Greenpeace 'is refusing' to hand over names of activists who caused 'irreparable' damage to Nazca

UK Daily Mail ^ | December 16, 2014 | Corey Charlton

[C19fan]

So much for Greenpeace's claiming it is sorry for vandalizing and permanently scarring a UNESCO World Heritage site.

[MrB]

They should be excused because their intentions were noble...

[Sasparilla]

Its not a crime when fringe lunatic liberals do it.

[tanknetter]

I wonder if there’s a way for Peru to seize Greenpeace assets. Or at least have them frozen.

[Vince Ferrer]

If Peru has some sort of RICO laws they can go against the whole organization.

[Sherman Logan]

I must admit skepticism that they have permanently scarred the site.

It’s been there 1500 years, and until very recently indeed anybody who showed up walked around without paying any attention at all where he stepped.

Although I do enjoy bad press for Greenpeace this all seems a bit hysterical.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

But just pet a whale and see what happens to you.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They entered a restricted area. What happens to you in the US when you enter an area designated as restricted by the feral government?

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/12/12/greenpeace-director-in-peru-to-apologize-and-help-investigate-nazca-lines-stunt/

The activists entered a "strictly prohibited" area where they laid big yellow cloth letters reading: "Time for Change; The Future is Renewable." They said after initial criticism that they were "absolutely careful" not to disturb anything.

Castillo said no one, not even presidents and Cabinet ministers, is allowed without authorization where the activists trod, and those who do have permission must wear special shoes.

[moovova]

"Last week a Peruvian judge rejected prosecutors' request to keep the activists in the country to face questioning, citing incomplete information."

[Sherman Logan]

There is a difference between entering a restricted area and causing irreperable damage to that area.

Not a fan of Greenpeace, but this is hyperbole.

[MNDude]

I guess they’re gonna jump on their carbon free jetliner and fly 5000 miles away.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They broke Peruvian law. They should suffer whatever consequences that law stipulates.

Or do you agree with Obola that laws should be selectively enforced?

[BenLurkin]

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization. Has been for many, many years.

[Ghost of SVR4]

Declare them a terrorist organization.

[KosmicKitty]

Are there still Greenpeace activists in the country? If so, detain all of them until those who committed the crime are outed.

[Sherman Logan]

I have no problem with their being punished for breaking the law.

Just commenting on the claims that they caused immense damage. Which I have seen no evidence of. And which seems very unlikely.

I once camped overnight under an arch in Canyonlands National Park. Waay in the backcountry. It was a violation of park rule. But very cool.

Did I break the rule, and if caught could I have been fined? You bet.

Did I damage the arch? Don’t be silly. Nobody could even tell I’d been there at all.

[KosmicKitty]

Okay, my question has beed answered.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The hummingbird is just depressions in the earth. I can see where walking around it and creating new depressions could be very damaging. This ain’t a stone arch. It’s depressions in the soil.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They could have gone anywhere, and they chose to be right on top of the artifact. A couple of hundred yards away would have made no difference to their mission.

[DPMD]

You’d think greenpeace would enthusiastically accept the prison sentences, so they can recruit new gang members.