Greenpeace

[hXc_pwnage]

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

Haha, I liked that.

[open mind]

funny. :lol2:
from what greenpeace says about the case against them it's bullshit, prosecute a group that put a sign up that said stop illegal lumber, on a boat filled with illegal lumber, and not the people who cut the lumber or the people running the boat?

[Safetyin#]

Green"peace" is really one to talk...not only have they been destructors of personal property and financial well being...but they've also been proven supporters of ELF, an eco-terrorist group that operates in the southwest...

[open mind]

well why not nail them on something substantial like that instead?

[Safetyin#]

well why not nail them on something substantial like that instead?
I say nail them for anything, envrio-wacho's are one of the biggest threats we have to personal property...but as for the funding of ELF, there are groups right now fighting them and PETA in southern California for this, but both of these groups are rich and funding by the rich elite, and as you can see with the Jesse Jackson story bring the rich down is very tuff.....But as for good news I did read that Greenpeace is about to lose their tax exemption/non profit status because of how they use their money…

[open mind]

you can't just file backwards bullshit cases, because you want to get greenpeace though

[Safetyin#]

you can't just file backwards bullshit cases, because you want to get greenpeace though

i'm not sure what your talking about, but i'll admit i didn't watch the whole video, the absurdity of the opening statement turned me off....what exactly did it say?

[open mind]

it wasn't in the video it's in an article on the site titled unprecedented federal prosecution of greenpeace to proceed with jury trial.

[Safetyin#]

Dirty Eco-Terror Money

By Marc Levin
October 28, 2003

When Americans think of terrorists after September 11, images of Arab men motivated by a perverted version of Islam inevitably come to mind. In contrast, the moniker "environmentalist" conjures up visions of granola-eating, tree-hugging, peace-loving hippies. Yet, just like a small number of radical Muslims are sullying a great religion, a new breed of eco-terrorists is poisoning the once pure environmental movement.

A rising tide of eco-terror is rapidly spreading across America. In August, fires set by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) destroyed dozens of SUV's and a warehouse at an auto dealership where vehicles were spray-painted with slogans such as "Fat, Lazy Americans." In September, ELF torched six homes under construction in San Diego County. In these two months alone, ELF's acts of eco-terrorism have cost individuals and businesses some $54 million. The FBI has now declared ELF the nation's top domestic terrorism threat.

The related Animal Liberation Front (ALF) targets laboratories that conduct vital scientific research on animals. For example, Gilbert Low, a researcher at a University of Minnesota laboratory, noted that a recent ALF attack on his facility "has set back two years research conducted there on Alzheimer's disease and cancer."

ELF and ALF have also taken credit for arsons at a Vail, Colorado ski resort, as well as damaging crop fields at university research centers in the Midwest, fur farms in the Pacific Northwest, meat vendors in the San Francisco Bay area, and department stores on the East Coast.

However, the plague of eco-terrorism is hardly confined to America. In Europe, terrorist incidents in the name of animal rights have increased from 39 in 1999 to 110 in 2002. The European news agency Novum recently reported that the damage caused by animal rights activists in Europe in the last 20 years totals $60 million.

While these acts of eco-terror are themselves clearly illegal, few people realize that the money being used to commit many of these crimes has itself been illegally laundered through tax-exempt organizations so donors can receive a tax-deduction. Environmental organizations designated by the IRS as 501(c)(3) groups are illegally transferring funds to non-exempt groups, which then use the money for eco-terror campaigns.

These wholesale transfers from more tax-restrictive organizations to less-restrictive organizations are illegal on their face because there is no way to be sure that co-mingled funds won't be used for non-exempt purposes. Furthermore, terrorist acts clearly do not fit within any of the legally recognized areas of activity for 501(c)(3) groups. Tax-exempt activities are limited to: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

On September 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled "Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred over $10 million in exempt funds to non-exempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc. between 1998 and 2000.

Greenpeace, Inc. and other non-exempt Greenpeace entities benefiting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America's Cup, permanently damaging the vessel.

In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors indicted Greenpeace in July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination."*

Greenpeace isn't alone in funneling tax-exempt dollars into eco-terrorism efforts. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated at least $70,000 from its tax-exempt coffers to the ALF.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Verhey, who prosecuted the 1992 ALF firebombing of a Michigan State University laboratory, recently noted the challenge of prosecuting eco-terrorists because of "a lack of witnesses and the group's 'cell' structure that lacks centralized leadership or a membership roster."

The difficulty in nabbing individual eco-terrorists is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS do its part to immobilize eco-terror groups by investigating the illegal use of tax-exempt funds to bankroll their crimes. Eco-terrorism is a scourge on society and a sordid stain on the wholesome causes of nonviolent environmentalists. Let's put the peace back into Greenpeace and protect the environment through vigilance, not vigilantism.

*The trial in this case is scheduled for December.

Marc Levin, a former law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is an appellate lawyer in Austin, TX, President of the American Freedom Center (www.americanfreedom.org), and Associate Editor of The Austin Review.

[hXc_pwnage]

I am not saying the way they handle things is right, but they people they target do horrible things. Like the one vet guy was a asshole.

[Safetyin#]

I am not saying the way they handle things is right, but they people they target do horrible things. Like the one vet guy was a asshole.

but they also do "horrible things" so that really makes them no different from those they target....and your a little naive to think they only target "horrible" people, there are thousands of farmers, miners, laborers, lumbers and home owners who would absolutely disagree with you....

[open mind]

Dirty Eco-Terror Money

By Marc Levin
October 28, 2003

When Americans think of terrorists after September 11, images of Arab men motivated by a perverted version of Islam inevitably come to mind. In contrast, the moniker "environmentalist" conjures up visions of granola-eating, tree-hugging, peace-loving hippies. Yet, just like a small number of radical Muslims are sullying a great religion, a new breed of eco-terrorists is poisoning the once pure environmental movement.

A rising tide of eco-terror is rapidly spreading across America. In August, fires set by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) destroyed dozens of SUV's and a warehouse at an auto dealership where vehicles were spray-painted with slogans such as "Fat, Lazy Americans." In September, ELF torched six homes under construction in San Diego County. In these two months alone, ELF's acts of eco-terrorism have cost individuals and businesses some $54 million. The FBI has now declared ELF the nation's top domestic terrorism threat.

The related Animal Liberation Front (ALF) targets laboratories that conduct vital scientific research on animals. For example, Gilbert Low, a researcher at a University of Minnesota laboratory, noted that a recent ALF attack on his facility "has set back two years research conducted there on Alzheimer's disease and cancer."

ELF and ALF have also taken credit for arsons at a Vail, Colorado ski resort, as well as damaging crop fields at university research centers in the Midwest, fur farms in the Pacific Northwest, meat vendors in the San Francisco Bay area, and department stores on the East Coast.

However, the plague of eco-terrorism is hardly confined to America. In Europe, terrorist incidents in the name of animal rights have increased from 39 in 1999 to 110 in 2002. The European news agency Novum recently reported that the damage caused by animal rights activists in Europe in the last 20 years totals $60 million.

While these acts of eco-terror are themselves clearly illegal, few people realize that the money being used to commit many of these crimes has itself been illegally laundered through tax-exempt organizations so donors can receive a tax-deduction. Environmental organizations designated by the IRS as 501(c)(3) groups are illegally transferring funds to non-exempt groups, which then use the money for eco-terror campaigns.

These wholesale transfers from more tax-restrictive organizations to less-restrictive organizations are illegal on their face because there is no way to be sure that co-mingled funds won't be used for non-exempt purposes. Furthermore, terrorist acts clearly do not fit within any of the legally recognized areas of activity for 501(c)(3) groups. Tax-exempt activities are limited to: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

On September 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled "Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred over $10 million in exempt funds to non-exempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc. between 1998 and 2000.

Greenpeace, Inc. and other non-exempt Greenpeace entities benefiting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America's Cup, permanently damaging the vessel.

In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors indicted Greenpeace in July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination."*

Greenpeace isn't alone in funneling tax-exempt dollars into eco-terrorism efforts. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated at least $70,000 from its tax-exempt coffers to the ALF.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Verhey, who prosecuted the 1992 ALF firebombing of a Michigan State University laboratory, recently noted the challenge of prosecuting eco-terrorists because of "a lack of witnesses and the group's 'cell' structure that lacks centralized leadership or a membership roster."

The difficulty in nabbing individual eco-terrorists is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS do its part to immobilize eco-terror groups by investigating the illegal use of tax-exempt funds to bankroll their crimes. Eco-terrorism is a scourge on society and a sordid stain on the wholesome causes of nonviolent environmentalists. Let's put the peace back into Greenpeace and protect the environment through vigilance, not vigilantism.

*The trial in this case is scheduled for December.

Marc Levin, a former law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is an appellate lawyer in Austin, TX, President of the American Freedom Center (www.americanfreedom.org), and Associate Editor of The Austin Review.
yes i know animal rights groups and enviormental groups support fucked up shit, i've never been a supporter of any of them because they are big on bullshit and small on facts and common sense.
but the case being brought against them is a little backwards, i don't see how it makes sense to prosecute greenpeace for getting on a boat filled with illegal lumber and not the people running the boat.

[venus/bacchus]

yes i know animal rights groups and enviormental groups support fucked up shit, i've never been a supporter of any of them because they are big on bullshit and small on facts and common sense.
but the case being brought against them is a little backwards, i don't see how it makes sense to prosecute greenpeace for getting on a boat filled with illegal lumber and not the people running the boat.
If there's a law banning people from boarding someone else's boat, shouldn't they be prosecuted? I'm not saying the illegal lumber shouldn't, but you can't argue that Greenpeace shouldn't either. I haven't heard from any source except Greenpeace that the illegal lumber wasn't dealt with though (then again, I haven't heard that it was anywhere else either). If you've got some links, they'd be appreciated.

[open mind]

i'm to lazy to look, it's not like i'm a big greenpeace fan, i just looked at the link posted and checked out the article and read what the judge had said and what greenpeace had to say, they may be spinning shit to make themselves look better, if your more motivated then me why not find some links that say that greenpeace was way out of line?

[venus/bacchus]

i'm to lazy to look, it's not like i'm a big greenpeace fan, i just looked at the link posted and checked out the article and read what the judge had said and what greenpeace had to say, they may be spinning shit to make themselves look better, if your more motivated then me why not find some links that say that greenpeace was way out of line?
nah, it's cool...maybe if I get bored tonight, but as of now, I'll just take their word for it, although I'm very skeptical. I don't see how there'd be any benefit to the EPA to only apprehend Greenpeace. It doesn't exactly make them look good in this situation. Either way, in recent years animal/nature rights groups have gotten way out of control.

[open mind]

well i got bored hopefully these links will work.
http:www.democracynow.org/1546243
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi/cgi-bin/mng61640F501.DTL
http://www.washingtopost.com/ac2/a60787
(edit none of them worked but i found them by typing in case against greenpeace as my search words)

[Safetyin#]

your still having a problem posting links???? that sucks, you'd thank after a year they'd have that fixed...

[open mind]

your still having a problem posting links???? that sucks, you'd thank after a year they'd have that fixed...
it usually works fine, i think either the links are to old, or i'm doing something wrong because i'm not really very good with computers.