I'd rather be snide than whatever you are. When proven conclusively wrong, you sulk off in a corner, say "well I'm right because some lawmakers agree with me" then go off on a cute little ad-hominem diatribe. I'd rather be snide, than say smug, when you believe you are right because you think things should be a certain way, and don't let little things like reality interfere with your opinions. Even if the lawmakers change the law, Greenpeace cannot be held guilty under new law, because that would make it ex post facto, and therefore unconstitutional.
So I really like your "reasoning." I disagree with you, therefore I am a lefty. I used google rather than Westlaw/Lexis-Nexis and therefore I'm somehow less correct. Do you even know my opinion on the matter? Of course not. Let me clarify:
I think GP should be civilly liable for any damages they cause. You've got trespass, trespass to chattels, intentional interference with contract. These should be more than enough to make the company whole. Maybe even tag them with some punitives (intentional torts after all).
I'll even throw in some misdemeanor crimes: disorderly conduct, vandalism, public endangerment. Are they guilty of these? Probably, if the story is true. But don't you think it would be a tad ridiculous to try these people for a crime with a punishment of a LIFE SENTENCE when no one was hurt and nothing was stolen? Well you might not care, but the Constitution does:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by US Constitution, Amend VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
|
ubertuber: the lower federal courts have said the ICC is not the law of the land, but it nonetheless has a strong persuasive value. However, in American waters (if that's where it was) they would more likely apply American law, which seems to be pretty settled and limited in context. Regardless, a treaty or US Code section is not the Supreme Law of the Land when it is in conflict with the US Constitution, which says:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by US Constitution, Amend I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
|
And like I've said, unless a carefully (and I mean bulletproof) law circumscribing/limiting the right of protest in these situations is developed, the protesters will win.
I think we all might be barking up the wrong tree however, as I think this occurred in the territory of our neighbor to the north, Canada.