[RhinofromWA]

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."

Read this in the Seattle Times at lunch (Fridays paper)

Link to article

OK here is the thing. I am cool with what they are doing until they encroach on the boat. At that point I have no problem sending them to Davey Jones Locker.

Maybe it is the fear of drowning in me but don't mess with me in a boat....you gunna lose sucka!

Government is going after GP on an old law about PIMPS and Boarding ships. Funny ****. GP paid for the boats used and other items so this action is directly linkedto GP not just the independent actions of some members. If found guilty in court they could lose their tax exempt status, etc. Interesting short read.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Another Pic

I say sink'm if they try to board.! LOL!

 

[Silver]

They are lucky they didn't get shot.

That still doesn't make Greenpeace a terrorist organization though, as much as Ashcroft would love to try them that way.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
They are lucky they didn't get shot.

That still doesn't make Greenpeace a terrorist organization though, as much as Ashcroft would love to try them that way.

Yeah I am not saying they are terrorists.....well in my case. They would be instilling terror in me but I shouldn't be on a big boat at sea either

But is arresting them for climbing the ship dissallowing their constitutional rights like they would like you to beleive? I don't know. I would say they could have said their peice without climbing on the boat.....

Cross a thin line go to jail.

 

[RhinofromWA]

GreenPeace's take on it

Removing right to 1st amendment rights of peaceful protest.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Taken from here

I beleive they broke some laws on their way to practicing their protected "free speach"

 

[Jorvik]

If I were the captain of the ship I'd have 'em shot. I think that the way GP and the Sierra Club go about their "protesting" is the complete wrong way. Its one thing to hold a peaceful demonstration, its another to break many laws doing so.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
GreenPeace's take on it

Removing right to 1st amendment rights of peaceful protest.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Taken from here

I beleive they broke some laws on their way to practicing their protected "free speach"

Ashcroft is an asshole, I'm certain of that, and he's digging into his bag of dirty tricks to prosecute this case.

There is no need for conspiracy charges, fine the hell out of the protestors, give them a long bit of probation and justice is served.

But a 1st amendment issue? C'mon, you're smoking crack if you think the 1st amendment gives you the right to board a ship for any reason.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
Ashcroft is an asshole, I'm certain of that, and he's digging into his bag of dirty tricks to prosecute this case.

There is no need for conspiracy charges, fine the hell out of the protestors, give them a long bit of probation and justice is served.

But a 1st amendment issue? C'mon, you're smoking crack if you think the 1st amendment gives you the right to board a ship for any reason.

Yeah Ashcroft is digging deap. It is still an uphill fight for them to get GP, I think. But if they take away their Non-Profit status....that will get them where it hurts. Also putting them on probation so they can't stir trouble for fear of getting in worse trouble..... that would really piss off GP.

GP has good intentions with poorly selected actions.

*edit*Sorry space bar isn't working and I spell like crap

 

[RhinofromWA]

MSN's article on it back in Nov '03

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.”

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, Title 18, Section 2279 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.

*edit* Snicker....I think he is Pro-GP. They are trying GP with an existing law. Which they broke. The fact that no one figured how to stick it to GP for it's dodging under the vail of "Free speach" until now is what is interesting. The first use (in 100 years) of this for prosecution will be selective....duh? Silencing a vocal critic.? That is whatGP did by boarding that ship....they silenced themselves (if it sticks) Just another example of "The Man" oppressing GP from their politically given amendment rights Bottom line they break teh law in their missoin and get in enough trouble...they lose their non-profit status then the government can REALLY "PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS." Double

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
They are trying GP with an existing law.

There are also "existing laws" forbidding oral sex, and 3 or more unrelated women living together... that doesn't make the law correct. They key here is even-handed application of the law. They have NEVER used this law similarly, and have no intention of using it in the future. If you want to tie member actions to groups (dangerous fvcking precident, if you ask me), legislate it and execute it on EVERYONE. What they're doing is targeting... it's a ridiculous bastardisation of the legal system.

By the way, they would have no difficulty prosecuting the two offenders individually with much more common laws. They are NOT protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by ohio
There are also "existing laws" forbidding oral sex, and 3 or more unrelated women living together... that doesn't make the law correct. They key here is even-handed application of the law. They have NEVER used this law similarly, and have no intention of using it in the future. If you want to tie member actions to groups (dangerous fvcking precident, if you ask me), legislate it and execute it on EVERYONE. What they're doing is targeting... it's a ridiculous bastardisation of the legal system.

By the way, they would have no difficulty prosecuting the two offenders individually with much more common laws. They are NOT protected by the 1st amendment.

I sure like this ohio guy.

So much for dissenting.

Whoops. I better watch what I say

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by brock
I sure like this ohio guy.

So much for dissenting.

Whoops. I better watch what I say

You remember that Political Compass thread?

We're already on the list

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
There are also "existing laws" forbidding oral sex, and 3 or more unrelated women living together... that doesn't make the law correct. They key here is even-handed application of the law. They have NEVER used this law similarly, and have no intention of using it in the future. If you want to tie member actions to groups (dangerous fvcking precident, if you ask me), legislate it and execute it on EVERYONE. What they're doing is targeting... it's a ridiculous bastardisation of the legal system.

By the way, they would have no difficulty prosecuting the two offenders individually with much more common laws. They are NOT protected by the 1st amendment.

Hmmmm the fact that GP paid a large portionof expenses to have the "individuals" do what they did doesn't bother you? GP is dirty as their two grunts they sent out there. The two offenders were acting on behalf of an international organization hiding behind free-speach and non-accountability....well they are being charge for accountability (which I agree with) though I am doubting the law to prevent "salior mongering" will stick in the case. GP is as responsible as the two soldiers they sent out.

"Even-handed application of the law" Very admirable stance, but you know that is never the case with any law. This is essentially a first for the rule. They can't have even-handed application until it is used again. If it keeps anyone from boarding a ship at sea than I am all for it. More directly if it keeps GP from tresspassing in the name of free-speach (which they abuse all the time) I am for it.

Other organizations are tied to the actions of members all the time. Everyday in the business world. This isn't a first. What makes it unusual is, GP is hiding their actions behind the 1st ammendment. "Targeting" hell yes they are targeting! Laws are created for a need usually based on events. That would follow your targeting point....yesit is targeting.

I am for free-speach but they go to far.

1st ammendment is being abused here, by them and by GP. Am I the only one who thinks GP is just as liable as their two grunts?

 

[Silver]

So basically, Greenpeace is acting like the Catholic Church, but without the child molesting?

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Silver
So basically, Greenpeace is acting like the Catholic Church, but without the child molesting?

You were making good points until that jackassed comment.

Anyway, wouldn't forcibly boarding a ship make you a pirate? What laws are still valid regarding piracy, other than music?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
So basically, Greenpeace is acting like the Catholic Church, but without the child molesting?

I don't think GP is above child molesting




Soooo the catholic church (a religion) is hiding behind the 1st Amendment regarding the child molesting? They said it is their 1st amendment right to molest children? Them Bastards!

 

[ummbikes]

My Evergreen College training leads me to want to support GP on this but my heart tells me that tresspassing is illegal and that by boarding the ship with out permission GP was wrong.

Ahhhh! The internal strife is too much!

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tweek
You were making good points until that jackassed comment.

Sorry about that, I have a huge hard on for the Catholic church....a different thread there, I guess.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
My Evergreen College training .........

Ummbikes, man, I have to say alot of prejudgices on my part crept up when you started the sentence that way. I had a good laugh at myself. I would soooooo have failed out of that school.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I would soooooo have failed out of that school.

Nah, you wouldn't have failed, we don't have traditional letter grades...

You might have been kidnapped by some hippies and been forced to growe some dreadlocks and vote for Nader though.

Completely off topic but Evergreen is a great school if you want to tailor your education to a program of your design. Some professors and students are full on Communists but even those people have well though out reasons and arguments so they are tolerable.

There are quite a few people though who go four 'wheeling, ride dirtbikes, hunt, ride DH bikes and voted for Bush.

I've become more liberal in some areas and much more conservative in others based on my experience there.

Is it June yet, I'm almost out of there!

Oh, to get back on topic, the thing that bothers me about the tactics of GP is that even though they are atempting to do a positive thing in preserving unique and vital eco-systems they are alienating potential support by their disdain of the law. I would lve to see rain forests preserved or used sustainable fashion, but I can't support GP because they are breaking the law. Sheesh if they would just stay in the Zodiacs and hold banners they same message would be put out for the public and the debate could be about whether or not logging rain forests is a good policy and not about how dumb GP is by tresspassing on a ship.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
You might have been kidnapped by some hippies and been forced to growe some dreadlocks and vote for Nader though.

Oh, to get back on topic, the thing that bothers me about the tactics of GP is that even though they are atempting to do a positive thing in preserving unique and vital eco-systems they are alienating potential support by their disdain of the law. I would lve to see rain forests preserved or used sustainable fashion, but I can't support GP because they are breaking the law. Sheesh if they would just stay in the Zodiacs and hold banners they same message would be put out for the public and the debate could be about whether or not logging rain forests is a good policy and not about how dumb GP is by tresspassing on a ship.

Agreed.

Quoting ME: I am for free-speach but they go to far.

Quoting ME again: GP has good intentions with poorly selected actions

Quoting ME #3: I beleive they broke some laws on their way to practicing their protected "free speach"

Quote ME #4: But is arresting them for climbing the ship dissallowing their constitutional rights like they would like you to beleive? I don't know. I would say they could have said their peice without climbing on the boat.....

Quoting ME #5: OK here is the thing. I am cool with what they are doing until they encroach on the boat. At that point I have no problem sending them to Davey Jones Locker.<snip> GP paid for the boats used and other items so this action is directly linkedto GP not just the independent actions of some members. If found guilty in court they could lose their tax exempt status, etc.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Hmmmm the fact that GP paid a large portionof expenses to have the "individuals" do what they did doesn't bother you?

Sure it does, but not enough that I am willing to twist the letter of the law to make a point over a single minor event. We have rules preventing citizens from being prosecuted for laws that are enacted AFTER the crime... it's one of the cornerstones of our bill of rights.

We need to enact fair and proper legislaslation that doesn't put other organization uneccessarily at risk, and then prosecute them fairly, with due process, and to the letter and intent of the law. Letting the rules be drawn after the fact is an incredibly dangerous step, and arbitrarily applying the archaic law allows for loopholes and appeals... an expensive and ineffective process for enforcing what we know to be right, yes?

To do it this way, puts every organization at risk in a grossly undefined manner, for the actions of all their employees and members. Do you really want your church to go to court if one of the churchmembers uses the youth group bus to steal TVs? That's why you make the rules first and THEN enforce them.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Other organizations are tied to the actions of members all the time. Everyday in the business world.

In the business world the problem is transposed: ONLY the business is held accountable, not the individual. This left the door open to the Ken Lays and Dennis Kozlowskis of the world to abuse their executive positions at the expense of shareholders and employees... and never be held accountable. For this reason, congress is NOW passing new legislation to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of executives for FUTURE cases. We can't go back and enforce them for crimes that weren't crimes 3 years ago, though... and you can imagine what would happen if we tried to use a law from 1794 designed to prosecute pimps.

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
1st ammendment is being abused here, by them and by GP. Am I the only one who thinks GP is just as liable as their two grunts?

How is being abused? The 1st amendment defense will be thrown out in the first 5 minutes of their court case, and GP knows it. Those two will be prosecuted and convicted just like any other trespasser, and they were willing to accept that punishment in return for some media attention. Make the penalties worse, and maybe they won't do it again... but you can't make them worse after the fact.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
Sure it does, but not enough that I am willing to twist the letter of the law to make a point over a single minor event. We have rules preventing citizens from being prosecuted for laws that are enacted AFTER the crime... it's one of the cornerstones of our bill of rights.

The law is over 100 years old....it is not after the fact. Right? Single minor event? This isn't a single event.....it si this event that will be tried.

We need to enact fair and proper legislaslation that doesn't put other organization uneccessarily at risk, and then prosecute them fairly, with due process, and to the letter and intent of the law. Letting the rules be drawn after the fact is an incredibly dangerous step, and arbitrarily applying the archaic law allows for loopholes and appeals... an expensive and ineffective process for enforcing what we know to be right, yes?

To do it this way, puts every organization at risk in a grossly undefined manner, for the actions of all their employees and members. Do you really want your church to go to court if one of the churchmembers uses the youth group bus to steal TVs? That's why you make the rules first and THEN enforce them.

In the business world the problem is transposed: ONLY the business is held accountable, not the individual. This left the door open to the Ken Lays and Dennis Kozlowskis of the world to abuse their executive positions at the expense of shareholders and employees... and never be held accountable. For this reason, congress is NOW passing new legislation to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of executives for FUTURE cases. We can't go back and enforce them for crimes that weren't crimes 3 years ago, though... and you can imagine what would happen if we tried to use a law from 1794 designed to prosecute pimps.

Again, it is an existing law. It is NOT after the fact.

IF the CHURCH provided the members with the van with the intent that they go and steal TV's. Hell D) yes!

It was made to stop People from boarding ships. At that time the problem was pimps and horny sailors

Try GP and take away their Not-for-Profit status, and put them on probation. They hide behind their peons....cowardly for the "just and right", I think. This isn't the act of two people it is the organized effort of GP. I say let the two grunts go and stick it to GP (uh oh, I think my bias is showing ) GP are the pimps here....

How is being abused? The 1st amendment defense will be thrown out in the first 5 minutes of their court case, and GP knows it. Those two will be prosecuted and convicted just like any other trespasser, and they were willing to accept that punishment in return for some media attention. Make the penalties worse, and maybe they won't do it again... but you can't make them worse after the fact.

GP is as responsible as their two "agents" (legal term...acting on behalf of GP) GP paid the espenses for these two "climbers" to break the law. GP is responsible for the crimes and should be held accountable. GP abuses the 1st by even using it in this case because every news article announces the government is taking away their 1st amend rights.....the damage is done. John Q Public doesn't follow it close past that point....doesn't see GP is full of crap. Abuse done regardless of court decisions. If that is what GP wants to do is beat down the goverment with false claims with the media. They are abusing the amendment.

 

[manimal]

Ahhh, greenpeace. every time i hear about them i think of the scene from PCU where the "good guys" are throwing meat on the veggie protesters from the second floor of the building makes me smile everytime.

that's all i have to say about that. not that it's relevant or anything

 

[RhinofromWA]

PS-

Why the hell are my longest posts always responding to Ohio?

Much luv for ya, Ohio.

Rhino

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
GP is as responsible as their two "agents" (legal term...acting on behalf of GP) GP paid the espenses for these two "climbers" to break the law. GP is responsible for the crimes and should be held accountable.

You're missing the point of my post. I agree that GP is as responsible. But right now the legislation is NOT in place to prosecute them for that.

It is a terrible idea to use a random law that was never intended to apply in this place, because it leaves too much room for interpretation and twisting. You're worried about punishment for this specific case... I'm trying to prepare for every case that comes after it. Writing a more relevant and modern law makes sure that everyone understands the rules, and no one can get out of it through appeal or good "lawyering." So GP might get away with this one, they won't get away with the next one. In fact, they won't commit the next one if the new legislation discusses specifics like NFP status.

As for the "after the fact" I'm not saying it's illegal for them to use this old law, I'm pointing out why it's a bad idea to rewrite and reinterpret it as we see fit AFTER the fact... for the same reason we have that particular constitutional right.

It simply makes more sense to do it properly.

oh, and much love back atcha. even if you do drive me nuts.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ummbikes

Oh, to get back on topic, the thing that bothers me about the tactics of GP is that even though they are atempting to do a positive thing in preserving unique and vital eco-systems they are alienating potential support by their disdain of the law. I would lve to see rain forests preserved or used sustainable fashion, but I can't support GP because they are breaking the law. Sheesh if they would just stay in the Zodiacs and hold banners they same message would be put out for the public and the debate could be about whether or not logging rain forests is a good policy and not about how dumb GP is by tresspassing on a ship.

If they had stayed in their Zodiacs they wouldn't have made the news and the protest would have been pointless as the public would not hear about the message.

The reason GP are breaking laws is because protests within the law are not achieving much, after all hasn't the current potus destroyed the Kyoto treaty?

They effectively raise the profile of an issue which many people would not otherwise be aware of, they may alienate some but it is an effective tactic.

Not all lawful protest is effective, remember the Boston Tea Party?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
You're missing the point of my post. I agree that GP is as responsible. But right now the legislation is NOT in place to prosecute them for that.

It simply makes more sense to do it properly.

Legislation IS there.....

From above article by constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley: 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.

It is "extremely rare - if not unprecedented" for use against the abused "free speach" amendment. Which I feel they have been hiding behind to do their deeds and letting their individual soldiers take the sole brunt of the law, leaving GP "innocent" (Rhino takes a pause to )

[blatent bias] Burn GP Burn! [/blatent bias]