Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2003, 06:25 AM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
Arc101's Avatar
 
Location: Nottingham, England
Bush v Greenpeace

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 ?
Arc101 is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 09:04 AM   #2 (permalink)
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...
nanofever is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 09:11 AM   #3 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
i think its funny that bush owns this.
Shauk is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 09:17 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: norway
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.
eple is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 09:29 AM   #5 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
I think thats called hypocrisy where I'm from.
Shauk is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 10:46 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Did the greenpeace activists board the ship they were protesting against?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 12:47 PM   #7 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
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?
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Last edited by seretogis; 11-16-2003 at 12:13 PM..
seretogis is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 01:50 PM   #8 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
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.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 04:19 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
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?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 05:42 PM   #10 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
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?
reconmike is offline  
Old 11-15-2003, 06:20 PM   #11 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
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.
nanofever is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 07:08 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
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.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 07:51 AM   #13 (permalink)
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.
Macheath is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 08:40 AM   #14 (permalink)
Super Agitator
 
Liquor Dealer's Avatar
 
Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A
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.
__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!
Liquor Dealer is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 11:53 AM   #15 (permalink)
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)
nirol is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 01:18 PM   #16 (permalink)
Addict
 
Arc101's Avatar
 
Location: Nottingham, England
sailor mongering just cracks me up. Anyway who really beleives Greenpeace is a terrorist group.
Arc101 is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 02:20 PM   #17 (permalink)
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.
SuperMidget is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 02:43 PM   #18 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
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...
nanofever is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 03:30 PM   #19 (permalink)
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.
SuperMidget is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 10:30 PM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
my uncles was one of the people on the protest... he said they were just trying to raise awareness about the whole situation
thegreek is offline  
Old 11-16-2003, 11:37 PM   #21 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
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
MuadDib is offline  
Old 11-17-2003, 12:46 AM   #22 (permalink)
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.
Eldaire is offline  
 

Tags
bush, greenpeace

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:58 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360