How far will he go to stifle dissent, and in what form? Here's an interesting piece from today's LA Times:


Ashcroft Fishes Out 1872 Law in a Bid to Scuttle Protester Rights


By Bill McKibben, Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books on the environment, including "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age" (Times Books, 2003).

In April of 2002, a cargo ship, the Jade, was steaming toward Miami carrying a cargo of mahogany illegally cut from the Brazilian Amazon. Two Greenpeace activists tried to clamber aboard the ship and hang a banner that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." None of which is unusual.

The trees of the Amazon are logged day after day, year after year, despite a host of treaties and laws and despite the fact that scientists agree that an intact rain forest is essential for everything from conserving species to protecting the climate. And Greenpeace, day after day, tries to call attention to such crimes. It pesters rich, powerful interests about toxic dumping and outlaw whaling and a hundred other topics that those interests would rather not be pestered about. The Miami activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served. All in a day's work.

But here's where it starts getting weird: More than a year after the ship boarding, the Justice Department indicted Greenpeace itself. According to the group's attorneys, it's the first time an organization has been prosecuted for "the speech-related activities of its supporters."

How far did the government have to stretch to make its case? The law it cited against boarding ships about to enter ports was passed in 1872 and aimed at the proprietors of boardinghouses who used liquor and prostitutes to lure crews to their establishments. The last prosecution under the "sailor-mongering" act took place in 1890. The new case could be like something straight out of "Master and Commander."

The matter goes to trial next week in a federal district court in Miami, and if Greenpeace loses, the organization could be fined $20,000 and placed on probation. The money's no big deal; outraged supporters would probably turn such a verdict into a fundraising bonanza. But the probation would be. The group might well be prevented from engaging in any acts of civil disobedience for years to come. If it crossed the line, the group's officers might be jailed and its assets seized. Since civil disobedience is what Greenpeace does best, the Justice Department might in effect be shutting the group down.

That would be too bad, and not just for Greenpeace. The potential precedent here — that the government can choke off protest by shutting down those who organize it — undermines one of the most important safety valves of our political life.

During the civil rights era, Southern sheriffs used every law they could think of to jail protesters — loitering was a favorite charge. Imagine some group being put on probation because it had helped organize sit-ins. But even J. Edgar Hoover didn't try to criminalize the NAACP. As the veteran civil rights campaigner Julian Bond said recently, "If John Ashcroft had done this in the 1960s, black Americans would not be voting today, eating at formerly all-white lunch counters, or sitting on bus front seats."

As is the norm, this attack on political liberties is excused by the need for "port safety" in the wake of 9/11. But I've watched Greenpeace for years, and its members are the furthest thing from terrorists; according to the group, "no Greenpeace activist has ever harmed another individual," despite a record of direct action dating to its founding. in 1971.

If port safety truly were the issue, the federal government would have made far more progress toward inspecting cargo arriving by sea. Confidence in the vigor of governmental scrutiny was not enhanced when it managed not to find the Jade's illegal mahogany and let it sail on from Miami. Two days later it unloaded 70 tons of the wood in Charleston, S.C.

The real threat Greenpeace represents is that its members tell the truth, and do it obnoxiously, out in public, where it can't be missed.

The Bush administration knows its environmental record is poor, and it knows that hanging banners matters. (That's why the White House printed up the "Mission Accomplished" flag for the president's May 1, 2003, aircraft carrier photo op). To spare itself embarrassment, the administration is willing to endanger core political freedoms that go back to the very founding of the republic.

How far back? Dec. 16, 1773, at least, when a crew of patriots disguised as Mohawks illegally boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and dumped overboard all the cargo of tea. As the raiders paraded away from the docks, British Adm. John Montague shouted: "Well, boys, you have had a fine pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you. But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet."

Now 230 years later, it's Atty. Gen. Ashcroft playing the part of the British officer, and the words are just as chilling.

Ashcroft is a verminous Christian Cunt.  sorry to shock-  but he really is a danger to all of us.  He's the prosecutor from the Crucible brought to life.  Except not as bright, a danger as well.

His misunderstanding of terror is total, his response insanely self defeating.

And he is the anointed LE arm of the Bush administration. He is a perfect litmus test of their ultimate goals for this nation.

The actual point here is that the only evidence that the wood was illegally being imported is Greenpeace's say so.

"Kerr and other lawyers contend that the animal- and eco-rights movements already are in the crosshairs of the Bush administration. At the moment all eyes are on Greenpeace, which ran afoul of the Department of Justice last year after two activists boarded a boat carrying wood that Greenpeace says was illegally exported from the Amazon and hung banners over the side that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." For that act, Greenpeace has been charged with violating an obscure and ancient "sailormongering" law that prohibits unauthorized persons from boarding a boat before it's moored."  (from 5/12/04 Village Voice (hardly a right wing news source)

Here's the crutch of that paragraph:
"...that Greenpeace says was illegally exported from the Amazon"

Also noteworthy in the article by Mr. McKibben is that he alludes to the fact that Greenpeace was unsuccessful in their attempts to hang the banner, while the Village Voice article states clearly that they indeed did hang the banner.  McKibben's bias is so blatant as to render him an unworthy source of information leaving this article nothing more than another liberal pundit attempting to promote their cause under the guise of a news article.

Greenpeace and their sister organizations, the Sierra Club, Earth Liberation Front, etc., are doing more to destroy world support than gain it.  If it was illegally harvested from Brazil, then prove it.  I'm kind of surprised that boarding a vessel is not just ordinary trespassing.

The Ecco-terrorism that these groups are committing is not making a whole lot of friends.  Greenpeace's own press releases are ridiculous, at the rate thy claim the rain forests are being destroyed, it would have been totally gone about 4 years ago.  If they weren't so knee jerk, maybe they could garner wider support.

He also lost to a dead guy when running for re-election to the Senate in 2000.

Myself being from Missouri (Asscrock's home state), I relish the opportunity to mention that fact every chance I get!!!

-- Modified on 5/15/2004 12:02:58 AM

-- Modified on 5/15/2004 12:07:05 AM

Carnahan's death in a plane crash right before the 2000 election had no bearing on my voting decision.  My vote was always for Carnahan, and not against Asscrock, before Carnahan's death.  Carnahan had my vote if he would've lived, anyway.  When election day arrived & I cast my vote, it became unwittingly more likely a vote against Asscrock.  It would be safe to assume the vast majority of Carnahan's votes that day were most likely cast in the same vein.

Are you 100% in support of everything Ashcroft does?

Obviously, I do not know everything Ashcroft does, or do you.

But, I do not have the fear of him that I had for personal freedoms under Reno.

Has Ashcroft sent armed agents of the FBI, ATF, Federal Marshal's, etc onto private property in an attempt to arrest anyone after contacting all the media in order to send a message to those who are of a religious sect?  A decision that led to the deaths of four and serious wounding of 16 Government Agents?  Then burned it to the ground, prosecuting the death penalty on 77 American citizens, including 20 children without trial?

Has the John Ashcroft Justice Department ever gone onto private property with shoot to kill orders as they did against Randy Weaver and his family as Ruby Ridge?  Killing Weaver's young son and wife?  Or anything like that?

Has the John Ashcroft Justice Department even entered private property to forcible remove a child from his bed at gunpoint to send him back to a brutal communist dictator?

What you are pining about is the Justice Department prosecuting trespassers based on their contested opinion that something illegal had taken place.  In other words you are upset that VIGILANTES are being prosecuted!

I wonder if you had or have the same compassion for people sitting at the entrance to Abortion Clinics when they are arrested and prosecuted by trumped up RICO charges by the Reno Justice Department.  My assumption would be no, but you might surprise me.

In the United States that I grew up in, you have the right to civil disobedience, but you must be willing to pay the price for that civil disobedience.  That is why I have exactly as much respect for men who went to prison for their ideals in refusing to serve in the military during the Vietnam War as I do for those who served.  Unlike those to protested and then ran off to Canada or hid!  Liberals want carte blanche when it comes to civil disobedience and then cry foul when they have to pay up for their own actions!

What a elitist mentality!

I asked a simple question - perhaps too simple. Do you agree with everything John Ashcroft does as Attorney General? Granted, you not I can know everything he does, so perhaps I can simplify further - do you agree with everything you have heard reported about John Ashcroft's actions as Attorney General? Do you believe it was a sensible use of taxpayer funds to cover a breast on a statue at a cost of $9000? Do you believe it was a judicious use of Justice Department resources to fund 3 seperate investigations into prostitution rather than track known Al Qaeda members in the US as Ashcroft indicated in his testimony? Do you believe Tommy Chong and his drug paraphernalia manufacturing and sales was a more clear and present danger to the US than Mussoui (sp?) and his cronies? Do you believe overturning State decisions about medical marijuana was a better use of resources than following up on FBI memos about terrorists taking lessons on how to fly a 747 but not take off or land?

Feel free to itemize, or simply give him a blanket vote of support, whichever pleases you.

I would think that the Attorney Generals job is to enforce ALL the laws, and I think he has the resources to follow-up on what you think are areas unworthy of his offices and those that you deem fit for investigation.

As far as "following up on FBI memos about terrorists taking lessons on how to fly a 747 but not take off or land?" I would agree that this was a huge oversight.  I am not as sure as you seem to be that this issue crossed his desk before 9/11.  I also think that if he were to have investigated it, the ALCU (which I'd guess you are a supporter of) would have been all over him and the Justice Department.

Given that the employees of American Airlines indeed sensed a problem with several Arab men, buying one way tickets, for cash, with no luggage, at the last minute, but did nothing out of cooperate fears of lawsuits for "Racial Profiling".   Which the very same ACLU brought to bear on our country, and deserve or disdain for!  

You can't have it both ways Puck.  Either you enforce the law or you don't.  It is his decision which case to prosecute, not  yours or anybody else's.  It is your right however, I guess, to play Monday morning quarterback on it, although I consider it a cheap shot.  I also wonder if you were as hard on Janet Reno when as Bill Clinton now claims, Terrorism was considered a "Law Enforcement Issue" and totally the responsibility of the Attorney General, and nothing was done before or after any one of the numerous Terrorists Acts committed against Americans and America.  You know the list.

So I would say that with your 20/20 hindsight, he should have sent the crowd that Reno sent to Waco to the Arizona Airport to roust the fucking Arab scum.  And if it had prevented 9/11 I am just as convinced that you would be OUTRAGED that he rousted those poor Arab young men trying to better themselves!

So NO, I don't agree with everything he does, but I disagree with him less than everyone who has served since Richard L. Thornburgh.

Now would you give me the courtesy of an answer to my question:

"I wonder if you had or have the same compassion for people sitting at the entrance to Abortion Clinics when they are arrested and prosecuted by trumped up RICO charges by the Reno Justice Department?"

And a follow-up question:

Were you 100% in support of everything Reno did?

Please try again. If you can speak of Ashcroft and his policies on their own, I'll be happy to have a dialogue with you.
I want to be the first to give you the news - janet Reno is no longer the Attorney General. Any policies she may have pursued are part of a thing we call history, which is stories about things which happened in the past.
The day you can discuss the Bush administration and its policies and chosen warriors without falling back on Clinton, Reno, Herbert Hoover or any other now-historical figure is the day when you can be seen to be engaging in a reasoned argument. Until then it is obviously pointless.

Thanks, however, for revealing yourself here. Imagine - a right wing born-again moralist who has a taste for purchased pussy.

"IF" you would take the time to read a post, and pay attention to the words, they you might have caught my response, which was:

"So NO, I don't agree with everything he does, but I disagree with him less than everyone who has served since Richard L. Thornburgh."

Why won't you answer my questions?  Don't want to disparage a like minded autocrat?  Lack the fortitude to face your own demons?  answer the two simple questions,

The point about Reno is just why do you think that Kerry would appoint anyone better than what many consider was what the "smartest" President had appointed?








-- Modified on 5/16/2004 7:48:07 PM

Reno was certainly not perfect.  But she was not even nominated yet to be the Attorney General when Randy Weaver's family was attacked by FBI agents.  This occurred under George Herbert Walker Bush, and William Barr was the presiding Attorney General.  And in fact, the Justice Department would contend that the entire Ruby Ridge fiasco was caused by mistakes made by the FBI, who acted without proper authority or under valid rules of engagement in firing on Weaver's wife.  Bribite, how can we have an intelligent dialoge, if you are so misinformed and/or biased as to believe and or falsely imply that this even occurred under Reno's watch?

As for Waco and the killing of the Koresh clan, that was certainly a result of mistakes, but whether it was mistakes that were largely the province of the Justice Department, or of certain members of BATF who was the law enforcement agency on the ground, is entirely debateable.  In any case, I will acknowledge that the result was a tragic mistake, but in any case, the KILLING of those people would have to be DIRECTLY laid at the feet of David Koresh, who did not let them leave when the building was on fire, and who WANTED to become a martyr.

As for Elian Gonzales, I would have to say that was Janet Reno's FINEST MOMENT as Attorney General, where she insisted that the rights of a 5 year old child and his surviving, loving parent, to be together in spite of the political agenda of the Cuban refugee community in Florida, who had essentially held the child captive in defiance of the law.  I should think that you would be happy about this, because the political capital that Reno expended to do the right thing in this case - politics be damned - is in fact the ONLY reason that George W. Bush is President today, since this clearly cost Gore THOUSANDS of votes amongst the Cuban-expatriate community in Florida.

And as for the use of the RICO statutes in prosectution of Anti-Abortion protesters - HERE HERE!  I cannot think of a MORE APPROPRIATE use of RICO than to protect a bunch of pregnant ladies under duress from those who would resort to organized thuggery in order to intimidate them from obtaining the legally guaranteed medical services of their choosing in dealing with an issue that is their business and nobody else's.



-- Modified on 5/17/2004 5:59:10 PM

A wonderful discussion of the assault on the rule of law during the Clinton/Reno regime.  Saves me the trouble of writing it.

I love the Left!

You bring up their failures, and they pooh-pooh it with dismissals about how it is "part of a thing we call history, which is stories about things which happened in the past."

Sorry, you can't get away that cheaply.

Your views on the failures of your ideological allies in the past reveal your predispositions about your comments about the present.  Moreover, Puck refuses to defend Reno probably because what she did was indefensible, and immeasurably worse than the perceived sins of Ashcroft (bitching about covering a statute is no less silly than covering it in the first place).  And if far Lefties like Puck can't or won't defend her, then they should explain where they were when she was shredding the Constitution.  The uncomfortable answer is that they were defending the Clinton Administration, revealing their only interest to be in power, not in any definable principle.

The far Left's refusal to answer for their failures is merely indicative of their attitude: they reserve unto themselves the privilege of criticizing whatever and whomever they want, with no responsibility for themselves and the failed policies they advocate, all the while demanding status as "authorities" even when they have been wrong about the defining issues of the century (i.e., Soviet Communism; the nuclear freeze; Euromissiles, etc.).

I love the Left!

You bring up their failures, and they pooh-pooh it with dismissals about how it is "part of a thing we call history, which is stories about things which happened in the past."

Sorry, you can't get away that cheaply.

Your views on the failures of your ideological allies in the past reveal your predispositions about your comments about the present.  Moreover, Puck refuses to defend Reno probably because what she did was indefensible, and immeasurably worse than the perceived sins of Ashcroft (bitching about covering a statute is no less silly than covering it in the first place).  And if far Lefties like Puck can't or won't defend her, then they should explain where they were when she was shredding the Constitution.  The uncomfortable answer is that they were defending the Clinton Administration, revealing their only interest to be in power, not in any definable principle.

The far Left's refusal to answer for their failures is merely indicative of their attitude: they reserve unto themselves the privilege of criticizing whatever and whomever they want, with no responsibility for themselves and the failed policies they advocate, all the while demanding status as "authorities" even when they have been wrong about the defining issues of the century (i.e., Soviet Communism; the nuclear freeze; Euromissiles, etc.).

Since that was a Republican Administration, I guess it must have been OK?

It's one thing if those protesters are peaceful, BUT, when they start chaining themselves to cars & singing "Amazing Grace" or when they verbally and/or physically assult people that's a problem....

Furthermore, after Paul Hill murdered two people outside a Flordia clinic in early 1990's, Reno wanted to prevent further violence....She should be tough on the thugs that went beyond just a peaceful protest.......