Greenpeace indicted under 1872 law designed to stop pimps!

Chewbacca · 01-24-2004, 11:10 PM

Talk about heavy-handed, even perhaps, I dare call tactics like these facist. As they seemed designed soley to stifle dissent and discourage peaceful civil disobedience.

Link

**************************

Florida Greenpeace protest brings federal charges under 1872 law

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The cargo ship Jade, carrying 70 tons of mahogany harvested from the Brazilian rain forest, lowered a 50-foot ladder over its side about three miles off Miami Beach on the afternoon of April 12, 2002. A harbor pilot climbed on board to steer the 965-foot ship into the Port of Miami.
Two uninvited visitors followed.

Scott Anderson, 28, and Hillary Hosta, 29, expert "climbers" hired by the environmental group Greenpeace, leaped from a pair of Zodiac inflatable boats and clambered up the ladder, toting a banner with the message: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."

So began a routine protest resulting in an unusual federal prosecution that, legal experts say, threatens to chill free speech and profoundly change the rules of peaceful protest.

The ship's radio crackled, "This is Greenpeace. We are conducting a peaceful demonstration alongside your ship. We are protesting cargo from Brazil. We also have personnel on your ship."

Hosta and Anderson were stopped before they could unfurl the banner. By nightfall, six Greenpeace activists were under arrest. Anderson and Hosta, along with four others, spent the weekend at the Federal Detention Center in Miami.

They pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor, an obscure charge of "sailor-mongering," and paid fines ranging from $100 to $500.

Normally, that would have been the end of it, "another day at the office for Greenpeace," said Scott Paul, 38, one of the arrested demonstrators.

It was just the beginning. In July, some 15 months after the arrests, a federal grand jury in Miami indicted Greenpeace itself — under a 19th-century federal law enacted to stop pimps from clambering aboard ships entering port.

It was the first time a public-interest organization has faced criminal charges over the protest activities of its members, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the American Civil Liberties Union said in court briefs.

Environmentalists call the charges a heavy-handed attempt to retaliate against Greenpeace for previous in-your-face protests against the Bush administration.

The 1872 law was enacted to keep brothel operators from infiltrating ships "about to" dock. Pimps and others from brothels would row out to the vessels and persuade the sailors to jump ship with them or come over after docking. The sailors were then wined, dined and separated from their money.

According to the indictment, Greenpeace supplied money and people for the Florida protest. A Greenpeace corporate credit card was used to rent the rafts and small boats used to intercept the Jade.

Greenpeace maintains a ship moving at 10 mph three miles at sea is not covered by the "about to" dock requirement. The prosecutor retorted that an 1890 conviction was based on a boarding at the mouth of Oregon's Columbia River 50 miles from its dock in Portland. In the only other conviction on record, a New York judge who examined the law the year it was enacted called its language "inartistic and obscure."

In December, Greenpeace asked U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan to dismiss the charges. The case "implicates the fundamental rights of all Americans to engage in peaceful protest," Greenpeace attorney Jane Moscowitz argued in court papers.

Jordan indicated he would rule in early 2004 and, depending on his decision, a trial could follow in May.

For the government, United States of America v. Greenpeace Inc., is a test case. For Greenpeace and other activist groups, it could be a disaster.

If convicted, Greenpeace could be fined $10,000 and placed on five years' probation, which the group says would chill its activism. By being required to report to a federal probation officer, Greenpeace says, it would face unprecedented government scrutiny of its tactics and membership rolls.

A criminal conviction also could cost Greenpeace its tax-exempt status, the group's lawyers argued. They said the government is trying to put Greenpeace out of business.

"They're trying to silence us," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace, which has offices in Washington and San Francisco.

Defending the prosecution in court last month, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron Elliot insisted, "There is no evidence that the government has discriminated against Greenpeace because of its political views."

The group's vocal opposition to the federal government "makes it no different from thousands of other political advocacy groups," he said.

Greenpeace simply broke the law, Elliott argued in court papers. "The heart of Greenpeace's mission is violation of the law," he wrote.

Greenpeace began in 1971 and now claims more than 250,000 individual supporters.

Perhaps best known for sailing its boats into restricted waters and interfering with whaling ships and other vessels on the open seas, the group has been bothersome to Bush since shortly after his inauguration, when members put up a banner near his Texas ranch calling him the "toxic Texan."

Others have built a pile of coal outside Vice President Cheney's Washington residence, protested near missile bases, issued investigative reports and even inspected Iraqi nuclear facilities.

Greenpeace claims its Florida protest called attention to the crime of logging of big-leaf mahogany in the Brazilian Amazon and the Bush administration's failure to enforce an import ban contained in an international treaty. Greenpeace contends roads built by mahogany loggers are the root cause of Amazon deforestation.

The Greenpeace prosecution is moving forward at a time when edgy law-enforcement officials have zero tolerance for acts of civil disobedience.

The city of Miami also is facing criticism and has been threatened with lawsuits over an allegedly heavy-handed police response to protests at November's meetings of the Free Trade Area of the Americas.

None of Greenpeace's supporters deny the need to protect ports in a post-Sept. 11 world. But, said John Passacantando, the group's executive director, "This was an entirely peaceful action." He asserted that Attorney General John Ashcroft is "hiding a political agenda" behind national-security concerns.

The case also is alarming other defenders of free speech, who think the charges are intended to muzzle critics of the government.

Constitutional scholars say the charges run counter to the rich American tradition of civil disobedience as seen during the abolitionist, suffrage, civil-rights and anti-war movements.

"Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It is important that they be as free as possible to engage in their advocacy," said First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams.

Activists are routinely arrested under long-established "rules of engagement" for peaceful civil protest; they expect to be jailed, considering it a "badge of honor," explained Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has written about the case.

But by filing charges against Greenpeace Inc., federal prosecutors stepped into uncharted territory.

"Until the federal indictment, this episode was a routine example of civil disobedience, essentially a sit-in on the high seas," said Bruce Ledewitz, who teaches First Amendment law at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University.

Timber Loftis · 01-25-2004, 12:24 AM

Greenpeace often skirts the law on the seas. They just may be deserving of the charges -- I'd have to know more. I support their mission, but not all their tactics.

Did you know that Greenpeace's leader's name, Passacantando, means "walks while singing?"

Incidentally, how quick for a fascism reference.

I guess since it's inevitable, it may as well come up front.

The Hierophant · 01-25-2004, 12:28 AM

Of course Greenpeace are being silenced, they are a complete pain in the ass for the Bush administration. But as much as I dislike the Bush admin, I've gotta say that Boarding the ship was a stupid tactic. Why not just unfurl the huge banner from the wharf as the ship came in? Or from a high building? As much as I respect Greenpeace's brazenness, they have really shot themselves in the foot. You've gotta fight smart when you are up against cunning, malicious authoritarians like the Republican party, who will do everything they can to ensure that the 'law' is on their side (such as dig up some wierd old anti-pimpin' law). This incident may get Greenpeace some decent publicity, but that'll blow over pretty quick, and the long-term legal damage that will be done against Greenpeace simply isn't worth it.

Chewbacca · 01-25-2004, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

Incidentally, how quick for a fascism reference. I guess since it's inevitable, it may as well come up front.

It's not like I abuse the word or even use it regularly. [img]smile.gif[/img] And a belated disclaimer: I do use it more figuratively than literally in-case anyone tries throwing the dictionary at me.

Kudos to Heirophant for perhaps a better choice of words, Authoritarian.

edit- Premptive dictionary strike! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1.often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[ 01-25-2004, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

khazadman · 01-25-2004, 11:19 AM

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The problem I have with that is that the president is a Republican, not a dem. That definition fits the dems to a t except the part about belligerent nationalism. They believe in belligerent internationalism at the expense of the American people.

Timber Loftis · 01-26-2004, 12:35 AM

A [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img] to the extent that the "fascism" label can be accorded a democratic/republican disctinction. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Azimaith · 01-26-2004, 04:18 AM

That is possibly the most creative way i've ever heard of to stop greenpeace protestors...

Anyhow, if you engange in civil disobedience and you break the law, expect to get arrested, any good protestor knows that and is willing to take that consequence to get their message out.

Faceman · 01-26-2004, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Azimaith:
That is possibly the most creative way i've ever heard of to stop greenpeace protestors...

Anyhow, if you engange in civil disobedience and you break the law, expect to get arrested, any good protestor knows that and is willing to take that consequence to get their message out.

Yes, but the catch here is that not the protesters get sued, but the organisation itself, making it effectively possible to destroy Greenpeace. Did you read the part about probation? If Greenpeace gets convicted every other activist act on their behalf will be an automatic conviction.

Timber Loftis · 01-26-2004, 10:04 AM

Yeah, well, Faceman that's just not true, whether or not the article said it. We'll see how this plays out.

pritchke · 01-26-2004, 02:03 PM

Funny how they dragged up an ancient law used against Pimps infiltrating ships.

Welcome to the Greenpeace brothels, you can get some lovin here.

[ 01-26-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

01-24-2004, 11:10 PM	#1
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 50 Posts: 5,373	Talk about heavy-handed, even perhaps, I dare call tactics like these facist. As they seemed designed soley to stifle dissent and discourage peaceful civil disobedience. Link ************************** Florida Greenpeace protest brings federal charges under 1872 law FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The cargo ship Jade, carrying 70 tons of mahogany harvested from the Brazilian rain forest, lowered a 50-foot ladder over its side about three miles off Miami Beach on the afternoon of April 12, 2002. A harbor pilot climbed on board to steer the 965-foot ship into the Port of Miami. Two uninvited visitors followed. Scott Anderson, 28, and Hillary Hosta, 29, expert "climbers" hired by the environmental group Greenpeace, leaped from a pair of Zodiac inflatable boats and clambered up the ladder, toting a banner with the message: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging." So began a routine protest resulting in an unusual federal prosecution that, legal experts say, threatens to chill free speech and profoundly change the rules of peaceful protest. The ship's radio crackled, "This is Greenpeace. We are conducting a peaceful demonstration alongside your ship. We are protesting cargo from Brazil. We also have personnel on your ship." Hosta and Anderson were stopped before they could unfurl the banner. By nightfall, six Greenpeace activists were under arrest. Anderson and Hosta, along with four others, spent the weekend at the Federal Detention Center in Miami. They pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor, an obscure charge of "sailor-mongering," and paid fines ranging from $100 to $500. Normally, that would have been the end of it, "another day at the office for Greenpeace," said Scott Paul, 38, one of the arrested demonstrators. It was just the beginning. In July, some 15 months after the arrests, a federal grand jury in Miami indicted Greenpeace itself — under a 19th-century federal law enacted to stop pimps from clambering aboard ships entering port. It was the first time a public-interest organization has faced criminal charges over the protest activities of its members, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the American Civil Liberties Union said in court briefs. Environmentalists call the charges a heavy-handed attempt to retaliate against Greenpeace for previous in-your-face protests against the Bush administration. The 1872 law was enacted to keep brothel operators from infiltrating ships "about to" dock. Pimps and others from brothels would row out to the vessels and persuade the sailors to jump ship with them or come over after docking. The sailors were then wined, dined and separated from their money. According to the indictment, Greenpeace supplied money and people for the Florida protest. A Greenpeace corporate credit card was used to rent the rafts and small boats used to intercept the Jade. Greenpeace maintains a ship moving at 10 mph three miles at sea is not covered by the "about to" dock requirement. The prosecutor retorted that an 1890 conviction was based on a boarding at the mouth of Oregon's Columbia River 50 miles from its dock in Portland. In the only other conviction on record, a New York judge who examined the law the year it was enacted called its language "inartistic and obscure." In December, Greenpeace asked U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan to dismiss the charges. The case "implicates the fundamental rights of all Americans to engage in peaceful protest," Greenpeace attorney Jane Moscowitz argued in court papers. Jordan indicated he would rule in early 2004 and, depending on his decision, a trial could follow in May. For the government, United States of America v. Greenpeace Inc., is a test case. For Greenpeace and other activist groups, it could be a disaster. If convicted, Greenpeace could be fined $10,000 and placed on five years' probation, which the group says would chill its activism. By being required to report to a federal probation officer, Greenpeace says, it would face unprecedented government scrutiny of its tactics and membership rolls. A criminal conviction also could cost Greenpeace its tax-exempt status, the group's lawyers argued. They said the government is trying to put Greenpeace out of business. "They're trying to silence us," said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace, which has offices in Washington and San Francisco. Defending the prosecution in court last month, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron Elliot insisted, "There is no evidence that the government has discriminated against Greenpeace because of its political views." The group's vocal opposition to the federal government "makes it no different from thousands of other political advocacy groups," he said. Greenpeace simply broke the law, Elliott argued in court papers. "The heart of Greenpeace's mission is violation of the law," he wrote. Greenpeace began in 1971 and now claims more than 250,000 individual supporters. Perhaps best known for sailing its boats into restricted waters and interfering with whaling ships and other vessels on the open seas, the group has been bothersome to Bush since shortly after his inauguration, when members put up a banner near his Texas ranch calling him the "toxic Texan." Others have built a pile of coal outside Vice President Cheney's Washington residence, protested near missile bases, issued investigative reports and even inspected Iraqi nuclear facilities. Greenpeace claims its Florida protest called attention to the crime of logging of big-leaf mahogany in the Brazilian Amazon and the Bush administration's failure to enforce an import ban contained in an international treaty. Greenpeace contends roads built by mahogany loggers are the root cause of Amazon deforestation. The Greenpeace prosecution is moving forward at a time when edgy law-enforcement officials have zero tolerance for acts of civil disobedience. The city of Miami also is facing criticism and has been threatened with lawsuits over an allegedly heavy-handed police response to protests at November's meetings of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. None of Greenpeace's supporters deny the need to protect ports in a post-Sept. 11 world. But, said John Passacantando, the group's executive director, "This was an entirely peaceful action." He asserted that Attorney General John Ashcroft is "hiding a political agenda" behind national-security concerns. The case also is alarming other defenders of free speech, who think the charges are intended to muzzle critics of the government. Constitutional scholars say the charges run counter to the rich American tradition of civil disobedience as seen during the abolitionist, suffrage, civil-rights and anti-war movements. "Greenpeace is an advocacy group. It is important that they be as free as possible to engage in their advocacy," said First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams. Activists are routinely arrested under long-established "rules of engagement" for peaceful civil protest; they expect to be jailed, considering it a "badge of honor," explained Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has written about the case. But by filing charges against Greenpeace Inc., federal prosecutors stepped into uncharted territory. "Until the federal indictment, this episode was a routine example of civil disobedience, essentially a sit-in on the high seas," said Bruce Ledewitz, who teaches First Amendment law at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University. __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

01-25-2004, 12:24 AM	#2
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Greenpeace often skirts the law on the seas. They just may be deserving of the charges -- I'd have to know more. I support their mission, but not all their tactics. Did you know that Greenpeace's leader's name, Passacantando, means "walks while singing?" Incidentally, how quick for a fascism reference. I guess since it's inevitable, it may as well come up front. __________________

01-25-2004, 12:28 AM	#3
The Hierophant Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: May 10, 2002 Location: Dunedin, New Zealand. Age: 42 Posts: 2,860	Of course Greenpeace are being silenced, they are a complete pain in the ass for the Bush administration. But as much as I dislike the Bush admin, I've gotta say that Boarding the ship was a stupid tactic. Why not just unfurl the huge banner from the wharf as the ship came in? Or from a high building? As much as I respect Greenpeace's brazenness, they have really shot themselves in the foot. You've gotta fight smart when you are up against cunning, malicious authoritarians like the Republican party, who will do everything they can to ensure that the 'law' is on their side (such as dig up some wierd old anti-pimpin' law). This incident may get Greenpeace some decent publicity, but that'll blow over pretty quick, and the long-term legal damage that will be done against Greenpeace simply isn't worth it. __________________ [img]\"hosted/Hierophant.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Strewth!

01-26-2004, 12:35 AM	#6
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	A [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img] to the extent that the "fascism" label can be accorded a democratic/republican disctinction. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] __________________

01-26-2004, 04:18 AM	#7
Azimaith Manshoon Join Date: July 1, 2003 Location: Hawaii Age: 38 Posts: 173	That is possibly the most creative way i've ever heard of to stop greenpeace protestors... Anyhow, if you engange in civil disobedience and you break the law, expect to get arrested, any good protestor knows that and is willing to take that consequence to get their message out. __________________ The Democrats bash the Republicans and the Republicans bash the democrats, now everyones got mud in their eyes and they can\'t see what matters.<br />Check out this site: [url]\"http://www.thehaca.com/about.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.thehaca.com/about.htm</a>

01-25-2004, 11:19 AM	#5
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 62 Posts: 1,172	a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. The problem I have with that is that the president is a Republican, not a dem. That definition fits the dems to a t except the part about belligerent nationalism. They believe in belligerent internationalism at the expense of the American people.

01-26-2004, 10:04 AM	#9
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Yeah, well, Faceman that's just not true, whether or not the article said it. We'll see how this plays out. __________________

01-26-2004, 02:03 PM	#10
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 49 Posts: 3,491	Funny how they dragged up an ancient law used against Pimps infiltrating ships. Welcome to the Greenpeace brothels, you can get some lovin here. [ 01-26-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
You've gotta love Greenpeace	Morgeruat	General Discussion	10	11-12-2005 08:52 AM
For all us pimps out there......	Hivetyrant	General Discussion	14	02-24-2005 05:03 PM
How can I use an item I’ve designed…	Target	Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum	2	06-04-2003 06:10 AM
8 US-Palestinian terrorists indicted by DOJ	Timber Loftis	General Discussion	0	02-20-2003 04:32 PM
Mages are designed to be the best.	Chaos Weapon	Baldurs Gate II Archives	28	03-16-2001 10:15 AM