Unprecedented: Ashcroft's Attack On Greenpeace

Unprecedented: ASHCROFT'S ATTACK ON GREENPEACE John Passacantando, AlterNet

Never before in U.S. history has an entire organization been prosecuted for a peaceful protest by its supporters. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17073

<snip>
Last year, two Greenpeace activists climbed aboard a ship carrying Amazon mahogany wood. They held a banner that said "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging."

Instead of halting the shipment, the government is prosecuting Greenpeace in federal court in Miami. It has charged Greenpeace under an obscure 19th-century law never intended for this purpose. A trial is now set for December.

Leading legal experts, quoted in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and publications around the world, agree that this prosecution is disturbing and poses a threat to free speech.

From the Boston Tea Party to the civil rights movement, public protest actions have helped bring positive change in the U.S.
<snip>

to stop all environmental activities, all anti-Bush activities, under the guise of "national security". Asscroft makes me sick.

looks like out fascist little Shrub might grow up into a Blooming Nazi.

I'm sorry, how do you honestly expect Bush to do illegal things like war for oil or drilling or oil or logging or oil with liberal hippies protesting???

I mean, how could Hitler possible have gone around conquering other countries if people sat around with picket signs?!! :crazy:

Take action:

Contact President Bush and John Ashcroft and tell them to prosecute illegal loggers, not Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/10048/action_id/195.html

Contact the authorities in Miami and tell them that they should allow the Esperanza to dock in Miami:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/view.fpl/10048/action_id/196.html

For more information and to stay updated as events unfold, visit: http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/trial

Forward this alert as widely as possible: http://www.voice4change.org/stories/send2friends.asp?id=031031~gp.asp

Sincerely,
John Passacantando
Executive Director
Greenpeace USA

x

sent me to a very short piece that to call one-sided would be an understatement.

I am sorry but to take action based on the article in the link would be foolish. Just what is the "obscure 19th-century law never intended for this purpose" could it be that it is actually ilegal to board a ship at sea without permission??????

This piece makes those who would follow the links look like dupes.

I agree that illegal logging is very bad for the environment and for the people living in those areas but boarding ships at sea is just stupid.

Let GP take their licks in the courts and maybe they can get their message out. They did commit a crime that goes WAY beyond a banner waving peaceful protest..they are lucky that they were not shot as the boarded the boat.

there are some similarities..

www.rickwalton.com/folktale/holid055.htm

"The Boston Tea Party"

<snip>
That night there mustered upon Fort Hill about two hundred strange figures, SAID TO BE INDIANS FROM NARRAGANSETT. They were clothed in blankets, with heads muffled, and had copper- colored countenances. Each was armed with a hatchet or axe, and a pair of pistols. They spoke a strange, unintelligible jargon.

They proceeded two by two to Griffin's Wharf, where three tea-ships lay, each with one hundred and fourteen chests of the ill-fated article on board. And before nine o'clock in the evening every chest was knocked into pieces and flung over the sides.

see the similarities....in any case the action went beyond peaceful protest...a common tactic with greenpeace....funny how they have peace in their name but they consistantly endanger themselves and others with their brand of protest.

"two Greenpeace activists climbed aboard a ship carrying Amazon mahogany wood. They held a banner that said "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging.""

...for 'ineffective, inoffensive protest nobody notices' -- like standing quietly in a 'First Amendment Zone' with a sign.

If you do anything to stand out or disturb the drones, you're not being 'peaceful'.

Got it?

there are many effective ways to protest peacefully without resorting to endagering and tresspassing.

For your information I have been protesting the "free speech zone" issue since before Bush was (s)elected.

Are they being peaceful?

And to the best of my recollection, I don't think there WERE first amendment zones before Bush was elected. Clinton had no qualms about confronting dissenters (even talked with them a few times...still does).

(on edit)

Oh, you're talking about abortion clinic protests having '1st amendment zones', aren't you. I see. I suppose that was before Bush. My mistake.

.."Not the least insult was offered to any one, save one Captain Conner, who had ripped up the linings of his coat and waistcoat, and, watching his opportunity, had filled them with tea. But, being detected, he was handled pretty roughly. They not only stripped him of his clothes, but gave him a coat of mud, with a severe bruising into the bargain. Nothing but their desire not to make a disturbance prevented his being tarred and feathered.

The tea being thrown overboard, all the Indians disappeared in a most marvelous fashion.

The next day, if a stranger had walked through the streets of Boston, and had observed the calm composure of the people, he would hardly have thought that ten thousand pounds sterling of East India Company's tea had been destroyed the night before."
These people are viewed as American heros. GP, of course has never 'manhandled' anyone during their completely non-violent actions.

and endangering lives is something that I don't consider peaceful.

the globe. Didn't you notice?
Do you think illegal logging is ok?

I did not see what the law is?

"In a Miami federal court, the attorney general charged the environmental group Greenpeace under an obscure 1872 law originally intended to end the practice of "sailor-mongering," or the luring of sailors with liquor and prostitutes from their ships. Ashcroft plucked the law from obscurity to punish Greenpeace for boarding a vessel near port in Miami. "

Article written by Johnathan Turley, Oct 17, 2003

Greenpeace boarded the ship with liquor and strippers?

That would sure get Mullah Ashcroft's attention, wouldn't it!

In honor of the Greenpeace flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, a teaching story:

"The Indigenous tribes were not surprised when the black, white, and yellow peoples arrived on their shores, because their prophets had spoken of the coming of other races.

"They knew that the new tribes would overwhelm the ancient cultures of the land they called Turtle island...

"...but it was said that in our times the spirit of the native land would be born anew into all of the races that gathered on this land.

"A portion of the different races of the rainbow colors will see that we are all one family. These Warriors of the Rainbow bill bring with them a new time of living in harmony with our environment and with all peoples."

http://www.chiron-communications.com/communique%207-9.html

IMHO

I've copied Saywhat's post from another thread here. This seems really important and it deserves more discussion than it's getting. Wouldn't it be nice if some other groups joined hands with Greenpeace on this one?

Saywhat's post:
***************************************************
They're trying to prosecute an entire organization for the actions of 2 people. How long before they try to do that with the anti-war movement organizations in the US?? They're testing the waters. It all has to do with Patriot Act II.

<clips>

US puts right to protest at risk
Government prosecutes Greenpeace over protest

Greenpeace is being taken to court by the US government because of its action against the illegal importation of mahogany. Its lawyers says it is the first time an entire organisation has been criminally prosecuted for the activities of two members.

The prosecution arises from the activity in April last year of two Greenpeace members who boarded a vessel off the coast of Miami allegedly carrying mahogany from Brazil to the US and hoisted a banner saying: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."

They were accompanied by journalists who recorded the event. Both protesters and 12 other Greenpeace activists in support vessels were arrested and jailed over the weekend. Six were charged with misdemeanours, and pleaded guilty.

Normally that would have been an end of the matter, a familiar event for Greenpeace, whose activists are regularly arrested and usually fined or sentenced to short jail terms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1074676,00.html





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From an article about the Patriot Act:

<clips>

... One of the most significant features of the Act is a new, broader definition given to terrorism. The definition now also includes “domestic,” as contrasted with international terrorism. Section 802 states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if they do any act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if that action appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Further, the act or acts must take place primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of such organizations as Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Environmental Liberation Front, protests about Vieques Island, and protests at the meeting of the World Trade Organization. Civil disobedience, such as entering on the premises of a U.S. military base, which is a violation of federal law, would now be included within the definition of an act of domestic terrorism. Disrupting a meeting or procession of vehicles as a means of drawing attention to or attempting to influence an unwanted governmental policy all could be considered acts of domestic terrorism. The implications are huge and the Act can be used to prosecute political dissidents of many stripes. The Act potentially violates at least six of the ten original Bill of Rights: the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 13th Amendment. It grants broad new powers to law enforcement and permits law enforcement officials to side-step or avoid entirely many traditional controls on the surveillance, investigation, arrest, and prosecution of civilians residing in the United States.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0806patriot.htm

although banner hanging is most often illegal because it's usually done on private property such as buildings and bilboards, they haven't as yet gone after Code Pink for example, as an organization. They no doubt would be looking for obscure laws to apply on 'land'.
But the RW politicians have been trying to write such laws such as in Oregon, calling environmentalists terrorists. It's a good idea to pay attention to these things.

Thanks for reminding me Mr. Ashkkkroft!!!!!