Bush v Greenpeace - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Arc101 · 11-15-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

THE GREENPEACE demonstration off the coast of Florida on April 12, 2002, was one of a series of similar “direct actions” taken by the international organization near ports around the world as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species, CITES.
It was standard practice for the international organization, which for more than three decades has used this in-your-face method to fight for causes it deems just. It is a method of civil disobedience that has been used by activists on both ends of the political spectrum, from civil rights campaigners to anti-abortion groups. In Florida, as in the mahogany protests elsewhere, a handful of individuals were charged with minor crimes and released shortly thereafter.
But 15 months after the APL Jade incident, the U.S. Justice Department in Florida’s Southern District dramatically upped the ante. Drawing on an 1872 law, it filed criminal charges against Greenpeace USA for boarding a ship before its arrival in port, and with conspiracy to do so — in a case scheduled to be heard in December.
MSNBC.com's Environment section

Critics and some legal experts say the pursuit of an entire organization for this type of civil disobedience by its members is a break with 200 years of American tradition, and appears to be an attempt by the Bush administration to silence a vocal critic. In the words of former Vice President Al Gore, the legal move looks to be “aimed at inhibiting Greenpeace’s First Amendment activities.”
‘We would evaluate the case like any other, based on the facts and the law.’
— MATTHEW DATES
Special counsel for public affairs, Office of the Attorney General for the Southern District of Florida Because the case is pending, the Department of Justice declined any specific comment on this case. However, said Matthew Dates, special counsel for public affairs: “We would evaluate the case like any other, based on the facts and the law.”
If convicted, Greenpeace USA faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years’ probation and a fine of $10,000, according to a press release from the U.S. attorney general for the Southern District of Florida.
Some observers say it is possible that Greenpeace could lose its tax-exempt status in the United States — a death knell for a non-profit organization. The Miami attorney general’s office declined to comment on that possibility.
More broadly, say rights activists, a conviction could have a chilling effect on other organizations that practice nonviolent protest.

RARE CASE
Despite taking place on a ship, the protest itself was nothing unusual. “It was a classic sit-in in the sense that it was non-violent, overt, and non-threatening,” says George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. As is also typical of this type of protest, says Turley, “the protesters want to be arrested.”
Greenpeace believed the APL Jade was carrying mahogany that had been illegally cut in Brazil.
But he says the response has been highly unusual. While organizations sometimes face criminal prosecution for the actions of their members, especially in racketeering, fraud and securities cases, it is extremely rare — if not unprecedented — for the government to pursue criminal charges against organizations in “the free speech area,” he says.
Also suspect, says Turley, is the use of an obscure statute of federal law in the case. Passed 131 years ago, Code 18, Statute 2779 was written to prevent organizations such as boarding houses from “sailor mongering” — which involved boarding ships before they had moorage, often using alcohol or prostitutes to lure the crewmen ashore, leaving the vessel unattended. His research indicates that the law has been cited in only two cases, most recently in 1890.
Turley says these factors strongly suggest a campaign of selective prosecution as a means of silencing a vocal critic, which is prohibited by law.

GREENPEACE GIRDS FOR BATTLE
‘For 200 years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message.’
— AMICUS BRIEF
ACLU Florida and People for the American Way The ACLU of Florida and People for the American Way Foundation, which on Nov. 7 weighed in with a brief to the court on behalf of Greenpeace, say the case is of “profound importance” because it “imperils the core values of the Constitution.”
“For two hundred years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message,” they wrote in their brief. “The prosecution of Greenpeace indicates a sea change in that policy.”
Greenpeace, which has led an aggressive pro-environmental campaign since its founding in 1971, has been at odds with the Bush administration since its earliest days in office, decrying the president’s position on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, staging protests against the National Missile Defense Initiative and the opening of roads on national forest land. Just a few months after Bush took office, Greenpeace activists climbed a water tower near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and unfurled a banner that read: “Bush the Toxic Texan, Don’t Mess with the Earth.” They were arrested after a two-hour stand-off during which they refused to climb down, ignoring demands by the mayor, the county sheriff and the Secret Service.
“We have been critics across the board,” says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace.
He says the organization has never before been challenged at this level in the United States, and characterizes it as the way the Justice Department operates under Ashcroft.
“The parallel I see is with the McCarthy era — the overreach by the government to stifle its critics,” he says. “It is a fight we are willing to take on ... a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.”
Greenpeace will seek additional discovery to lay out what went into the decision to charge Greenpeace, says legal counsel Tom Wetterer. “We have found no previous examples of where the government has charged an organization for a political protest,” he says.
“The prosecution, if indeed it is selective, amounts to nothing more than an act of intimidation by the government, apparently directed at silencing political speech,” says the ACLU/PAWF brief.
‘It is a fight we are willing to take on — a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.’
— JOHN PASSACANTANDO
Greenpeace executive director
DOJ BUILDS ITS CASE
From the point of view of the activists, the events of April 12 were mostly unsurprising, but ominous signs emerged later on. In Coast Guard custody for most of the day, a Friday, the mood was relaxed and they were led to believe they would soon be released.
“They told us to order pizza,” says Scott Paul, Greenpeace’s forest campaign coordinator, who was among those arrested. “Later in the day, the FBI got involved and the atmosphere changed dramatically.”
He was one of 14 activists who ended up spending the weekend in a federal penitentiary before release the following Monday. Within two months, the case was resolved. Six people, including the two who boarded the ship, pleaded guilty under the “sailor mongering” law on condition that other charges would be dropped.
Later, says Greenpeace’s Wetterer, it was clear that the Justice Department had launched a separate federal grand jury investigation, which led to the criminal indictment in July of this year.
Public affairs officer Dates declined to comment on what prompted the government to further pursue the case, or its “deliberative process.”
MSNBC.com's Politics section

Speculating about that process, Turley of George Washington University says it seems “truly remote” that the case was pursued independently by the DOJ in Miami. “DOJ guidelines give a great deal of decentralized powers to state offices, except when they use statutes in unusual ways,” he says. Since this is such an unusual prosecution, “this had to be approved at the central level,” he says.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace says it confirmed that the original target of the protest, the APL Jade, went on to Charleston, S.C., where it discharged its cargo of mahogany for shipment to a forest product company.
In November 2002, the United Nations Environmental Program upgraded protection of mahogany under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a move that places even stricter controls on trade in the wood. The United States is a signatory to the treaty.

Just wondering if you think it is right that Bush & Co should go after organisations like Greenpeace - and which organisations will be next ?

nanofever · 11-15-2003, 09:04 AM

Selective prosecution, with a 19th century law used to keep bars and whores from stealing sailors off ships, to destroy a non-profit group when its members engaging in peaceful protest seems rather Ashcroftian to me.

My bookey is giving 1:2 odds the current adminstration has a large hand in this...

Shauk · 11-15-2003, 09:11 AM

i think its funny that bush owns this.

eple · 11-15-2003, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shauk
i think its funny that bush owns this.

Well in that case he clearly must be concerned with envirometal issues despite his actions to destroy international enviromental treaties.

Shauk · 11-15-2003, 09:29 AM

I think thats called hypocrisy where I'm from.

onetime2 · 11-15-2003, 10:46 AM

Did the greenpeace activists board the ship they were protesting against?

seretogis · 11-15-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Did the greenpeace activists board the ship they were protesting against?

That's the point.

Personally, I wouldn't want people to be able to just hop inside my car if they don't like the color of it. Don't they lock their doors?

Sparhawk · 11-15-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Selective prosecution, with a 19th century law used to keep bars and whores from stealing sailors off ships, to destroy a non-profit group when its members engaging in peaceful protest seems rather Ashcroftian to me.

My bookey is giving 1:2 odds the current adminstration has a large hand in this...

Double Down.

onetime2 · 11-15-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
That's the point.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be able to just hop inside my car if they don't like the color of it. Don't they lock their doors?

I guess I'm just a bit confused. Do people believe that there should be no punishment for people who decide to just board a ship that they don't own and aren't welcome on?

reconmike · 11-15-2003, 05:42 PM

The terrorist group greenpeace illegally boarded a ship, they were not protesting peacefully.
It was not a sit in, infact I bet they could have been shot boarding as pirates.

That might have taught greenhippies not to tresspass.

I have seen videos of these lunitics on the seas playing chicken with oil tankers and freighters.

Where are those dam kamikazes when you need a boat sunk.

nanofever · 11-15-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I guess I'm just a bit confused. Do people believe that there should be no punishment for people who decide to just board a ship that they don't own and aren't welcome on?

The people involved were arrested, the malicious prosecution of an organization they are affiliated with is the problem; however, sailor mongering would be one of the best felonys to have on your record if you had to have a felony.

onetime2 · 11-16-2003, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
The people involved were arrested, the malicious prosecution of an organization they are affiliated with is the problem; however, sailor mongering would be one of the best felonys to have on your record if you had to have a felony.

They continually risk the lives on the vessels they "protest". It's one thing to risk their own but quite another to put others at risk. If you break the law then you should expect nothing less than the book to be thrown at you (even if the book is many years old).

They get no sympathy from me.

Macheath · 11-16-2003, 07:51 AM

There's only one way to prove that the Bush administration was completely hypocritical for charging them under this statute -

Floating abortion clinics...

And THEN we'll see how consistent the Bush DOJ is in it's legal treatment of folks in rubber dinghys.

Liquor Dealer · 11-16-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
The terrorist group greenpeace illegally boarded a ship, they were not protesting peacefully.
It was not a sit in, infact I bet they could have been shot boarding as pirates.

That might have taught greenhippies not to tresspass.

I have seen videos of these lunitics on the seas playing chicken with oil tankers and freighters.

Where are those dam kamikazes when you need a boat sunk.

I know from personal experience that their antics when they are screwing with naval vessels is putting the lives of others at risk - they have force very large ships to veer off course to avoid running over their worthless asses - perhaps the easiest way to play this is to just say OOPS! Sorry dudes - didn't even see you down there where you weren't supposed to be - we'll send yo' momma a sympathy card or sumthin'! I think that would at least end part of the problem. The antics of Greenpeace could very easily be interpreted as piracy or attempted piracy and should be dealt with in that manner.

nirol · 11-16-2003, 11:53 AM

Green Peace is the only force that France has defeated since Napolean went to Elba.

They should prosecute Green Peace under the RICO conspiracy statutes, they plot and do this continuously. If they dont like what these people do with their own trees, they should buy them themselves, instead of trying to confiscate them by legislative fiat.

These people are watermelons, and I shy away from anyone who knows "what is best for me."

Arc101 · 11-16-2003, 01:18 PM

sailor mongering just cracks me up. Anyway who really beleives Greenpeace is a terrorist group.

SuperMidget · 11-16-2003, 02:20 PM

What other group is willing to tresspass on federal land, what other group willfully desires to deface a national monument. Yes I think greenpeace is a terrorist organization and should be bombed as fully as the Taliban.

However, I think the Bush administration is going too far. Prosecute the offenders for piracy but don't try to take on the whole organization.

nanofever · 11-16-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperMidget
. Yes I think greenpeace is a terrorist organization and should be bombed as fully as the Taliban.

Because we all know one of the leading tenants of terrorism is non-violence...

SuperMidget · 11-16-2003, 03:30 PM

The difference between violence and non-violence in trying to get your opinion to the masses is not black and white. It is merely different shades of gray. The main objective is to become known. Violence is quicker but you become a pariah. Non-violence can be slower but in the long run immensely more destructive. Look at the Indian uprising or the Civil Rights movement. Both ended a way of life for an entire nation. Granted it was for the better in both instances, but compared to what violent "terrorism" has done there is no comparison.

thegreek · 11-16-2003, 10:30 PM

my uncles was one of the people on the protest... he said they were just trying to raise awareness about the whole situation

MuadDib · 11-16-2003, 11:37 PM

This is very disturbing on several levels. First, I agree that selective prosecution is reason enough to condemn this sort of act. More importantly, can a nationwide organization be held accountable for the level of civil disobedience an event encourages? Most importantly to me is the fact that they are a nonviolent activist group that was working to expose wrong doing that we know is happening! Instead of going after the people that illegally importing contraband and contributing to the illegal destruction of the rain forest, this administration would rather prosecute the environmental activist group that is working to bring the former illegal practice to justice.

Eldaire · 11-17-2003, 12:46 AM

This is BS! That's all I have to say about it really. I think all of the arguements have been covered.

11-15-2003, 10:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Did the greenpeace activists board the ship they were protesting against? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-15-2003, 05:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	The terrorist group greenpeace illegally boarded a ship, they were not protesting peacefully. It was not a sit in, infact I bet they could have been shot boarding as pirates. That might have taught greenhippies not to tresspass. I have seen videos of these lunitics on the seas playing chicken with oil tankers and freighters. Where are those dam kamikazes when you need a boat sunk. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

11-16-2003, 11:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
nirol Crazy Location: South East US	Green Peace is the only force that France has defeated since Napolean went to Elba. They should prosecute Green Peace under the RICO conspiracy statutes, they plot and do this continuously. If they dont like what these people do with their own trees, they should buy them themselves, instead of trying to confiscate them by legislative fiat. These people are watermelons, and I shy away from anyone who knows "what is best for me." __________________ 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

11-16-2003, 11:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	This is very disturbing on several levels. First, I agree that selective prosecution is reason enough to condemn this sort of act. More importantly, can a nationwide organization be held accountable for the level of civil disobedience an event encourages? Most importantly to me is the fact that they are a nonviolent activist group that was working to expose wrong doing that we know is happening! Instead of going after the people that illegally importing contraband and contributing to the illegal destruction of the rain forest, this administration would rather prosecute the environmental activist group that is working to bring the former illegal practice to justice. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

11-15-2003, 09:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	Selective prosecution, with a 19th century law used to keep bars and whores from stealing sailors off ships, to destroy a non-profit group when its members engaging in peaceful protest seems rather Ashcroftian to me. My bookey is giving 1:2 odds the current adminstration has a large hand in this...

11-15-2003, 09:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	i think its funny that bush owns this.

11-15-2003, 09:29 AM	#5 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	I think thats called hypocrisy where I'm from.

11-16-2003, 07:51 AM	#13 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	There's only one way to prove that the Bush administration was completely hypocritical for charging them under this statute - Floating abortion clinics... And THEN we'll see how consistent the Bush DOJ is in it's legal treatment of folks in rubber dinghys.

11-16-2003, 01:18 PM	#16 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	sailor mongering just cracks me up. Anyway who really beleives Greenpeace is a terrorist group.

11-16-2003, 02:20 PM	#17 (permalink)
SuperMidget Banned Location: Farm country, South Dakota	What other group is willing to tresspass on federal land, what other group willfully desires to deface a national monument. Yes I think greenpeace is a terrorist organization and should be bombed as fully as the Taliban. However, I think the Bush administration is going too far. Prosecute the offenders for piracy but don't try to take on the whole organization.

11-16-2003, 03:30 PM	#19 (permalink)
SuperMidget Banned Location: Farm country, South Dakota	The difference between violence and non-violence in trying to get your opinion to the masses is not black and white. It is merely different shades of gray. The main objective is to become known. Violence is quicker but you become a pariah. Non-violence can be slower but in the long run immensely more destructive. Look at the Indian uprising or the Civil Rights movement. Both ended a way of life for an entire nation. Granted it was for the better in both instances, but compared to what violent "terrorism" has done there is no comparison.

11-16-2003, 10:30 PM	#20 (permalink)
thegreek Banned	my uncles was one of the people on the protest... he said they were just trying to raise awareness about the whole situation

11-17-2003, 12:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
Eldaire Loser Location: Davidson College, NC	This is BS! That's all I have to say about it really. I think all of the arguements have been covered.