Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 19, 2003.
Ugh. Typical. At least it's a fairly narrow law that can't be used too widely. But nonetheless, it's still ridiculous to dig up a law from over a hundred years ago to help silence a group you disagree with.
It appears to be using the law as a partisan political weapon. Ashcroft should resign now.
(I'm waiting on the LA Times' email confirming registration.)
Miami is a port city. My question is, should I really believe that Ashcroft, himself did this "plucking", or is it possible that a federal prosecuting attorney who is likely more familiar with maritime law decide to apply some part of an existing law?
An awful lot of maritime law was codified back in the days of sail and applies now as well as then.
Hokay. Devil's Advocate hat off. Seems to me the evil in all this sort of stuff is the selective enforcement. Against those seen as enemies, but not against those considered friendly.
And this, folks, is why I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against the notions of "We need a government program to..." Police power is police power is police power, and can be selectively enforced against anybody at any time: Doesn't matter if it's environmental matters, or health and safety matters or fish/wildlife matters or health or welfare. It doesn't have to be matters of specific interest to the FBI or DEA or BATF or...Just an issue of whether you history is one of friendship with the feds, or as a whistle-blower sort.
"Interference with a federal employee in the course of his duties" is a federal felony. Problem is, the feds get to define interference, just as now they're doing with terrorism. And there are more than enough laws on the books to put most anybody in similar straits to Greenpeace or the nuns.