Posted on 11/04/2003 1:43:04 PM PST by dead
Edited on 11/06/2003 3:25:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
IT HAS lain dormant in the darkest recesses of American law for 125 years, but last month Attorney General John Ashcroft introduced critics of the administration to his latest weapon in law enforcement.
In a Miami federal court, the attorney general charged the environmental group Greenpeace under an obscure 1872 law originally intended to end the practice of "sailor-mongering," or the luring of sailors with liquor and prostitutes from their ships. Ashcroft plucked the law from obscurity to punish Greenpeace for boarding a vessel near port in Miami.
Which they would no doubt attempt regardless of what Ashcroft does or does not do.
I seem to recall Janet Reno rather cavalierly acting when it suited the Clintons' needs (Waco, Elian), regardless of the constitution, and without Ashcroft "to show the way."
That does mean I think two wrongs equal a right. It just means that I'm not so sure this is a wrong on Ashcroft's part to begin with.
Yes, I can. The author of this article described the charges against these people as an "unprecedented attack on the First Amendment." Whether or not they should be charged with the additional crime is something we can all argue about. However, there is no way in hell that a situation in which the defendents have pleaded guilty to a crime can possibly be construed as a First Amendment issue.
If anything, this is a potential case of "double jeopardy," which would make it a Fifth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment issue. But then I guess that is why the author of this article is a third-rate writer for a second-rate newspaper, and not a leading constitutional scholar.
It should also be noted that this same "double jeopardy" argument would apply in "hate crimes" cases, pro-life protesters, etc. But I am quite certain that this guy has no problem when Federal prosecutors abuse their power in cases like that.
I agree that the case against the Greenpeace people has no standing is probably unconstitutional. However, I also believe that this case should be pursued with all of the AG's resources. The problem with illicit conduct on the part of one or more branches of the Federal government is that it never gets corrected until a left-wing person or organization is the target.
I'm not like you. I don't cheer political prosecutions just because it's my side abusing their power. This is no different than Reno's and the IRS attacks on World Net Daily or Paula Jones or the NRA.
I'm not a hypocrite. I don't approve of it from either party.
If the protestors were guilty of piracy (which they weren't) Ashcroft should charge them with piracy.
But pursuing Greenpeace, the organization, with "sailor mongering" charges is disgraceful. The act of an Attorney General with no respect for the equal application of the law. He's a political hack who should be worried about terrorism, not unwashed hippy protestors.
It is NOT only about sailor-mongering. In fact that seems to be in a different section than would apply here.
I repeat it does NOT seem like the sailor-mongering section of the act is what was used. The Sailor-mongering section only applies AFTER the ship has arrived. The article reads like they boarded AS the ship arrived.
I'm disappointed in Turley.
Of course, I would not like this applied selectively though.
Okay, I'll bite. Who else is doing the same thing and not being charged?
That charge only has merit if at a future date another group does the same thing and is not charged with it.
I think this illegally boarding of ships is a fairly new thing. If this law is enforced then it will quickly become a very old thing.
I really don't think sailor mongering has been much of a serious problem in the US since about 1890.
You asked a question and I gave you an answer.
I didnt ask you any question, and I didnt appreciate your moronic Where the f--- have you been? comment.
I'm sorry you dont like the answer!
It wasnt an answer since there wasnt a question. I just thought your whole post was asinine, and reflected selective outrage on your part.
You illegally and unwantedly boarded a vessel... far as I am concerned the captain and crew of that ship should have shot you on the spot for piracy and dumped your bodies overboard for those on shore and your wacko buddies to see....
Boy, you are confused. I didnt board anything. I hate Greenpeace. And if the captain shot the protestors, he may have been able to justify it before a jury, but he didnt so the point is moot.
But Ashcroft charging an organization with sailor-mongering is undoubtedly an attempt to get back at a political enemy through means that abuse the power of his office, just like the political IRS auditing of World Net Daily during Clintons reign of terror.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.