace isn't helping it's case by muddying the waters.Muddying the waters may seem inconsequential compared to having their organisation branded as criminal

Its easy to win a moral highground when your opponents are digging in the dirt. Their highground just isn't as high as it could be.

Yes, but if you employ the same dirty tactics that you accuse your opponents of, how can you ever be sure that your actions aren't tainted? There must be accountability on both sides. Ashcroft's day of reckoning will come (indeed, given the clear panic mode at the White House, the FedEx guy may be knocking at his door with a great big box of "What He Deserves" all ready for him), but Greenpeace isn't helping it's case by muddying the waters.Muddying the waters may seem inconsequential compared to having their organisation branded as criminal

I agree, but that's why I hope they win if Ashcroft presses this. Not because laws shouldn't apply to them (they should, that's a risk of aggressive activisim), but because the law itself is incorrect and it's motive for application in this case is suspect.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

Greenpeace aren't my favorite activist organization either and if this law is indeed on the books in a way that is appropriate, they must be willing to pay the price for their activisim. However, to advocate US warships fire on them is clearly irrational and, if this is truly how you feel, then I am also glad you are not allowed to take the law into your hands.
Well, I myself am glad. I consider snide remarks like this as examples of me masturbating. It's wild, political fantasies of mine that sometimes force themselves to come out. Besides, in my mindset, Greenpeace is just as radical, though not as violent, as ELF. Whatever happens to them, I won't shed a tear. Yet, as I said, if I were dictator of the world, and I'm very glad I'm not, Greenpeace would be wiped out.

Well, I myself am glad. I consider snide remarks like this as examples of me masturbating. It's wild, political fantasies of mine that sometimes force themselves to come out. Besides, in my mindset, Greenpeace is just as radical, though not as violent, as ELF. Whatever happens to them, I won't shed a tear. Yet, as I said, if I were dictator of the world, and I'm very glad I'm not, Greenpeace would be wiped out.

Snide remarks of tyranical global domination and blatant misuse of power = masturbation to you? All righty, then, well, I guess that's why the phrase "Different Strokes For Different Folks" crept it's way into usage. :D

[
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Do you actually know what is happening to our natural world? Are you even vaguely aware that the South American forests are one of the Earths lungs? Do you realise that the wood in question is from trees that take forever to grow? Do you know that these trees are a vital part of the Brazilian eco-system?
Yes, yes, and yes. However, the best way to do this is not to punish the loggers, as Greenpeace seems intent to do. Rather, protection can be done in other ways. Greenpeace raises money from its members like a cult, each group's members fanatically give money away. Greenpeace can afford to buy millions of acres of land, like other conservation groups have done.
Besides, the trend of destroying Amazon rainforests will start to decelerate, as more and more people from the poverty-stricken north move into the wealthier south, making Brazil a commercial powerhouse. Many in the UN population fund find trends like these encouraging as they free land for conservation. That's the type of thing in need of encouraging, but admonishing the settlers won't help, as they don't know any better. Instead, they'll figure out on their own that rainforest settlement won't work, or through gentler education. There are steps the US government can take to help, but alas, the Brazilian government is full of hotheads, and they'll never take a solution from us.

They broke onto someone's private property in Federal territory (IIRC, International Ports are Federal turf, like military bases are, when they're in the U.S.)
Ashcroft is pressing on a law that was written in reaction to another kind of unauthorized boarding.
Gee...

I don't honestly see the problem here-Greenpeace as an Entity is responsible for its members' actions, just like the U.S. Military is, or any ordinary group of young, disadvantaged, americans in the Inner Cities of the United States.

Put it this way: if it was members of the L.A. Crips or the KKK, this wouldn't even be debate-worthy, they were trespassing on somoene else's equipment docked to United States property.
It's only because Greenpeace is the Darling of the American Left that this is even an issue.

They broke onto someone's private property in Federal territory (IIRC, International Ports are Federal turf, like military bases are, when they're in the U.S.)
Ashcroft is pressing on a law that was written in reaction to another kind of unauthorized boarding.
Gee...

I don't honestly see the problem here-Greenpeace as an Entity is responsible for its members' actions, just like the U.S. Military is, or any ordinary group of young, disadvantaged, americans in the Inner Cities of the United States.

Put it this way: if it was members of the L.A. Crips or the KKK, this wouldn't even be debate-worthy, they were trespassing on somoene else's equipment docked to United States property.
It's only because Greenpeace is the Darling of the American Left that this is even an issue.They're being prosecuted under the most obscure terms, and thats not a problem to you? The fact is, if they could be got for trespassing, they'd be got for tresspassing. I'm willing to bet that absent this law, their action was in fact legal, and that they checked that out before they started on their protest.

And since when was Greenpeace the "darling" of the ever-shrinking American Left? Since when was Greenpeace ANYONE'S darling, for that matter?

Well, I myself am glad. I consider snide remarks like this as examples of me masturbating. It's wild, political fantasies of mine that sometimes force themselves to come out. Besides, in my mindset, Greenpeace is just as radical, though not as violent, as ELF. Whatever happens to them, I won't shed a tear. Yet, as I said, if I were dictator of the world, and I'm very glad I'm not, Greenpeace would be wiped out.

Snide remarks of tyranical global domination and blatant misuse of power = masturbation to you? All righty, then, well, I guess that's why the phrase "Different Strokes For Different Folks" crept it's way into usage. :D
Probably.

[
Yes, yes, and yes. However, the best way to do this is not to punish the loggers, as Greenpeace seems intent to do. Rather, protection can be done in other ways. Greenpeace raises money from its members like a cult, each group's members fanatically give money away. Greenpeace can afford to buy millions of acres of land, like other conservation groups have done.
Besides, the trend of destroying Amazon rainforests will start to decelerate, as more and more people from the poverty-stricken north move into the wealthier south, making Brazil a commercial powerhouse. Many in the UN population fund find trends like these encouraging as they free land for conservation. That's the type of thing in need of encouraging, but admonishing the settlers won't help, as they don't know any better. Instead, they'll figure out on their own that rainforest settlement won't work, or through gentler education. There are steps the US government can take to help, but alas, the Brazilian government is full of hotheads, and they'll never take a solution from us.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Wrong, wrong and wrong.
So you're against catching, stopping and punishing the illegal loggers? Why? They're well aware of the crimes they're comitting. They're well aware of the damage they're doing to you and me, which is more than you seem to be. Why is it okay to bring the force of law against Greenpeace, a legal group that strives to protect our shrinking world assets but not against criminals who are not afraid to murder to get their way? Thank God you aren't in a position to effect the law.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use the word cult and Greenpeace and 'fanatically' in the same sentence. It betrays far too much bias, though you try and sound reasonable.
Another sign of your ignorance (proper use of the word) is that you're under the wild misaprehension that Greenpeace could but the land they want to protect. First, a general point; they couldn't buy the rainforests of the world, the Antarctic, the Northern forests of the USA etc. I assume that's blindingly obvious even to you. Second, they couldn't raise a fraction of the money required to protect even this region. And just how willing do you believe that Brazil is to sell it? And other 'convservation groups' have most certainly not bought millions of acres of endangered land. Please remain in this real world when thinking.

Purly said:
"Besides, the trend of destroying Amazon rainforests will start to decelerate, as more and more people from the poverty-stricken north move into the wealthier south, making Brazil a commercial powerhouse".

Are you just making this up or do you actually believe it? What you describe is precisely what will accelerate the demise of the rain-forests. Nobody in the UN finds any of this at all encouraging. Land will not be 'freed' for conservation, it will be destroyed even faster.
This problem has got nothing (or little) to do with 'settlers', it's all about murdering gangs who will uproot existing native communities to get at the wood they want.
There is only one 'step' the US 'needs to take'. Ban the import of all wood of endangered species. Pure and simple. Is the international community again, asking too much from the worlds 'super-power'? The US refuses to honour its Kyoto comittments and human rights obligations and laws. Now it is encouraging the promotion and wealth of gangsters and the criminalisation of one of the few groups able and willing to fight for our children and grandchildren.

And since when was Greenpeace the "darling" of the ever-shrinking American Left? Since when was Greenpeace ANYONE'S darling, for that matter?


bah. You must live in an interesting part of the country, if you think the Left isn't growing, isn't dominant in domestic politics, and isn't 100% behind the actions and activities of Environmental and Animal Rights activists. Some guys (and gals) from Greenpeace get busted and the Prosecutor charges the organisation using something other than the RICO laws, it's front-page news. Some buddy of mine gets his body opened up from crotch-to-neck because some envirosadist spiked a tree on private land, it doesn't even make the local papers. The Groupslike Greenpeace know about this kind of activity, they condone and they (Unofficially, of course) endorse it, they act as a front for the groups that are out there hurting people and maybe killing one or two. But, hey, guys like Greenpeace have been utterly untouchable for Years-every time they have a problem, we hear on CNN, NBC, and ABC, how "Misunderstood" and "Mistreated" they are.

And since when was Greenpeace the "darling" of the ever-shrinking American Left? Since when was Greenpeace ANYONE'S darling, for that matter?


bah. You must live in an interesting part of the country, if you think the Left isn't growing, isn't dominant in domestic politics, and isn't 100% behind the actions and activities of Environmental and Animal Rights activists. Some guys (and gals) from Greenpeace get busted and the Prosecutor charges the organisation using something other than the RICO laws, it's front-page news. Some buddy of mine gets his body opened up from crotch-to-neck because some envirosadist spiked a tree on private land, it doesn't even make the local papers. The Groupslike Greenpeace know about this kind of activity, they condone and they (Unofficially, of course) endorse it, they act as a front for the groups that are out there hurting people and maybe killing one or two. But, hey, guys like Greenpeace have been utterly untouchable for Years-every time they have a problem, we hear on CNN, NBC, and ABC, how "Misunderstood" and "Mistreated" they are.Yes, cos everyone left-of-center thinks exactly the same

And since when was Greenpeace the "darling" of the ever-shrinking American Left? Since when was Greenpeace ANYONE'S darling, for that matter?


bah. You must live in an interesting part of the country, if you think the Left isn't growing, isn't dominant in domestic politics, and isn't 100% behind the actions and activities of Environmental and Animal Rights activists. Some guys (and gals) from Greenpeace get busted and the Prosecutor charges the organisation using something other than the RICO laws, it's front-page news. Some buddy of mine gets his body opened up from crotch-to-neck because some envirosadist spiked a tree on private land, it doesn't even make the local papers. The Groupslike Greenpeace know about this kind of activity, they condone and they (Unofficially, of course) endorse it, they act as a front for the groups that are out there hurting people and maybe killing one or two. But, hey, guys like Greenpeace have been utterly untouchable for Years-every time they have a problem, we hear on CNN, NBC, and ABC, how "Misunderstood" and "Mistreated" they are.

Actually, I live in the Heartland, so yes, I suppose it's interesting. I'm also sorry to hear about your friend. When did this happen?

[
Yes, yes, and yes. However, the best way to do this is not to punish the loggers, as Greenpeace seems intent to do. Rather, protection can be done in other ways. Greenpeace raises money from its members like a cult, each group's members fanatically give money away. Greenpeace can afford to buy millions of acres of land, like other conservation groups have done.
Besides, the trend of destroying Amazon rainforests will start to decelerate, as more and more people from the poverty-stricken north move into the wealthier south, making Brazil a commercial powerhouse. Many in the UN population fund find trends like these encouraging as they free land for conservation. That's the type of thing in need of encouraging, but admonishing the settlers won't help, as they don't know any better. Instead, they'll figure out on their own that rainforest settlement won't work, or through gentler education. There are steps the US government can take to help, but alas, the Brazilian government is full of hotheads, and they'll never take a solution from us.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Wrong, wrong and wrong.
So you're against catching, stopping and punishing the illegal loggers? Why? They're well aware of the crimes they're comitting. They're well aware of the damage they're doing to you and me, which is more than you seem to be. Why is it okay to bring the force of law against Greenpeace, a legal group that strives to protect our shrinking world assets but not against criminals who are not afraid to murder to get their way? Thank God you aren't in a position to effect the law.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use the word cult and Greenpeace and 'fanatically' in the same sentence. It betrays far too much bias, though you try and sound reasonable.
Another sign of your ignorance (proper use of the word) is that you're under the wild misaprehension that Greenpeace could but the land they want to protect. First, a general point; they couldn't buy the rainforests of the world, the Antarctic, the Northern forests of the USA etc. I assume that's blindingly obvious even to you. Second, they couldn't raise a fraction of the money required to protect even this region. And just how willing do you believe that Brazil is to sell it? And other 'convservation groups' have most certainly not bought millions of acres of endangered land. Please remain in this real world when thinking.

Purly said:
"Besides, the trend of destroying Amazon rainforests will start to decelerate, as more and more people from the poverty-stricken north move into the wealthier south, making Brazil a commercial powerhouse".

Are you just making this up or do you actually believe it? What you describe is precisely what will accelerate the demise of the rain-forests. Nobody in the UN finds any of this at all encouraging. Land will not be 'freed' for conservation, it will be destroyed even faster.
This problem has got nothing (or little) to do with 'settlers', it's all about murdering gangs who will uproot existing native communities to get at the wood they want.
There is only one 'step' the US 'needs to take'. Ban the import of all wood of endangered species. Pure and simple. Is the international community again, asking too much from the worlds 'super-power'? The US refuses to honour its Kyoto comittments and human rights obligations and laws. Now it is encouraging the promotion and wealth of gangsters and the criminalisation of one of the few groups able and willing to fight for our children and grandchildren.
Your entire arguement is based on a misconception. Feel no shame, as a.) you probably will feel that I'm lying anyhow, and b.) this misconception is widely held. The misconception is that logging is responsible for the rainforest demise. That's only partially true. Some logging takes place, but even more attractive is settling the Amazon. That is to slash and burn land, then build villages and farms. Any population study will show that more and more people on the Northeastern coast of Brazil are either moving south or further inland, into the heart of the rainforest.
Conservation groups have bought land in the Amazon. I was once a member of the Arbor Day society, and they flaunted the fact that they bought a million acres in the Amazon basin. The government could care less who buys the land, they probably just want the money. Besides, they can always reposses the land if they wanted to.
And finally, the US and other developed nations have not had an all-out ban on imports of tropical timber, as that'd destroy too many livelihoods. However, the Tropical Timber treaties of 1983 and 1994, both of which the US has ratified, heavily regulate the production and sale of such timber.
But anyhow, to see what helped destroy the rainforests, I can help you find where to look. Take a look in the August 2003 edition of National Geographic, and how the government encouraged settling back in the seventies and eighties.

And since when was Greenpeace the "darling" of the ever-shrinking American Left? Since when was Greenpeace ANYONE'S darling, for that matter?


bah. You must live in an interesting part of the country, if you think the Left isn't growing, isn't dominant in domestic politics, and isn't 100% behind the actions and activities of Environmental and Animal Rights activists. Some guys (and gals) from Greenpeace get busted and the Prosecutor charges the organisation using something other than the RICO laws, it's front-page news. Some buddy of mine gets his body opened up from crotch-to-neck because some envirosadist spiked a tree on private land, it doesn't even make the local papers. The Groupslike Greenpeace know about this kind of activity, they condone and they (Unofficially, of course) endorse it, they act as a front for the groups that are out there hurting people and maybe killing one or two. But, hey, guys like Greenpeace have been utterly untouchable for Years-every time they have a problem, we hear on CNN, NBC, and ABC, how "Misunderstood" and "Mistreated" they are.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Well, you seem to have a lot of information that the rest of us don't have.
Care to supply a few links to back up your claims? By the way, many 'right wing' people are happy for groups like Greenpeace to do the work they're doing, including most of the Conservative party in GB and conservatives in Europe.

I don't believe this one. There would be such a massive outcry against this, that the US would pay dearly. Bush isn't that dumb to let Ashcroft do that.

I don't believe this one. There would be such a massive outcry against this, that the US would pay dearly. Bush isn't that dumb to let Ashcroft do that.

For what? Enforcing our laws within our boarders and punishing under the full extent of the law? I hope Greenpeace wins, but I'm not sure why you think there would be a massive uprising over this.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif



http://www.rainforestweb.org/Rainforest_Regions/South_America/Brazil/


"1. The Issue
Although the primary cause for deforestation in the Amazon Basin lies in domestic forces -- agricultural production, cattle ranching, commercial logging and local demand for fuelwood -- trade does play an important marginal role both in destroying the rain forests and possibly saving them. Exports of non-raw wood products are permitted in Brazil and is a widely traded commodity.
International demand for forestry products also plays a large role in the process of deforestation. Beginning in 1990, Brazil has tried to eliminate all non-tariff barriers and reduction of tariffs on exports of wood and wood products. On the other hand, other tradeable products taken from the rain forest, such as nuts, can provide important economic benefits to indigenous peoples and encourage the saving of trees.


2. Description
The main sources of deforestation in the Amazon Basin are agricultural production, cattle ranching, commercial logging and demand for fuelwood. Amazon logging and wood processing operations have been able to benefit from government incentives and outright subsidies (see CHILE and USWOOD cases). SUDAM (Superintendency for Development of Amazonia) was established to help subsidize industrial and agricultural development in many sectors, including the wood forestry industries. Subsidies coupled with tax breaks allowed Brazilian firms to reduce their income tax payments by one half if the savings were directed to industrial investments in the Amazon Basin. However, many of these incentives have been eliminated over the past two years. Since 1969 Brazil has maintained a raw log export ban for unprocessed tropical wood; therefore the exports have been dominated by processed products (see INDONES case). However, it is often the case were that the actual processing of wood is minimal; done merely to meet the export requirements.
The five million square kilometers of Amazon tree cover make up the largest continuous expanse of tropical rain forest remaining in the world. Although such forests cover only 7 percent of the planet's land surface, they are inhabited by some 50 percent of the plants and animals found on the globe (estimates of which range from a total of two million to 30 million species). Most disturbing of all is the fact that the total is unknown. As many as 27,000 species may be consigned to extinction every year, calculates Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson.

The impact of these extinctions is multifold: the rain forests have profound philosophical, spiritual, cultural, scientific and economic significance. Because Brazil is considered to have the highest species diversity on the earth, it is the epicenter of efforts to stem deforestation.

One alternative to harvesting wood is harvesting products of the tropical rain forest. The principal harvest product in Brazil is nuts. A well-known product derived from Brazil nuts is a candy bar called "Rainforest Crunch." The candy was originally sold with the following claim on its packet: "The nuts used in Rainforest Crunch are purchased directly, with the aid of Cultural Survival, from forest peoples." Stephen Corry, however, states that this claim is not true, because "for two years or so, all of them [nuts] were bought on the normal commercial market." In 1989, the nut industry had a turnover of $20 million. Additionally, harvest advocates argue that the labels on their goods are an important educational tool. They say that they "use product packages to educate consumers about both rain forest and the peoples who live in them. In 1991, some 30 million Americans bought products that explained the importance of the rain forests, how consumers could help local groups protect their resources..."

I don't believe this one. There would be such a massive outcry against this, that the US would pay dearly. Bush isn't that dumb to let Ashcroft do that.Well, follow the links on the first page, lend your voice to the outcry.

Ah yes, the amusing ongoing saga of the US pissing away what little international credibility it retains. Should they follow through, this promises to be interesting. :twisted:

I don't believe this one. There would be such a massive outcry against this, that the US would pay dearly. Bush isn't that dumb to let Ashcroft do that.Well, follow the links on the first page, lend your voice to the outcry.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yep, I've sent my letter Spoff and sent three other peoples adresses.
Keep up the fight you old tosser.

Ah yes, the amusing ongoing saga of the US pissing away what little international credibility it retains. Should they follow through, this promises to be interesting. :twisted:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You know, like most people here, I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-American government policy. I've posted many times here and other places decrying what the US is doing in the name of its people. I've sadly now come to the conclusion that whatever else motivates the US administration, arrogance drives all of it.

Arrogance and supreme confidence that they can do anything without paying a price? Perhaps that attitude is well-founded, as the price that is paid is not one that is important to them. No-one doing that stuff is ever going to see any of the reprecussions.

Arrogance and supreme confidence that they can do anything without paying a price? Perhaps that attitude is well-founded, as the price that is paid is not one that is important to them. No-one doing that stuff is ever going to see any of the reprecussions.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Not yet.

Not yet.
Heh, being voted out or being forced to resign is hardly a reprecussion. It just means they won't be there to do it all in person.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif



http://www.rainforestweb.org/Rainforest_Regions/South_America/Brazil/


"1. The Issue
Although the primary cause for deforestation in the Amazon Basin lies in domestic forces -- agricultural production, cattle ranching, commercial logging and local demand for fuelwood -- trade does play an important marginal role both in destroying the rain forests and possibly saving them. Exports of non-raw wood products are permitted in Brazil and is a widely traded commodity.
International demand for forestry products also plays a large role in the process of deforestation. Beginning in 1990, Brazil has tried to eliminate all non-tariff barriers and reduction of tariffs on exports of wood and wood products. On the other hand, other tradeable products taken from the rain forest, such as nuts, can provide important economic benefits to indigenous peoples and encourage the saving of trees.


2. Description
The main sources of deforestation in the Amazon Basin are agricultural production, cattle ranching, commercial logging and demand for fuelwood. Amazon logging and wood processing operations have been able to benefit from government incentives and outright subsidies (see CHILE and USWOOD cases). SUDAM (Superintendency for Development of Amazonia) was established to help subsidize industrial and agricultural development in many sectors, including the wood forestry industries. Subsidies coupled with tax breaks allowed Brazilian firms to reduce their income tax payments by one half if the savings were directed to industrial investments in the Amazon Basin. However, many of these incentives have been eliminated over the past two years. Since 1969 Brazil has maintained a raw log export ban for unprocessed tropical wood; therefore the exports have been dominated by processed products (see INDONES case). However, it is often the case were that the actual processing of wood is minimal; done merely to meet the export requirements.
The five million square kilometers of Amazon tree cover make up the largest continuous expanse of tropical rain forest remaining in the world. Although such forests cover only 7 percent of the planet's land surface, they are inhabited by some 50 percent of the plants and animals found on the globe (estimates of which range from a total of two million to 30 million species). Most disturbing of all is the fact that the total is unknown. As many as 27,000 species may be consigned to extinction every year, calculates Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson.

The impact of these extinctions is multifold: the rain forests have profound philosophical, spiritual, cultural, scientific and economic significance. Because Brazil is considered to have the highest species diversity on the earth, it is the epicenter of efforts to stem deforestation.

One alternative to harvesting wood is harvesting products of the tropical rain forest. The principal harvest product in Brazil is nuts. A well-known product derived from Brazil nuts is a candy bar called "Rainforest Crunch." The candy was originally sold with the following claim on its packet: "The nuts used in Rainforest Crunch are purchased directly, with the aid of Cultural Survival, from forest peoples." Stephen Corry, however, states that this claim is not true, because "for two years or so, all of them [nuts] were bought on the normal commercial market." In 1989, the nut industry had a turnover of $20 million. Additionally, harvest advocates argue that the labels on their goods are an important educational tool. They say that they "use product packages to educate consumers about both rain forest and the peoples who live in them. In 1991, some 30 million Americans bought products that explained the importance of the rain forests, how consumers could help local groups protect their resources..."
This is what the US, and other nations should do. Trade freely in every single product Brazil has to offer except timber. With the creation of commerce resulting, this will accelarate the drive south to the major cities.
However, that doesn't mean that Brazil's rainforests are nothing but mere tourist attractions. As you mentioned, Brazil nuts are grown. Same with passion fruits. There are many different types of things that can be harvested without cutting trees down. There's lots of cocoa and vanilla that can be grown. Furthermore, several different types of medicines are probably waiting to be found in the rainforests. The US and others should encourage this trade any way it can.
Furthermore, settling of the Amazon basin needs to be discouraged, and I feel that with the right agricultural methods, by 2050, the Amazon basin will have a low population concentration, and will actually grow as there is no need. I'm an advocate for GMOs, as I believe that they conserve land, as higher yields can be grown on less soil. And if the Brazilian lumberjacks want something to do, they should do something like Hawaii is doing. As its sugarcane industry is dying, the University of Hawaii is testing hardwood lumber, to see what's hardiest. Brazil needs to do such an endeavor. Sadly, the Brazilian government and people seem to lack the will necessary to balance their environment with their economy.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

Greenpeace aren't my favorite activist organization either and if this law is indeed on the books in a way that is appropriate, they must be willing to pay the price for their activisim. However, to advocate US warships fire on them is clearly irrational and, if this is truly how you feel, then I am also glad you are not allowed to take the law into your hands.
Well, I myself am glad. I consider snide remarks like this as examples of me masturbating. It's wild, political fantasies of mine that sometimes force themselves to come out. Besides, in my mindset, Greenpeace is just as radical, though not as violent, as ELF. Whatever happens to them, I won't shed a tear. Yet, as I said, if I were dictator of the world, and I'm very glad I'm not, Greenpeace would be wiped out.
Agreed. ELF should be our first priority though. They're domestic terrorists, and need to be shot. As for Kyoto, well, that was a bullshit treaty designed to destroy the American economy, and was correctly ignored by the Senate and President Bush.

As long as they find them illegal, I'll be happy. France thought of them criminals nearly 20 years ago, and didn't give them a trial. We're too generous. It's too bad that giving them a trial is the right thing to do, or otherwise, they'd appear on the same list as Hell's Angels and the Gambinos.

Compairing Greenpeace with mafiosos and a bike gang is inappropriate. And congratulations on sacrificing due process for your own agenda, one of the unquestionable tennants of the US legal system.
Thank you, thank you. I've heard worse against Greenpeace, too, and not all of them are bad ideas. Have US navy warships fire on Greenpeace boats, for instance. I'm glad I'm not allowed to take the law into my hands, or otherwise, they would be an outlaw organization. Really though, there are better environmental groups other than these far-left environmentalist wackos.

Greenpeace aren't my favorite activist organization either and if this law is indeed on the books in a way that is appropriate, they must be willing to pay the price for their activisim. However, to advocate US warships fire on them is clearly irrational and, if this is truly how you feel, then I am also glad you are not allowed to take the law into your hands.
Well, I myself am glad. I consider snide remarks like this as examples of me masturbating. It's wild, political fantasies of mine that sometimes force themselves to come out. Besides, in my mindset, Greenpeace is just as radical, though not as violent, as ELF. Whatever happens to them, I won't shed a tear. Yet, as I said, if I were dictator of the world, and I'm very glad I'm not, Greenpeace would be wiped out.
Agreed. ELF should be our first priority though. They're domestic terrorists, and need to be shot. As for Kyoto, well, that was a bullshit treaty designed to destroy the American economy, and was correctly ignored by the Senate and President Bush.
In the words of one Danish environmentalist (forgot his name), Kyoto was stupid. Global warming is happening, he says, but there's little we can do now to stop it. Instead, humans should be more concerned about adapting to it, and sticking to more traditional environmental issues: air pollution, water pollution, save the rainforests, save the whales, etc.

Ah yes, the amusing ongoing saga of the US pissing away what little international credibility it retains. Should they follow through, this promises to be interesting. :twisted:

this horrific sailor mongering must be stopped at all costs!!!!!

In the words of one Danish environmentalist (forgot his name), Kyoto was stupid. Global warming is happening, he says, but there's little we can do now to stop it. Instead, humans should be more concerned about adapting to it, and sticking to more traditional environmental issues: air pollution, water pollution, save the rainforests, save the whales, etc.

His name is Bjorn Lomborg. He's about the only prominent self-styled environmentalist with a brain. It's too bad people such as he are overpowered by the Greenpeace and ELF morons.

ELF should be our first priority though. They're domestic terrorists, and need to be shot.

domestic terrorists that haven't hurt a single person...

http://67.18.37.15/330/185/upload/photo-7.jpg

ELF should be our first priority though. They're domestic terrorists, and need to be shot.

domestic terrorists that haven't hurt a single person...

http://67.18.37.15/330/185/upload/photo-7.jpg
Eh? Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The ELF and other such terrorists spike trees and cause massive property damage. Furthermore, they seek to undermine the lawful government of the United States. They need to die.

Eh? Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The ELF and other such terrorists spike trees and cause massive property damage. Furthermore, they seek to undermine the lawful government of the United States. They need to die.

elves have no connection to the racist militia movement, therefore no connection to the oklahoma city bombing.

and yes they spike trees and cause property damage. good for them. hummer dealerships and ski lodges look really nice while on fire.

His name is Bjorn Lomborg. He's about the only prominent self-styled environmentalist with a brain.

brain or not, his arguments were totally torn to shreds in magazines like science and other peer-reviewed journals. to say nothing of the green press.

Eh? Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The ELF and other such terrorists spike trees and cause massive property damage. Furthermore, they seek to undermine the lawful government of the United States. They need to die.

elves have no connection to the racist militia movement, therefore no connection to the oklahoma city bombing.

and yes they spike trees and cause property damage. good for them. hummer dealerships and ski lodges look really nice while on fire.

You said that domestic terrorists hadn't hurt anyone, I was simply refuting that obviously false claim. As for your blatant advocacy of causing immense property damage, you can piss off. Spiking trees kills and maims loggers. I suppose you support that too, right?

You said that domestic terrorists hadn't hurt anyone, I was simply refuting that obviously false claim. As for your blatant advocacy of causing immense property damage, you can piss off. Spiking trees kills and maims loggers. I suppose you support that too, right?

i didn't say that no domestic terrorists had hurt anybody. fuck, nazis have killed people who were friends of friends of mine. but i do wonder about the use of the word terrorist to describe a group that hasn't hurt anybody and in fact refuses to hurt anybody.

spiking trees rarely if ever hurts loggers. but more to the point, spiking trees is a tactic used to prevent people from cutting down the trees in a particular area. when you spike some trees, you let the logging company and the media know that it has been done. if the company decides it doesn't care about the chance of a logger getting hurt and sends them off to an area that they know has been spiked, that looks like reckless endangerment on their part to me.

You said that domestic terrorists hadn't hurt anyone, I was simply refuting that obviously false claim. As for your blatant advocacy of causing immense property damage, you can piss off. Spiking trees kills and maims loggers. I suppose you support that too, right?

i didn't say that no domestic terrorists had hurt anybody. f---, nazis have killed people who were friends of friends of mine. but i do wonder about the use of the word terrorist to describe a group that hasn't hurt anybody and in fact refuses to hurt anybody.



They haven't hurt anyone yet because they know it would swing public opinion against them. If they thought that killing people would further their agenda, they wouldn't hesitate to do it. As for not having hurt anyone, how does that disqualify them from being terrorists? The hijackers in the '70s didn't hurt too many people, they just used terrorist tactics to further their agenda.


spiking trees rarely if ever hurts loggers. but more to the point, spiking trees is a tactic used to prevent people from cutting down the trees in a particular area. when you spike some trees, you let the logging company and the media know that it has been done. if the company decides it doesn't care about the chance of a logger getting hurt and sends them off to an area that they know has been spiked, that looks like reckless endangerment on their part to me.
Who gave these scumbags the authority to do this to private property? The Angels from God? They're just piece of shit with delusions of grandeur, not the self-styled saviors of the Earth as they seem to believe. They're common criminals with a santimonious attitude at best, at worst, terrorists.

In the words of one Danish environmentalist (forgot his name), Kyoto was stupid. Global warming is happening, he says, but there's little we can do now to stop it. Instead, humans should be more concerned about adapting to it, and sticking to more traditional environmental issues: air pollution, water pollution, save the rainforests, save the whales, etc.

His name is Bjorn Lomborg. He's about the only prominent self-styled environmentalist with a brain. It's too bad people such as he are overpowered by the Greenpeace and ELF morons.
It certainly is. It's time that more environmentalists become like him, who realise that humans won't stop using electricity, drastically reduce its population, or stops being a world of consumers.