Did Ashcroft go too far in Greenpeace indictment?

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

[whattajoke]

Ashcroft isn't dangerous; it's the DemocRATS who are dangerous.

Are you under the impression that Ashcroft will be AG ad infinitum? As much as it pains me to admit, at some point in the next couple decades a Dumocrat will become president, and appoint a Dummie AG who will now have all the power Ashcroft is using... So, what is dangerous now?

[cyncooper]

I don't really see this as an abuse of power. Greenpeace does not have a right to board vessels at will.

Is there anybody on earth who doesn’t 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.

[mrsmith]

The original act is in my post #69.

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.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

He isn't charging them with "sailor-mongering". He is charging them with boarding the ship before it is secure in port.

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.

[meenie]

The law was broken by getting the sailors off the ship, not Greenpeacr getting on the ship. To monger they had to entice the sailors with liquor or sex. The full story is not being told. Did Greenpeace have ho's and liquor with them in the boat? If so, they broke the law. Did they entice some sailors off the ship? This could be the wave of the future if Greenpeace is not stopped. A floating brothel would be a disaster for shipping and commerce.

[cyncooper]

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.

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.

[dead]

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 isn’t. 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.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Go to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=317
Read section 62. Then come back and tell me that they did not break that law.

[cyncooper]

Thank you for doing some research and providing us with the information.

Let's see, the Ashcroft Justice Department is upheld time and again by the courts of the land. The Reno Justice Department was constantly being overturned. What does that tell us?

That perhaps we ought to recognize that some know how to follow the laws of the land is what it tells me, and are not capricious or malicious in enforcing them.

[mrsmith]

June 7, 1872
" An Act to authorize the appointment of shipping-commissioners by the several circuit courts of the United states to superintend the shipping and discharge of Seamen engaged in merchant ships beloning to the United states, and for the further protection of seamen."

Boy, they knew how to write a title in 1872!

[Keyes2000mt]

Greenpeace=Environmentalism's answer to the PLA.

[MinuteGal]

Oh, dear. DemoRAT Jonathan Turley was such a hero when he was on the right's side during the O.J. trial.....or was it the Klintoon impeachment....or was it......?

I really can't remember because Girlie Turley gives me the vapours.

Leni

[johnfl61]

GreenPeace is another ecoterrorist group like Earth First. Go Ashcroft!

[Jack Black]

I think, were I the captain, I would immediately detail them at gunpoint. I would the proceed on my voyage, holding them incommunicado in the brig. I would drop them off somewhere like, oh Saudi Arabia, a country we still have good relations with, and explain that they were pirates and I was turning them over for prosecution.

[cyncooper]

But Ashcroft charging an organization with “sailor-mongering” is undoubtedly an attempt to get back at a political enemy

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.

[TheGunny]

GreenPeace = EnviroTerrorist

Exactly!!! I would rather sink thier boats before they were able unleash enviroTerror!

[Tribune7]

That's great! Sailor-mongering. The Greenpeace weenies weren't expecting that.

[Lancey Howard]

Greenpeace 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.

Cool. Whatever works.
Personally, I enjoy seeing Republicans finally fighting fire with fire against these scumbags.

[Lancey Howard]

Greenpeace was engaged in a classic protest used by countless organizations

No they didn't. They illegally tresspassed on somebody else's boat. These pirates are lucky they weren't shot.

[Lancey Howard]

Wow!
Re: your post #34, thanks for that info.
Great post.
Bookmarked.

ANY weapon that Ashcroft can use against these anti-American terrorist organizations such as Greenpeace is fine by me. Go get 'em, and throw the animals in prison.