but a corporation is not a person, ustwo.
the analogy is worthless.

Not completely worthless. Destruction or theft of corporate property (or the disruption of revenues) is not a victimless crime. It could lead to job loss, reduction in wages, and the destabilization of retirement portfolios. (Pardon the indulgence of the last item.)

Granted, there may be a literal distinction between 'peaceful' and 'non-violent' but I don't really see the relevance of the question as it pertains to protest.

The terms and ideas that people like Thoreau, Gandhi and King used and prescribed were the terms non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. And both of them, literally, often involve the breaking of laws and the disruption of the daily processes of power-holding entities - in a way that does not require physical force.

So someone explain to me, if you support the rights of people to protest against powerful systems and entities, how this protest falls outside of the realm of what's expected during a protest without resorting to your opinion on the views of the organization involved or Lucifer's inconvenience. Both of which should be completely irrelevant to you being that your true objection is to the breaking of laws and the disruption of trade.

Can anyone do that for me?

Maybe this is the crux of it - I don't support anyone's right to break the law simply because they think of their action as protest.

On the other hand, I support people's right to choose the consequences of their actions - if breaking the law and getting attention accomplishes a greater good, power to them. I guess I just don't see the blanket term "protest" as being a very convincing justification for breaking the law and trespassing on the rights/property of others. These things have to be weighed individually. Not only that, but the entire point of it is that we, as individuals, have to come to terms with which side occupies the moral highground in each case. Protest is a way of forcing the evaluation.

As far as this specific action and the wording floating around the thread, Greenpeace's action was legitimate, illegal, and, in my opinion non-violent but not peaceful. They intended to do economic harm to Lucifer's company. Having the intent to do harm is pretty much the antithesis of peaceful. It's also the accepted and accustomed mode of protest. However peaceful and non-violent are two different terms that, used accurately, denote different things. I'm just trying to be deliberate and precise in my use of terminology.

I agree with you, ubertuber. And I would add that I would support the breaking of laws if the protest itself serves to draw attention to greater injustices. I think this is what Greenpeace is aiming to do here. The damages of what they are protesting are viewed as outweighing the damages of what they are doing to protest it. I would be fine with this if the protest actually achieves something. If it is ineffective, they will need to change tactics. I don't know what they do to measure their success, nor do I know if it can even be measured, but this is the only way I could support what they're doing--assuming that I support the idea of moving way from coal and nuclear and towards sustainable and renewable sources.

I guess it all depends on this question: Does Greenpeace effect change?

This statement doesn't change what I said above. It's just another opinion of what constitutes "peaceful". Again (and again, and again), when they say peaceful, they mean non-violent. Non one was hurt, and it's clear their intent was to avoid any physical injury of the crew, therefore they stuck to their definition of peaceful just fine.

I like the use of "commandeering" and "another [man's] property. It was very dramatic.
It's not like burning coal has any negative effects. :rolleyes:
I don't particularly care if you believe in the reality of global warming or not, but to pretend like burning coal has no negative effects is quite disconnected from reality. Unless you meant something else, in which case please elaborate.
Looks like GP was the ones doing the spanking. Just sayin.
Agreed.

If I were given the opportunity to honestly bring about real positive change that involved me peacefully breaking a law that didn't hurt anyone, I'd do it without a moment's hesitation. If laws get in the way of justice, they are meaningless words.

Look, the obvious solution is to chain yourself into the passengers seat of the GP members cars after painting them with slogans like "burn more coal", and "fission this, bitches!".

I mean, it's the same thing, right?

rofl

Honestly? You're absolutely right. And I'd defend you to them so far as your right to protest just as vigorously. I'd again remind people that there are laws out there and that breaking them has obvious repercussions, but really, the right to free speech is viscerally rooted in the ability to stand up for yourself without fear of those in power saying, "No, you can't say that." You can say that.

Whats the repercussion for piracy again? :devious:

BTW: Remember people Sep 19th is talk like a pirate day!

Most small business are corporations, at least any one that isn't run by an idiot.

Mine is for one thing.

So I guess its ok to screw with someones hotdog stand because 'its not a person'.

Really you should leave business discussions to the people who have them instead of the people who hate them.

Ustwo, perhaps you could start another thread regarding idiot business owners and those that hate them.

Following the logic of this statement, since you are neither a member of Greenpeace nor any other left-leaning protest outfit and you do in fact seem to 'hate' them - wouldn't that mean that you should be precluded from the discussion on this thread? Doubly-like?

And we all know that we aren't talking about a hot dog stand here. This has been a real problem with this thread from the first response. Disingenuousness.

We all know that global warming is a huge issue in the world today. Much bigger than whaling ever was. And I dare to purport that if the same exact event were to have happened in China or India, the discussion about it would have taken a much different route amongst most of the posters here.

I'm both. Booyah.

How did everyone miss this? Or was it just ignored?

There is nothing hypocritical about acknowledging a problem, supporting solution(s) to that problem AND YET still recognizing that it's a necessary evil for the time being.

I'd be careful with that hypocrite word, lest it be reflected upon yourself.

When your actions contradict your beliefs, you're a hypocrite.
If I'm being hypocritical about something, I expect people will come out and say something instead of alluding to a hypothetical hypocrisy. Have I done anything hypocritical? Or was that just huffing and puffing?

Is this to say that we're all very biased towards the US/Canada and are only upset because we think that we're better than China and India and hate how much they pollute compared to how much we pollute and we'd be happy to see their rights invaded by protesters? I don't think that's really true amongst those of us who feel like these protesters went overboard in this protest action.

No, I think just the opposite. I think US/Canadian organizations such as Greenpeace are shown more bias than a similar organization might in a country such as China or India. Nice try, though.

Nice try to what? Understand what you were saying? You made an ambiguous comment which I wanted to clarify.

Sorry, I didn't think it was that ambiguous. I didn't realize someone's first reaction to it would be that I was saying they thought they were better than people in China or India. But, eh...the internet. ;)

Why don't people start protesting the protesters? I would like to see the Average-Joe chain himself to the Rainbow Warrior, tag it, interfere with it's routes, obstruct the possibility of the ship to move in any way - and all just before they've planned to protest something valuable, according to their own beliefs.

I for instance don't understand why protesters can't see how their actions are failing dramatically. They are sharing a vision and try to bring their message through protesting measures - all thinking about their own selfish agendas, yes - it's selfish.

How can it not be considered selfish when people are joining hand in creating a utopia for themselves, ignoring the fact that there are just as many, or more, people sharing the opposite view on matters? Why do they think that bringing a point through actions who consistently make other people's lives more difficult, fine? Where is the justification on the matter when it's so obvious that the majority of their actions are there for their personal gains, you know - like the thing they are protesting are for other's personal gains?

I support some of their agendas, some I do not, and most of their actions are just lame attempts on bringing up discussions which always tend to turn into just like what this thread is already.

Excuse the English, 'tis my secondary language.

As has been alluded to previously, the label placed on any political or social action depends on where the labeler lies in the context of the action. From one vantage point, a protester looks like an activist, striving to bring about a better something. From another vantage point, the protester is a terrorist.

Which vantage point is correct? Likely both, and neither. Friends, issues are rarely black-and-white. Each party involved views it from their own personal context and works within their context with the tools they have. Everyone has an agenda, fewer people realize it and even fewer are truthful enough to admit it.

Molested, I would defend your ability to 'protest the protesters'. Protest is a form of discussion, and discussion is what keeps a civilization working in the direction of being 'civil'. It is when the protests stop happening that a society should worry.

Honestly? Turnabout is fair play, even as far as this protester is concerned.
You know what molested means, right? Just checking...

I know exactly what it means. Are you clouding your definition of the term because of the most prominent, and negative, one?

Either way, I'm just checking. ^^

Got to run to school now
note to self: continue at the top of the third page (post 201)
I understand them; I've been one. I understand that taking drastic action is sometimes justifiable, and I also understand that taking drastic action can result in harm or death to the actor. Piracy in sovereign waters is one of those actions that can result in serious harm, and those engaging in piracy as a form of protest ought to expect that the target of such action is legally permitted to use lethal force against the perpetrators.
Announcing that you are a member of Greenpeace does not mean that you are a member. A group intent on destroying or stealing cargo can easily announce that they are with Greenpeace, then board the ship and act in a way highly inconsistent with Greenpeace's philosophy after putting the crew at ease. Boarding a ship is an act of piracy regardless of intent. If I were on board a ship that was subjected to an act of piracy after intent to peacefully protest was announced, I would assume a worst case scenario was occurring and respond accordingly.

The tanker crew is more likely to become violent if we see with 20/20 hindsight that it was, in fact, Greenpeace taking action. It is not safe to assume that a group that claims to be Greenpeace commits an act of piracy in violation of international law is going to be completely nonviolent after boarding the ship just because they said so.

The second part is a flawed analogy. Greenpeace clothing is not available exclusively to members. There is no way to stop a terrorist group from joining Greenpeace, loading up on Greenpeace merchandise, disguising themselves as peaceful protesters, and carrying out a terrorist attack, just like insurgents in Iraq who steal Iraqi police uniforms or join the Iraqi police with the intent of carrying out attacks in disguise.
Boarding a ship in sovereign waters is piracy, even if the group claims to be a peaceful one. Boarding a ship with materials that can be used as weapons is threatening. I do not consider piracy a means of peaceful protest and don't understand how anyone could defend it as such unless they are allowing their preconceived notions of Greenpeace to cloud their judgment.
Whichever of them came over the rail first, plus any that were stupid enough to try after the first. If they got on board and stopped immediately when I pointed a gun at them, I would demand that they drop anything that could be used as a weapon, and detain them until they could be turned over to the proper authorities.

Fortunately, we're not talking about piracy in this case, as I've pointed out a few times, most notably in post #70 where I point out that the boarding of the vessel has to be "committed for private ends". We can both plainly see that there is no private profit for GreenPeace from this. They're spending time and money in order to bring about public change. What this means is that there isn't legally permitted lethal force. Had they consciously murdered any of the peaceful protesters, they should be charged with first degree and sent to prison.
Again, as I've said several times, never in history has anyone said they were representing GreenPeace and been lying.
So you're giving into the fear-mongering "there's a terrorist out to get you" mentality? That's too bad.

If they meant profit, they would have written profit into the definition of piracy. This is a legal document, and the language has an accordingly precise definition. I'd interpret this to say that private ends means whatever gain (financial, emotional, ideological, etc.) the actor is after.

We won't know for sure until there is a test in court, and as The_Jazz has pointed out, people's unwillingness to force that test isn't because they think they will lose as much as it is because the battle isn't strategically appropriate.

So you think if they meant profit, they would have said profit. Shouldn't your postulation be held to the same standard? If they meant emotional gain, they would have written emotional gain.

He's putting forth the idea that they used a legal term of art which is best argued by attorneys for both parties and decided by a judge and jury, as opposed to laymen throwing around other ideas. You would probably be SHOCKED at how different some legal definitions are compared to their lay definitions. And a lot of us in this thread feel like we could make a strong argument for why these sort of actions would fall within a LEGAL definition of "private ends" even if it doesn't fit into the coffee shop definition.

Believe it or not, I have no preconceived notions of Greenpeace. But there has been no shortage of preconceived notions of them being volleyed around from a negative standpoint on this thread.

I have preconceived notions about the practice of political protest. By whomever and wherever it may be taking place. That has been the sole point of departure from my very first post.

And what about anything I have said disagrees with this method of ending the protest? I was commenting on the remarks made earlier in this thread, yours included, that said these people should have been shot.

But I also made the comment, somewhere along the line, that I thought a lot of remarks made on this thread were disingenuous (for the most part, I was referring to the shooting remarks) and that I thought they had a fairly drastic warping effect on what could have possibly been a less heated discussion on the whole.

No Will, it shouldn't. That is not what I wrote. What I wrote is that the formulation "private ends" includes all kinds of gain, not just profit.

Re-reading my post, that is exactly what I wrote.

I read you condemning my interpretation and then you giving your own, neither are expressly written out. I saw you calling me black, then you being a kettle.

I think the thrust of his point is that it's a term of art whose definition is pure speculation until a court rules on it. What the law says is perfectly inclusive of his opinion of what it means and your opinion of what it means and, I think, a good argument could be made to a court for either to prevail. Your definition is much more specific and exclusive, which is why he (and I) take issue with it but I don't think there was any snarky pot-kettle stuff gonig on.

I don't consider boarding a ship while carrying materials that could be used as weapons evidence of nonviolent intent. They claimed that they would engage in nonviolent protest and then took actions that can easily perceived as having potentially violent intent. That discrepancy is a warning sign that something may be seriously wrong, and it is reasonable to believe that such a drastic deviation from the announced action can be an indication tha a terrorist attack is imminent or in progress.
The general assumption made by supporters of this Greenpeace action is that because Greenpeace is known for taking drastic action to interfere with corporate action but taking care to avoid harming individuals, that the action is legitimate. I agree that legitimate Greenpeace members are unlikely to harm others, but I maintain my position that this was an act of piracy and that it is appropriate to react as if it were a worst case scenario.

Maybe I went overboard by saying that they should simply be shot on sight, but I would not fault crew members for having reacted as if it were a worst case scenario when a peaceful action was announced and non-peaceful actions were taken.

Come on people. Let's use formalistic definitions here.

Piracy
Applying the appropriate, formalistic definitions, there's no way you can construe the actions as piracy. There was no threat of harm nor was there an attempt to take property.

Once again, applying formalistic definitions, that the Greenpeace members were not engaging in an act of terrorism. While it's clear that Greenpeace uses its actions and communications to try to reach a larger audience, the lack of violence or a threat of violence puts this action in a different category.

Q. Do you know what you call (in most places) shooting a trespasser who does not threaten you with serious bodily harm?
A. (attempted) homicide

Why do so many here try to poison the well by making foregone legal conclusions with inappropriate word choice?

The real issue is here is why hasn't GP learned to wage a PR war after all its years of existence? Pissing off some shipping workers in a low-profile stunt like this does nothing to hinder the coal industry, does nothing to reach the target audience, and subjects GP members to unjustifiable risks. I mean, even if the MSM got wind of this story and ran with it, how many people would understand or identify with this act of protest? In this net-roots world we live in, couldn't their money and skills be put to better use in the battle against environmental damage? Isn't it a sign that this well intentioned organization is turning into a dinosaur, a relic?

I don't think its hard to wiggle Greenpeace into that, and btw thats the legal definition, not Websters.

That's great, that you can copy/paste US Code, but the problem is without looking how the Courts interpret that law, you are making aimless conjecture.

The DOJ under Ashcroft had tried to take down Greenpeace before in a similar case, and unsurprisingly they didn't even attempt to use the code you cited. Why not? Because the government had to admit Greenpeace's activity was peaceful. Free speech always trumps overbroad laws (which the cited code would certainly be if hostility were to include non-violent protest, it might also strike out for vagueness). And as to the disposition of the case, I'll let you read up on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailormongering
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0520-12.htm

I guess that makes paint really smart?

Good post.

Actually it just shows hes snide.

For fun while he googles he can google greenpeace and piracy, apparently the Seafarers' union is calling for stiffer charges on greenpeace for this incident and several law makers are calling it piracy as well.

Boy thats going to be a tough one for you lefties. You have a union on one side and a bunch of hippies on the other.

Anyways, I'm sure that these kids efforts will stop both coal and nuclear power usage. I do hope they enjoy their criminal records when they try to get those real jobs in a few years when they realize being a radical activist doesn't pay well for most.

I'm sorry to say so, but that's like me calling someone a lefty.
We'll have to wait and see if that pans out. For now, it's not been resolved.
I'm a radical leftist with two real jobs. While I'm not going to illegally board a ship, I do actively protest with other radical activists who also have jobs. The funny thing, though, is that those kids in GreenPeace will be able to look back and say "I did my best to be part of the solution".

DumberThanPaint: you may have missed this post from Lucifer which deals with the definition of piracy which comes from what is likely to be the most relevant source. We haven't settled on what this means, or how a court would find in actual fact, but I'd say the pertaining code is more relevant than law.com.

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:

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:
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.

Time, place and manner restrictions to the first amendment are actually not held to nearly the exacting level that you're describing. They must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, must not vest broad discretion in application to an individual and must allow ample alternative forums for expression. The "bulletproof" standard you refer to is a provision that would regular WHAT is said-that is, a substantive ban on free speech.

Since the actions of the protesters above were without question illegal (and you yourself outlined the offenses). we need not even consider a question of an over-broad statute which limits their ability to protest. As we've noted previously in this thread, freedom of speech does not give carte blanche to do whatever one wants without consequences. Indeed, the tradition they're following (I assume Ghandi, King, et. al) assumes that there will be consequences for their civil disobedience with the hope that any punishment is tampered by the fact that it was a protest action and not a "self-serving" action (I think we need another thread about how protest actions can be self serving).

Those of us who take issue with this protest take offense at the wanton disregard for the safety and well-being of themselves and the crew. They had a lot of ways they could've protested the power shipping industry and they chose a particularly invasive and extreme version. Piracy keeps coming up being there is something particularly offensive about people entering a private area (as opposed to a public library, a university or a city hall) like a ship and chaining themselves to it. Ships are not in any way part of the public landscape that individuals generally have access to without express permission from the owner or captain. And for these protesters to just hop on and do their thing strikes us a dangerous step towards protests completely in the private sphere (your house, your car) and should therefore be dealt with more harshly to dissuade others from engaging in it.

You are correct about time, place, and manner restrictions, but I don't think it's really an applicable concept here. Why not? Because no one is going to tell you what GP did was 100% legal in the first place. The situations aren't really analogous here. There's no question that the speech IS restricted in this case. But the question is can you stretch conduct/speech into a felony offense (I suggest the answer is no in this matter).

I don't buy the sanctity of property argument. Private property hasn't been sacred in the US for ages: we've got an estate tax, several liens that can rip your house from under you (including action by your friendly homeowner's association), there's condemnation, and the government can enter your home without your permission (no knock exception, firefighters). And there's no real argument that a corporation's property is the same thing as an individual's property. Whereas you can picket all you want in front of a company's headquarters, you cannot picket in front of a person's private residence. (You can parade through her neighborhood here.) This whole "straw that broke the camel's back" or "sliding uphill on the slippery slope" argument doesn't really hold water. While a corp may be a citizen for some purposes, there are many times when the private citizen is entitled to more rights.

When was he proven conclusively wrong, when he countered your dictionary definition of piracy with the definition under international law?
I'd say that searches geared toward legal proceedings and research will generally be more correct than what Google will find regarding legal issues. You are less correct because the nature of the crime committed is being discussed and you posted a definition of the act in question that does not match the definition set forth in the law pertaining to that act.

1) The UN Law of the Seas deals with international waters. Furthermore, the US is a non-signatory to this treaty.

2) My proof was the disposition of a similar case without trial. It didn't even live to see an opinion or an appeal. I checked the 11th Cir. Ct of Appeals before posting the Greenpeace article.

I love how you put sabotage, Did you read where their actions cost money to repair, Repainting the ship, overtime, Delivery delayed (which costs the company money and possible future deals with said generator station) That sounds like sabotage to me. And don't say they didn't mean to, That is the whole point of their protest actions.
Either way, they could have spent the money on the bullets and still come out ahead.

And Greenpeace could start using RPGs to sink the ships, well they might not be called Greenpeace anymore, but it's not worth escalating it.

I am a lazy asshole, I only read the first page of this thread, so pardon me if the topic of theft and robbery are dead.

Green Peace stole both the companies rights and the workers rights. I am in belief that almost all crimes involve a theft, or stealing. When you kill someone, you steal their right to life and you steal his families loved one. When you take something from a store, you steal from all the people that work there by making business lose money. When you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth.
Now you're probably thinking, "PT, they didn't kill anyone, take anything, or lie, so why are you saying this?" Here's why: This is a matter of "what if." What if an employee was coming home to celebrate the anniversary of his wedding? Bam, stole that guy's happiness by delaying the ship's arrival, which could keep him there for much longer than planned. What if a policeman was seriously injured or killed? Bam, if the protest didn't happen he wouldn't even be there, meaning there would be no chance of injury or death, or as I like to call it, stealing a life. What if the company was counting on the ship to make it to the destination on time? Bam, the company lost money because of the hold up, aka: actual theft.
My point is that every crime is theft, and it only takes once for something very bad to happen. I assume this was successfull for Green Peace, which means that they will gain confidence and do things even crazier than this. Everyone involved, except for Green Peace, lost something in this, whether it be small freedoms and happiness or large amounts of money.
If peace=happiness, then why does this so called "peaceful" protest cause so much anger?