=> NeoNazi Ashcroft attacks GreenPeace with obscure criminal indictment ...!
=> Vox Populi ©
Students, Nuns and Sailor-Mongers, Beware
Atty. Gen. Ashcroft is pulling out all the stops to prosecute protesters.
By Jonathan Turley
(Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University)
It has lain dormant in the darkest recesses of American law for 125 years, but
this month Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft introduced critics of the administration to
his latest weapon in law enforcement.
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.
Not only is the law being used to prosecute one of the administration's most
vocal critics in an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment, but it appears to
be part of a broader campaign by Ashcroft to protect the nation against free
speech, a campaign that has converted environmentalists into "sailor-mongers"
and nuns into terrorists.
The case against Greenpeace started with a protest in April 2002. The activist
group was leading an international effort to stop the illegal importing of
mahogany. It believed that a ship, the APL Jade, was engaging in this illegal
trade and decided to conduct one of its signature demonstrations to protest the
Bush administration's failure to stop the imports.
In clearly marked boats, Greenpeace followed the ship. Two of its members
boarded the vessel about eight miles outside the Miami port, carrying a banner
that read "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."
Such protests are common, and the two activists wore Greenpeace jackets,
identified themselves as Greenpeace members and allowed themselves to be
arrested. They ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and were released. The
wood was unloaded and everyone seemed satisfied.
Everyone, that is, except Ashcroft.
Fifteen months after the incident, the Justice Department filed an indictment in
Miami against the entire Greenpeace organization under the 1872 law, a law that
appears to have been used only twice.
A New York court in 1872 described the law as both "inartistic and obscure." An
Oregon court in 1890 described the purpose of the law as preventing "the evil"
of "sailor-mongers [who] get on board vessels and by the help of intoxicants,
and the use of other means, often savoring of violence, get the crews ashore and
leave the vessel without help to manage or care for her."
Of course, there did not appear to be many sailors on the APL Jade being lured
out to join Greenpeace. But proceeding against two protesters on trivial
misdemeanor charges wasn't enough for the Justice Department. So it decided to
treat Greenpeace activists not as protesters but as sailor-mongers.
Greenpeace now could lose its tax-exempt status-a potential death knell for a
large public interest organization. A conviction could also force Greenpeace to
regularly report its actions to the government. Such a prospect must secretly
delight many in the administration who see the group as an ever-present
irritant. After all, it was Greenpeace that held the first demonstration at the
president's ranch after his inauguration, causing a stir when activists unfurled
a banner reading "Bush: the Toxic Texan. Don't Mess With the Earth."
Since that time, Greenpeace has waged a continual campaign against Bush's
environmental record. Ashcroft's jihad against free speech, however, is not
limited to environmentalists. Consider the case of three Dominican nuns. Last
year, Sister Ardeth Platte, 66, Sister Jackie Hudson, 68, and Sister Carol
Gilbert, 55, participated in a peaceful demonstration for nuclear disarmament.
As part of the protest, the three nuns cut through a chain-link fence around a
Minuteman III missile silo. There is only a light fence because the missile is
protected by a 110-ton concrete cap that is designed to withstand a nuclear
explosion. The nuns proceeded to paint crosses on the cap and symbolically hit
it with hammers. They then knelt, prayed, sang religious songs and waited for
arrest. The most the government could allege in terms of damage was $3,000.
However, the Ashcroft Justice Department wanted more than compensation and a
common misdemeanor. It charged the nuns with obstructing national defense, which
subjected each to a potential 30-year prison term. When the government pushed
the court to impose sentences of as much as eight years, the judge refused.
However, the judge found, as alleged by the government, that the three nuns had
put military personnel "in harm's way." Accordingly, he imposed on them
sentences ranging from 2 1/2 years to 3 1/2 years.
The administration has pursued a similar zero-tolerance policy in other cases.
It has been accused of using unconstitutional "trap-and-arrest" tactics to
suppress protests in Washington, DC, where hundreds of journalists, bystanders
and student protesters were arrested en masse without a warning or an
opportunity to disperse. They were then left hog-tied in holding areas for as
long as 20 hours, with their hands bound to their ankles.
The Greenpeace case is particularly chilling because of the extraordinary effort
to find a law that could be used to pursue the organization. The 1872 law is a
legal relic that must have required much archeological digging through law books
to find.
It is also notable that other organizations have not faced such attacks. For
example, in this same judicial district in Florida, the Cuban American group
Democracy Movement organized a protest in which members sailed into a
government-designated security zone. Although the members were charged, the
organization was not. Similarly, other groups viewed favorably by the
administration - such as anti-abortion groups - have not been subject to
criminal indictments of their organizations for such protests.
The extraordinary effort made to find and use this obscure law strongly suggests
a campaign of selective prosecution-the greatest scourge of the 1st Amendment.
Greenpeace was engaged in a classic protest used by countless organizations,
from those of the civil rights movement to anti-abortion groups. It is a way for
citizens to express their opposition by literally standing in the path of the
government.
None of these organizations contest the right of the government to punish them
for trespass or even criminal misdemeanors. Indeed, they view such punishment as
a badge of honor.
However, Ashcroft is now seeking symbols of his own: The image of a major
environmentalist organization placed on probation or nuns being sent to jail is
clearly meant to send a chilling message from the man who once accused his
critics of aiding and abetting terrorists.
Unless deterred by Congress or the courts, Ashcroft will continue his campaign
to protect Americans from the ravages of free speech. If he succeeds, it will
not be sailors but free speech that will be shanghaied in Miami.
> Ashcroft Case Against Greenpeace Threatens First Amendment Rights
> Thursday, November 13th, 2003
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/13/1546243
> The Justice Department has filed a criminal indictment using an
> obscure 1872 "sailor mongering" law against Greenpeace that threatens
> the future of the organization. In one court filing, the Justice
> Department wrote: "The heart of Greenpeace's mission is the violation
> of the law." [Includes transcript]
>
>
>
> The Justice Department has filed a criminal indictment against the
> environmental group Greenpeace that threatens the future of the
> organization.
> In April, 2002, Greenpeace activists boarded a commercial ship off
> the coast of Florida. The ship was transporting mahogany illegally
> exported from Brazil's Amazon rainforest. The activists unfurled a
> banner stating: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging." They did not
> engage in violence or destroy property. Minor charges against
> individual activists were settled last year.
>
> Enter Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department.
>
> This past July, Ashcroft charged Greenpeace under an obscure 1872 law
> that appears to have been used only twice. The law was originally
> intended to end the practice of "sailor-mongering," or the luring of
> sailors with liquor and prostitutes from their ships.
>
> In one court filing, the Justice Department wrote "The heart of
> Greenpeace's mission is the violation of the law." Constitutional
> attorneys say the future of not just Greenpeace but the First
> Amendment could be at stake.
>
> If convicted, Greenpeace could not only lose its tax-exempt status,
> but be forced to regularly report its activities to the government.
>
>
> a.. Al Gore, former Vice President and 2000 presidential candidate
> speaking at a forum organized by MoveOn.org on Novemver 9th, 2003.
> b.. John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> TRANSCRIPT?
> AMY GOODMAN: We are joined on the telephone?by John Passacantando,
> the executive director of greenpeace?U.S.A.. Before we speak to him,
> we're going to play an excerpt of a speech by a former vice president
> Al Gore, 2000 presidential candidate who spoke recently at a forum by
> moveon.org?
>
> [tape]
>
> AL GORE: John Ashcroft has authorized F.B.I. agents to attend church
> meets and rallies and political meetings and any other citizen
> activity open to the public simply on the agents' own initiative,
> thereby reversing a decades-old policy that required?justification to
> superiors before such infiltrations could?take place, and they would
> have to show a provable connection to a legitimate investigation.
> They have even taken steps that?seem to be clearly aimed at stifling
> disdissent. The Bush Justice Department has recently begun a highly
> disturbing criminal prosecution of Greenpeace, because of a
> non-violent direct action?protest against what Greenpeace claimed was
> the illegal importation of endangered mahogany from the
> Amazon.?Independent legal experts and historians have said that
> this?prosecution under an obscure and bizarre 1872 law against
> sailor?mongering, I'm not making that up, appears to be aimed
> at?inhibiting greenpeace's first amendment activities.?Now, at the
> same time, they're breaking new ground by?prosecuting greenpeace, the
> Bush administration?announced just a few days ago that they're
> dropping the?investigation of 50 power plants for violating the clean
> air act.?In a move that Chuck Schumer said, and I'm quoting
> him,?"basically, announced to the power industry that it can
> now?pollute with impunity."?
>
> AMY GOODMAN: Al Gore, speaking on November?9 at a moveon.org event.
> We are joined on the telephone?right now by John Passacantando,
> executive director of Greenpeace U.S.A..Can you talk about what
> you're?doing about this suit and what exactly the protesters did
> who?the justice department is targets along with you??
>
> JOHN PASSACANTANDO: Sure, Amy. What we did is part of a global
> campaign both from tracking all of the illegally logged mahogany in
> the Amazon, we call it blood wood; the companies in illegally and
> tear down the mahogany and pull it out and it's the beginning of the
> end of the rainforest when the roads are cut in by the illegal
> commercial loggers. we were doing actions in ports?all around the
> world all throughout Europe. In fact, Tony Blair came out praising
> Greenpeace. This one action that we did in the U.S., the shipment was
> outside the port of Miami with about 200 tons of illegally logged
> mahogany on it. We did that to highlight that the feds were missing
> it, that the illegally logged mahogany was still coming into the
> U.S., despite president bush's claims that we cared about stopping
> illegally logged mahogany, it was coming in right under the?federal
> prosecutors' noses. This kept it alive as an issue and?this helped it
> get an even higher level of protection in the international treaty on
> these endangered species. It was a simple action, one we?have done
> many times in the 33 years of history. It's unprecedented for us to
> be one, accused of sailor mongers, which is humorous. The real
> precedent here is that this is the first time that we can find in U.S
> history that a non-profit group that engages in peaceful non-violent
> direct?action that organizes people to do such, to amplify the voices
> of dissenters, this is the first time the federal government has come
> after the group, the non-profit behind the dissenters, behind the
> volunteers, behind the people who do the non-violent direct actions.
> This didn't happen to Randall Robinson when he was running
> TransAfrica and organizing people to be arrested by sitting
> peacefully in front of the south African embassy in Washington in the
> 1980's under Reagan.?
>
> JUAN GONZALES: what specifically is the government accusing you of
> doing illegally that rises to the level of a federal crime??
>
> JOHN PASSACANTANDO: well, they have dug up this old federal statute
> against sailor mongering, and they have claimed that -- they're
> arguing to the judge that this fits. We don't think it fits.?We think
> it's selective prosecution. We think that the law is vague.?We think
> it should bedismissed by the judge.?
>
> AMY GOODMAN: interestingly, Matthew Dade, spokesperson for the u.s.
> attorney's office in Miami, in court papers defended the argument
> saying that the heart of greenpeace's mission is the violation of the
> law
>
> JOHN PASSACANTANDO: I would say that the heart of John Ashcroft's
> mission is to snuff out disaccident dissent in the United States. We
> will see who wins, a, in the court of public opinion, and b,?in the
> courts of Miami.?
>
> AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you another question, a year ago today,
> November 13, 2002, the oil tanker Prestige split in two and?sank off
> the coast of Spain. An estimated 17 million gallons of oil seeped
> into the ocean, nearly twice the amount leaked in the Exxon Valdez
> disaster in Alaska in 1989. The oil spread from southern?Portugal to
> France, over 1,000 miles of coastline were affected, considered one
> of the worste environmental disaters in Europes history.?Greenpeace
> has just issued a critical report on the clean-up. What are the long
> term effects of the spill??
>
> JOHN PASSACANTANDO: well, the long term effects?are still unknown,
> and the best sort of academic and university?folks from that part of
> the world are saying that we won't?know the worst of it for another
> decade.What you have are the toxins now still being picked up through
> the food chain and accumulating on their way up.The worst thing is
> that while?the E.U. has very good laws prohibiting ships from coming
> in?to its ports that don't have --that are not double hulled
> when?they carry oil, still you can have these vessels flying flags?of
> convenience, flying -- shipping through their waters?even if they're
> not going to their ports. So, you have a lack of double hulls. You
> have ships moving through extremely sensitive areas. You do not have
> a very robust maintenance regime, or ways to certify these crews, and
> you have just a constant?threat even after they saw the horrible
> repercussions from this?disaster a year ago.?
>
> JUAN GONZALES: the Bush administration, many people have said, is
> probably the most hostile ever to environmental concerns in the
> country. Your general assessment of what the Bush administration is
> doing in the few seconds we have left??
>
> JOHN PASSACANTANDO: I have never seen anything like it in my entire
> career as an environmental actistist. Greenpeace is a non-partisan
> organization. We want to push governments,?industry, et cetera, to be
> better environmental stewards.?we want the world to be more peaceful
> and green and we have?never seen anything like the out and out
> hostile attacks and complete giveaways to industry?
>
> AMY GOODMAN: we continue to follow this highly?unusual case that the
> justice department has brought against?your organization, greenpeace.
> John Passacantando, executive?director of greenpeace, U.S.A??
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall