Posted on 11/04/2003 1:43:04 PM PST by dead
Edited on 11/06/2003 3:25:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
IT HAS lain dormant in the darkest recesses of American law for 125 years, but last month Attorney General 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.
Is there anybody on earth who doesnt know this?this? The Greenpeace activists surrendured peacefully, were charged with trespass, and plead guilty. They knew they would be arrested when they boarded the boat. They wanted to be arrested. It's called civil disobedience, and getting arrested is the whole point.
I had not heard about this until I read Turley's complaint, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but Googling I found this article and at first blush it appears to me this particular law is being used in order to get the organization to cease and desist from this activity, rather than the individual arrests and penalties. that have been used in the past. Actually, Turley mentioned that, too.
Again, I have no problem with it, as the ball is in the courts and Ashcroft is not personally meting out penalties. Here's the article (which is very interesting in its own right):
Greenpeace vessel denied Miami berth
Excerpt:
This dispute is playing out against the backdrop of an unusual indictment in federal Miami court against the group itself -- not limiting prosecution to the individual activists, as is typical -- for boarding a ship steaming into the Port of Miami-Dade in April 2002 to draw attention to the illegal harvesting of mahogany in rain forests.
I'm going to search out more articles on this event.
THE LAW IS NOT ONLY ABOUT SAILOR-MONGERERING
It covers just about everything about sailors: wages, treatment of sailors, logbook keeping, you name it.
Sailormongering is in sec 63, illegal boarding is in a different section- sec 62.
I'm disappointed that Turley would tell such a lie.
No matter if you are trying to sell something or make a political point you are interfering with the crew at a delicate time. The law its self makes no reference or exemptions for reasons for boarding the ship. It only states that should you do it you should be detained by the crew, receive a fine of no more the $200.00 and/or 6 months in jail.
I'm not a hypocrite. I don't approve of it from either party.
Well! Is it all right if the issue of whether there has been an abuse of power is discussed? I realize you've reached your conclusion, but it is not at all apparent to me that it is correct. And it certainly is not clear there is any comparison to the previous administration, if we are to base our judgement on this lone column.
And that does not a hypocrite make.
If anything, this is a potential case of "double jeopardy," which would make it a Fifth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment issue.
Of course it isnt. He is not charging the protestors with additional crimes. He is charging the organization with crimes, with the intent to stifle their right to protest.
But then I guess that is why the author of this article is a third-rate writer for a second-rate newspaper, and not a leading constitutional scholar.
Jonathan Turley is a constitutional scholar who is syndicated in newspapers across the country, including conservative outfits such as JWR.
It should also be noted that this same "double jeopardy" argument would apply in "hate crimes" cases, pro-life protesters, etc. But I am quite certain that this guy has no problem when Federal prosecutors abuse their power in cases like that.
Wrong again.
Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
In 1986, two alleged racketeers were hauled into federal courts in New York and Chicago. One was John Gotti, the head of the murderous Gambino crime family. The other was Joseph Scheidler, a former Benedictine monk and pro-life protester. Only one was found liable as a racketeer: the former monk. Scheidler was found guilty under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law designed to combat organized crime. It is a case that could radically alter the exercise of free speech in this country in a way that the framers could never have anticipated.
Boy, they knew how to write a title in 1872!
I really can't remember because Girlie Turley gives me the vapours.
Leni
Actually, clearly Greenpeace is considered a security threat and it is the job of the Justice Department to quell such illegal and destructive activity.
"Undoubtedly", you say? Sorry, that is not at all the apparent motivation.
Cool. Whatever works.
Personally, I enjoy seeing Republicans finally fighting fire with fire against these scumbags.
No they didn't. They illegally tresspassed on somebody else's boat. These pirates are lucky they weren't shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.