Article

2004-05-18 Fifth Column

WND - U.S. to Use 1872 Law Against Greenpeace

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-05-18 12:22:30 AM|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The rarely used 1872 law was aimed at keeping boarding houses from luring sailors off inbound ships with offers of harlots, strong drink and warm beds. Law books mention the law only twice, most recently in 1890. "It harkens to the Barbary Coast and wenches with heaving bosoms and kegs of rum," said Kayanan.

*sigh* Ah, the good old days . . . .

Posted by Mike 2004-05-18 12:27:28 AM|| 2004-05-18 12:27:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The poor hippies finally met their match in an 1872 law :)

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-18 12:34:21 AM|| [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133085/posts] 2004-05-18 12:34:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 They take all the fun out of going to sea.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-05-18 12:57:25 AM|| 2004-05-18 12:57:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 this is really about them losing their tax exempt status should they get conviced. I pray that it happens.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-05-18 4:50:53 AM|| 2004-05-18 4:50:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Did I just not read this carefully enough or is this just more biased media?

Individual Greenpeace members were prosecuted immediately. In an unprecedented move, prosecutors indicted the organization itself 15 months later on misdemeanor charges of illegal boarding and conspiracy. A conviction could be punished by five years of probation and a $20,000 fine.

Could someone please explain to me how a law against illegal boarding and conspiracy is the same as a law meant to keep sailors out of the warm beds of harlots? Because, unless I skimmed too quickly - this article doesn't give us a clue.

Posted by B 2004-05-18 8:04:38 AM|| 2004-05-18 8:04:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 "U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan has rejected Greenpeace's attempt to access records to determine who authorized the prosecution.

Jordan has sounded open to dismissing the case on Greenpeace's claim that the wording of the old law is too vague. In an order last month, he said the group's argument "looks like a winner.""

B. I would say the Judge sees it the same way as well as you.

Posted by TomAnon 2004-05-18 8:44:56 AM|| 2004-05-18 8:44:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 of course, the ACLU has joined the defense. I hope they lose their tax-exempt status, but then again, boarders should be immediately shot as a security measure

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-18 9:28:20 AM|| 2004-05-18 9:28:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Why all the kerfluffle? Illegal boarders should be shot as pirates. End of problem.

Posted by mojo 2004-05-18 10:39:26 AM|| 2004-05-18 10:39:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "a law meant to keep sailors out of the warm beds of harlots" ...

And this is illegal WHY???

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-05-18 1:42:20 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-05-18 1:42:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Hey, the French just blow them up.

Posted by tu3031 2004-05-18 9:31:59 PM|| 2004-05-18 9:31:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Did I just not read this carefully enough or is this just more biased media?

Considering the article has a convenient link to Greenpeace at the bottom...

Posted by Pappy 2004-05-18 11:23:50 PM|| 2004-05-18 11:23:50 PM|| Front Page Top

13:58 Jarhead
13:25 11A5S
09:45 Robert Crawford
07:55 Mitch H.
04:44 Anonymous4617
04:13 Phil B
02:52 Mark Espinola
01:21 Lucky
01:14 Anonymous4617
00:32 Mike Sylwester
00:25 Zenster
00:19 RMcLeod
00:16 Bomb-a-rama
00:15 Mike Sylwester
23:53 Mark Espinola
23:46 Anonymous2U
23:40 Anonymous2U
23:34 JDB
23:23 Pappy
23:12 Edward Yee
23:10 Edward Yee
23:01 rex
22:59 ex-lib
22:52 Mike Sylwester