Did Ashcroft go too far in Greenpeace indictment?

Bergen Record ^ | Tuesday, November 4, 2003 | JONATHAN TURLEY

[Prime Choice]

Nobody's doing it and nobody's being charged (except Greenpeace).

If nobody else is doing it, then how can you hope to make the charge of "selective enforcement" stick?

[cyncooper]

I am Googling in an effort to learn more about this story and what the charges actually are. Toward that end I found this article:

Arrest warrant issued for Greenpeace in Miami ship boarding

MIAMI (AP) _ A judge issued an arrest warrant for a Greenpeace representative on Monday, after the environmental group and its attorney failed to appear in court on an indictment charging the illegal boarding of a cargo ship.

Prosecutors charged that the group boarded the Singapore-registered ship last year under the mistaken belief that it was carrying contraband mahogany from Brazil.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Turnoff agreed to stay the warrant calling for the arrest of a Greenpeace representative until Tuesday. The warrant did not specify any particular member of Greenpeace.

Calls to a spokeswoman for the Washington-based group were not immediately returned Monday. The group's Miami attorney was not immediately available for comment.

Greenpeace was indicted two weeks ago on charges that it illegally boarded the APL Jade, owned by Neptune Orient Line, shortly before it docked in Miami last year.

Six Greenpeace members from the United States, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands settled misdemeanor charges over the boarding. The new charges against the organization carry a possible $20,000 fine plus probation.

Greenpeace criticized the indictment when it was issued as heavy-handed overkill.

Brazil imposed a moratorium on mahogany exports in 2001. Greenpeace says 80 percent of all timber from the Amazon rain forest is illegally cut on land owned by indigenous tribes.

[verity]

You are in the minority!

[cyncooper]

More:

Gov't charges Greenpeace with unlawful boarding

July 21, 2003

A federal grand jury sitting in Miami has returned an indictment charging Greenpeace, which does business as Greenpeace USA, with boarding a vessel before its arrival at the Port of Miami and conspiracy to do so, said the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

If convicted, the government said, Greenpeace faces a maximum penalty of five years probation and a $10,000 fine.

The environmental group's initial appearance is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Aug. 4, before the duty magistrate judge, the U.S. Attorney said.

As set forth in the indictment and in a complaint previously filed against individual Greenpeace members and employees, the government charges Greenpeace with conspiring with its members and employees to place Hillary Hosta and Scott Anderson on board the APL-JADE, a container ship that entered the Port of Miami on the afternoon of April 12, 2002.

About three miles from the entrance to the Port of Miami, the government charges Hosta and Anderson climbed up the APL-JADE's pilot's ladder from a boat registered to Greenpeace and operated by a Greenpeace employee. The government said their intent was to drape Greenpeace banners on one of the ship's cargo containers.

After reaching the APL-JADE's pilot house, the government said, Hosta and Anderson attempted to evade the ship's crew but were apprehended and detained until the ship moored and law enforcement arrived.

Boarding a vessel before it arrives in port violates title 18, U.S. code, section 2279.

Two other boats, one owned by Greenpeace and one chartered by Greenpeace, maneuvered near the APL-JADE while flying Greenpeace flags, according to the U.S. Attorney. When the Coast Guard responded, one of the boats attempted to evade law enforcement, according to the government, which said it arrested Hosta, Anderson and individuals on the boats on April 12, 2002.

U.S. Attorney Cameron Elliot is prosecuting the case.

[cyncooper]

Press Release on indictment:

GREENPEACE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY BOARD CARGO VESSEL

For Immediate Release July 18, 2003

Marcos Daniel Jiménez, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Hector M. Pesquera, Special Agent in Charge, Miami Field Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Rear Admiral Harvey Johnson, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District; and Jonathan Sall, Special Agent in Charge, Coast Guard Investigative Service, announced the return of an Indictment by a federal grand jury sitting in Miami, Florida, charging Greenpeace, Inc., d/b/a "Greenpeace USA," with boarding a vessel before its arrival in port and conspiracy to do so. If convicted, Greenpeace, Inc. faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years' probation and a fine of $10,000. Initial appearance is scheduled for Monday, August 4, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., before the duty Magistrate Judge.

As set forth in the Indictment and in a Complaint previously filed against individual Greenpeace members and employees, Greenpeace conspired with its members and employees to place Hillary Hosta and Scott Anderson on board the APL-JADE, a container ship which entered the Port of Miami on the afternoon of April 12, 2002. About three miles from the entrance to the Port of Miami, Hosta and Anderson climbed up the APL-JADE's pilot's ladder, from a boat registered to Greenpeace and operated by a Greenpeace employee, with the intent to drape Greenpeace banners on one of the ship's cargo containers. After reaching the APL-JADE's pilot house, Hosta and Anderson attempted to evade the ship's crew but were apprehended and detained until the ship moored and law enforcement arrived. Two other boats, one owned by Greenpeace and one chartered by Greenpeace, maneuvered near the APL-JADE while flying Greenpeace flags. When the Coast Guard responded, one of the boats attempted to evade law enforcement. Hosta, Anderson, and the individuals on the boats were arrested on April 12, 2002. They made their initial appearances before United States Magistrate Judge Ted. E. Bandstra on April 15, 2002, and during June 2002 Hosta, Anderson, and four other participants were convicted of boarding a vessel before its arrival in port, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2279.

Mr. Jiménez commended the investigative efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigative, the United States Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard Investigative Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Cameron Elliot.

[TheSarce]

Two [Greenpeace] members boarded the vessel about eight miles outside the Miami port, carrying a banner that read "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."

Does anyone else find this image hilarious? I mean, where would you think would be a great place for a protest of logging practices? Some forest in the Pacific Northwest? Noooo.... where else but on on a SHIP on the OCEAN, eight miles offshore from MIAMI!

Thank goodness they were professional environmental activists -- amateurs might not be able to communicate their concerns as effectively, LOL.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Go Ashcroft!
Whatever it takes to get flush the Greenpeace turds away, I'm for it. Hey Bobby Kennedy would go after someone for spitting on the sidewalk, if he thought it would help.

Ashcroft is the man!

[cyncooper]

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.

See my post #104. You are exactly right on the charge. But Greenpeace is facing quite substantial fines. Much more than $200.00.

Turley was totally off the mark when writing this.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

But Greenpeace is facing quite substantial fines. Much more than $200.00.

They must have adjusted for inflation. It was written in the 1870's. $200.00 was a lot of money then. A $200.00 fine is ok with me as long as they get the six months in jail.

This kind of thing is more serious then some people seem to think. A ship now has two options, repeal borders and have the resultant bad publicity or let them on the ship. This time it was just the eco-nuts from Greenpeace. Bad enough but if the borders had had intent to do harm they had a multi-ton battering ram at their disposal.

If this law is enforced this will not be considered civil disobedience but something far more serious. But not quite as serious as piracy. It is a good middle ground I think.

[mrsmith]

Too bad this wasn't posted here earlier to be debunked Dead.
Get on the ball!

I looked at some Left sites and they have swallowed this story whole.
Now, we'll never see the end of this lie.

[Alberta's Child]

He is charging the organization with crimes, with the intent to stifle their right to protest.

If the Attorney General's office were charging the organization with crimes in a matter that involved people demonstrating peacefully (or maybe even not so peacefully) on a public street, you would have a point. Since this matter involves people who committed crimes (they've already admitted this -- there's no question about this fact), I don't see how anyone's "right to protest" is being stifled.

I'm having a hard time understanding your rationale here. Do you really believe that the First Amendment applies in any manner whatsoever to protests that involve criminal acts?

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Ashcroft is trashing the Constitution. Greenpeace could be prosecuted under modern maritime law with no problem. That he chose to use an obscure and outdated anti Shanghai law leads me to believe that the man is mentally unbalanced, or is deliberately helping the socialist cause.

That is an asinine statement.

[swilhelm73]

When the vultures in the press use the same language for Reno, Clinton, and FACE, I'll start to pay attention. Until then lefties learn to take what you dish out.

Can you imagine the outrage if Bush banned peaceful protest on public property like Clinton did?

Greenpeace is lucky to not be facing piracy charges...

[LittleJoe]

How so?
Do you believe Greenpeace was going to shanghai the crew?
Do you believe the nuns endangered our troops?
Do you believe having colonel Klink in charge helps our cause?

[CaptIsaacDavis]

Dude! Haven't you noticed that many of Reno's top staffers are still working for Ashcroft! Rush pointed this out on air several weeks ago, and lo' and behold when I checked we have a veritable army of them in the middle ranks and DAs offices. When Clinton came to town I remember clearly that the DAs offices nationwide were purged, with hundreds laid off. Guess how many were let go prior to 9/11 (after which the need for continuity has largely prevented any cadre building)? The top echelon went in 2001, but that's it. The "middle ranks" stayed. The Bush Administration has, throughout the Federal government, shown a remarkable lack of will in terms of cleaning out the Clintonistas.

[kcvl]

Greenpeace: Yes To Violence

Posted On June 24, 2002

Greenpeace is "the radical environmental group with a penchant for publicity," Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research writes in a Contra Costa Times commentary. In some of its latest exploits, Greenpeace joined "with a number of domestic eco-terrorist groups including… the Ruckus Society and the Black Bloc anarchists" for an anti-corporate demonstration in Dallas recently.

The Ruckus Society runs training camps that teach wannabe anarchists "police confrontation strategies," "street blockades," and "urban climbing and rappelling," among other things. Ruckus activists are generally known for wearing masks, assuming aliases, and giving false names to arresting police officers, and the organization has been linked to the Black Bloc anarchists who smashed up stores, restaurants, and private property during demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, and other cities.

Greenpeace tries to cloak its association with such extremists, in the interest of keeping its respectable veneer -- and $23 million-plus annual income -- intact. But those who know Greenpeace best know the truth. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore calls his former comrades "a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum."

---

Posted on Sun, Jun. 16, 2002

Greenpeace gives terrorists maps

By Amy Ridenour
COMMENTARY

GREENPEACE, THE radical environmental group with a penchant for publicity, may be treading on treasonous soil in its latest quest for headlines.

Earlier this month, the group posted a color map on the Internet showing how a terrorist attack on a New Jersey bleach plant could choke the New York metro area under a shroud of chlorine vapor.

Greenpeace also posted maps of three other U.S. toxic chemical plants -- actions that could give al-Qaida cells blueprints for terrorism that could kill millions of Americans.

So far, this outrageous act has drawn little reaction from federal law enforcement officials. At best, Greenpeace's posting of the maps is a case of horrendously bad judgment. At worse, it borders on treason.

If it is later discovered that al-Qaida members actually use Greenpeace's handy "target triptik" to plot future attacks on U.S. chemical plants, it would hardly seem unfair if its entire leadership were to be rounded up and sent to the Navy's Club Med facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Before Sept. 11, Greenpeace and other environmental groups had campaigned for the public posting of detailed and previously confidential information about plants that use or manufacture hazardous chemicals.

The Clinton administration's Environmental Protection Agency agreed to require chemical companies to release much of this information despite warnings that public release could compromise national security.

The federal government has been rethinking its position in recent months and begun stripping maps of chemical plants, hazardous materials pipelines, and water reservoirs and pumping stations from it own Web sites and reading rooms.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag. On June 4, Greenpeace posted on the Internet maps of four hazardous chemical plants in the crowded megapolis that runs from New York south to Baltimore.

Greenpeace obtained the maps because the EPA now requires industrial companies to post Risk Management Plans for all their facilities that either produce hazardous materials or store them for use in the manufacturing process.

The environmental group says a terrorist attack on the Kuehne Chemical bleach factory in New Jersey could unleash a cloud of chlorine and sulfur that might cover a radius of 25 miles and jeopardize the lives and health of 12 million people.

An attack on the other three plants, Greenpeace contends, could release chlorine gas that could put an additional 4 million Americans at risk.

But Kuehne Chemical's chief operating officer Peter Kuehne disagrees, noting his plants have strict safety and security standards and the only release of toxic chemicals from the facility likely would come from exactly the type of terrorist attack Greenpeace's actions may aid.

Kuehne told The Wall Street Journal that Greenpeace's posting of the map on its Web site is akin to painting a gigantic bull's-eye on the facility's roof and providing the terrorists with snipers' rifles. "I don't think someone who wants to do us harm has a right to know this," he said.

Carol Browner, who headed the EPA when the decision was made to post highly detailed information about the plants on the Internet, defended her decision even after the first World Trade Center bombing and subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. embassy and military installations overseas.

Despite these flashing danger signals, Browner argued that making the data more available would force the chemical companies to seek alternative, less toxic materials for their products.

It is doubtful that Greenpeace is actually tied to Middle Eastern terrorists, but it did join with a number of domestic eco-terrorist groups including Monkey Wrench, the Ruckus Society and the Black Bloc anarchists to demonstrate against ExxonMobil at the corporation's recent shareholders' meeting in Dallas.

ExxonMobil became a Greenpeace target by refusing to obey the group's demand that it embrace the Kyoto global warming treaty.

The company notes that a Clinton administration study concluded the pact would devastate the U.S. economy.

Protesting a major U.S. corporation is, of course, a constitutional right. Showing terrorists how to attack a hazardous chemical plant and perhaps, slaughter millions of innocents, is a far different matter.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> How so? Do you believe Greenpeace was going to shanghai the crew? Do you believe the nuns endangered our troops? Do you believe having colonel Klink in charge helps our cause?

If your goal is to disparage John Ashcroft you will be more successful on a conservative forum if you don't mention his name in the same breath with a group of brain-dead environmental wacko extremists.

[donozark]

When Ashcroft was being subjected to those viscious attacks during his confirmation hearing he thereafter stated he would enforce all the laws. Why anyone would desire to go back to the days of having the "devil with the blue dress on" as AG is simply beyond me.

John Ashcroft was the best Governor the state of Missouri ever had. I'd low-crawl naked through Ozark County for a chance to vote for him again. We had been saddled with Dem Governors ever since. Missouri is loosing more jobs than any other state. We have risen from 48th in TOTAL tax burden to 18th! Right up there with NJ, NY, Kali,etc. And this happened in less than 5 years after Ashcroft left as Governor!

If you don't like this law, or any other law, work to repeal it. Otherwise? Handle it...

[HamiltonJay]

Please, I highly doubt "sail mongering" is the charge of the indictment. They illegally boarded a vessel, among other things, they violated all sorts of laws... I suspect the indictment charges something far different than "sail-mongering"...

There is a huge difference between sicking the IRS on a political enemy for simply being a political enemy and prosecuting a criminal act. Greenpeace should be charged as an organization under RICO for actions they have engaged in over the years frankly. I fail to see prosecuting a criminal act, and sicking the IRS on a political enemy as equivalent.

[cyncooper]

I hope you read more replies on this thread and saw what the actual charges are.