Did Ashcroft go too far in Greenpeace indictment?

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

[cksharks]

Where the f--- you been? The bitch did that already.Or is it convenint for you to forget the litttle RICO incident.

[Sloth]

Greenpeace's boat should have been torpedoed.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Don’t bitch when Hillary’s president and Andrew Cuomo’s the AG selectively enforcing sailor mongering laws on abortion protestors or the NRA.

Which they would no doubt attempt regardless of what Ashcroft does or does not do.

I seem to recall Janet Reno rather cavalierly acting when it suited the Clintons' needs (Waco, Elian), regardless of the constitution, and without Ashcroft "to show the way."

That does mean I think two wrongs equal a right. It just means that I'm not so sure this is a wrong on Ashcroft's part to begin with.

[5veingrafts]

I have hated Greepeace since the last time I was at the beach and 6 of their members tried to drag me back into the water.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Correction: Last sentence should read "That does NOT mean I think two wrongs equal a right. It just means that I'm not so sure this is a wrong on Ashcroft's part to begin with."

[Alberta's Child]

Can you even read?

Yes, I can. The author of this article described the charges against these people as an "unprecedented attack on the First Amendment." Whether or not they should be charged with the additional crime is something we can all argue about. However, there is no way in hell that a situation in which the defendents have pleaded guilty to a crime can possibly be construed as a First Amendment issue.

If anything, this is a potential case of "double jeopardy," which would make it a Fifth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment issue. 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.

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.

I agree that the case against the Greenpeace people has no standing is probably unconstitutional. However, I also believe that this case should be pursued with all of the AG's resources. The problem with illicit conduct on the part of one or more branches of the Federal government is that it never gets corrected until a left-wing person or organization is the target.

[dead]

Read post #36.

I'm not like you. I don't cheer political prosecutions just because it's my side abusing their power. This is no different than Reno's and the IRS attacks on World Net Daily or Paula Jones or the NRA.

I'm not a hypocrite. I don't approve of it from either party.

If the protestors were guilty of piracy (which they weren't) Ashcroft should charge them with piracy.

But pursuing Greenpeace, the organization, with "sailor mongering" charges is disgraceful. The act of an Attorney General with no respect for the equal application of the law. He's a political hack who should be worried about terrorism, not unwashed hippy protestors.

[Spok]

It's already been done. Clinton used the Secret Service and IRS to audit and intimidate his critics. And the RICO law was used against the pro-life movement, although that abuse was recognized and reversed on appeal. The environmentalists (although not Greenpeace in particular)have decided that the taking of private property and human life is justified in the name of their cause. I don't agree with Ashcroft's approach, but as far as I'm concerned, the environmentalist movement is morphing into a serious terrorist threat that deserves serious attention. And if and when the left is in power again, we can expect no quarter, whether we've given it or not.

[mrsmith]

Here is the original act: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=317
It's a TIFF document

It is NOT only about sailor-mongering. In fact that seems to be in a different section than would apply here.

I repeat it does NOT seem like the sailor-mongering section of the act is what was used. The Sailor-mongering section only applies AFTER the ship has arrived. The article reads like they boarded AS the ship arrived.

I'm disappointed in Turley.
Of course, I would not like this applied selectively though.

[Prime Choice]

It is a political charge, being selectively enforced.

Okay, I'll bite. Who else is doing the same thing and not being charged?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It is a political charge, being selectively enforced.

That charge only has merit if at a future date another group does the same thing and is not charged with it.

I think this illegally boarding of ships is a fairly new thing. If this law is enforced then it will quickly become a very old thing.

[Question_Assumptions]

When the press gets upset about RICO being applied to pro-life protestors, I'll get upset about this law being applied to Greenpeace.

[cksharks]

I'm not cheering it either.You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I'm sorry you dont like the answer!

[dead]

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

I really don't think sailor mongering has been much of a serious problem in the US since about 1890.

[HamiltonJay]

You illegally and unwantedly boarded a vessel... far as I am concerned the captain and crew of that ship should have shot you on the spot for piracy and dumped your bodies overboard for those on shore and your wacko buddies to see....

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Oh.. If only I hadn't bothered to proof read!

[dead]

You asked a question and I gave you an answer.

I didn’t ask you any question, and I didn’t appreciate your moronic “Where the f--- have you been?” comment.

I'm sorry you dont like the answer!

It wasn’t an answer since there wasn’t a question. I just thought your whole post was asinine, and reflected selective outrage on your part.

[Paleo Conservative]

Ashcroft isn't dangerous; it's the DemocRATS who are dangerous. Ashcroft is acting on the conservative complaint that leftist are always wanting to pass new laws rather than enforce the laws that already exist. The law has existed for 131 years. Bully for Ashcroft for finding and applying it.

[dead]

You illegally and unwantedly boarded a vessel... far as I am concerned the captain and crew of that ship should have shot you on the spot for piracy and dumped your bodies overboard for those on shore and your wacko buddies to see....

Boy, you are confused. I didn’t board anything. I hate Greenpeace. And if the captain shot the protestors, he may have been able to justify it before a jury, but he didn’t so the point is moot.

But Ashcroft charging an organization with “sailor-mongering” is undoubtedly an attempt to get back at a political enemy through means that abuse the power of his office, just like the political IRS auditing of World Net Daily during Clinton’s reign of terror.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I would say that you are right section 62 is clearly the one that they would be using and it does fit.