Sea Gristle
05-05-2005, 12:41 PM
by Mitchell Bernard
I awoke this morning thinking about Greenpeace. It's an activist group that does a lot of different things. What it's most famous for is acts of civil disobedience, peaceful protests that may violate a law (like trespass) in order to make a political point. Greenpeace also works within existing law, lobbying Congress and educating the public on environmental issues.
One issue of concern to Greenpeace (and other nonprofit groups that care about the planet) is depletion of the Amazon rainforest. One way the Amazon is compromised is logging for mahogany, a wood that is valuable in international markets (especially in the United States). Because of its economic value, mahogany lures loggers to the Amazon; once they mine for mahagony, roads and infrastructure get built and other trees are lost. To protect the rainforest, it is now illegal to mine mahogany in the Amazon. But it happens sometimes, illicitly. A couple of years ago, Greenpeace got word of a ship carrying illegally mined mahogany; it was headed for the port of Miami. A handful of Greepeace activists rode a small inflatable boat to meet the ship, boarded it, and attempted to unfurl a handmade banner reading "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." Greenpeace was protesting what it viewed as the Bush Administration's lax enforcement of laws prohibiting the mining and selling of Amazon mahogany.
This was garden variety civil disobedience, reminiscent of protests (sit-ins and the like) that were popular (and effective) decades ago during the civil rights movement. And the law enforcement response -- at first -- was also standard. The Greenpeace activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, were charged with a petty crime, did not contest the charges, and were sentenced to the time they had served.
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Around 15 months later, the U.S. Attorney in Miami (who reported to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft) sought and obtained an indictment against Greenpeace as an organization, for violating an 1872 statute barring "sailor-mongering." The law was passed to protect arriving sailors against the practice of Miami bordellos sending wine and women out to ships before they docked, to lure the sailors' business and wages. The statute had last been interpreted by a court in 1890. If convicted, Greenpeace faced substantial monetary fines, plus ten years' probation (with the spectre of a federal probation officer being privy to its planned protest activities).
The case went to trial (to a jury), and the federal judge, rightfully and thankfully, dismissed the charges after the government presented its spurious case. While it was victorious in court, Greenpeace had to endure the distraction and expense of defending the charges.
To me this is a reminder of the critical importance of federal courts in dispensing justice, or, as in this case, preventing manifest injustice. It's also a reminder of the prevailing political climate in Washington and elsewhere. What was the point in prosecuting a nonprofit activist organization for a perfectly peaceful protest in which nobody was threatened or hurt, after the individuals involved had already taken their punishment? Was it to send a message to critics of the government? To chill criticism of our elected officials for failing vigorously to enforce laws protecting the rainforest? Peaceful civil disobedience has a proud tradition in America. This prosecution, in my view, was selective and political. We're fortunate to have an independent federal judiciary to stop it.
At least until they unleash "the nuclear option"... [sad]-Kevin
I awoke this morning thinking about Greenpeace. It's an activist group that does a lot of different things. What it's most famous for is acts of civil disobedience, peaceful protests that may violate a law (like trespass) in order to make a political point. Greenpeace also works within existing law, lobbying Congress and educating the public on environmental issues.
One issue of concern to Greenpeace (and other nonprofit groups that care about the planet) is depletion of the Amazon rainforest. One way the Amazon is compromised is logging for mahogany, a wood that is valuable in international markets (especially in the United States). Because of its economic value, mahogany lures loggers to the Amazon; once they mine for mahagony, roads and infrastructure get built and other trees are lost. To protect the rainforest, it is now illegal to mine mahogany in the Amazon. But it happens sometimes, illicitly. A couple of years ago, Greenpeace got word of a ship carrying illegally mined mahogany; it was headed for the port of Miami. A handful of Greepeace activists rode a small inflatable boat to meet the ship, boarded it, and attempted to unfurl a handmade banner reading "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." Greenpeace was protesting what it viewed as the Bush Administration's lax enforcement of laws prohibiting the mining and selling of Amazon mahogany.
This was garden variety civil disobedience, reminiscent of protests (sit-ins and the like) that were popular (and effective) decades ago during the civil rights movement. And the law enforcement response -- at first -- was also standard. The Greenpeace activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, were charged with a petty crime, did not contest the charges, and were sentenced to the time they had served.
But that wasn't the end of the story.
Around 15 months later, the U.S. Attorney in Miami (who reported to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft) sought and obtained an indictment against Greenpeace as an organization, for violating an 1872 statute barring "sailor-mongering." The law was passed to protect arriving sailors against the practice of Miami bordellos sending wine and women out to ships before they docked, to lure the sailors' business and wages. The statute had last been interpreted by a court in 1890. If convicted, Greenpeace faced substantial monetary fines, plus ten years' probation (with the spectre of a federal probation officer being privy to its planned protest activities).
The case went to trial (to a jury), and the federal judge, rightfully and thankfully, dismissed the charges after the government presented its spurious case. While it was victorious in court, Greenpeace had to endure the distraction and expense of defending the charges.
To me this is a reminder of the critical importance of federal courts in dispensing justice, or, as in this case, preventing manifest injustice. It's also a reminder of the prevailing political climate in Washington and elsewhere. What was the point in prosecuting a nonprofit activist organization for a perfectly peaceful protest in which nobody was threatened or hurt, after the individuals involved had already taken their punishment? Was it to send a message to critics of the government? To chill criticism of our elected officials for failing vigorously to enforce laws protecting the rainforest? Peaceful civil disobedience has a proud tradition in America. This prosecution, in my view, was selective and political. We're fortunate to have an independent federal judiciary to stop it.
At least until they unleash "the nuclear option"... [sad]-Kevin