DumberThanPaint

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.

Frosstbyte

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.

DumberThanPaint

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.

MSD

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.

DumberThanPaint

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.

Capnkeez

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.

ASU2003

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.

Pearl Trade

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?