----- forwarded message -----
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:10:05 -0600
From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Typical Greenpeace Protest Leads to an Unusual Prosecution
Typical Greenpeace Protest Leads to an Unusual Prosecution
By ADAM LIPTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/national/11PEAC.html
Three miles off the Florida coast in April of 2002, two Greenpeace activists clambered
from an
inflatable rubber speedboat onto a cargo ship. They were detained before they could
unfurl a
banner, spent the weekend in custody and two months later were sentenced to time
served for
boarding the ship without permission.
It was a routine act of civil disobedience until, 15 months after the incident, federal
prosecutors in Miami indicted Greenpeace itself for authorizing the boarding. The
group says
the indictment represents a turning point in the history of American dissent.
"Never before has our government criminally prosecuted an entire organization for the
free
speech activities of its supporters," said John Passacantando, the executive director
of
Greenpeace in the United States.
In court papers, the organization's lawyers warned that the prosecution "could
significantly
affect our nation's tradition of civil protest and civil disobedience, a tradition
that has
endured from the Boston Tea Party through the modern civil rights movement."
Legal experts and historians said that the prosecution might not be unprecedented,
citing legal
efforts by state prosecutors in the South to harass the N.A.A.C.P. in the 1950's and
1960's.
But they said it was both unusual and questionable.
"There is not only the suspicion but also perhaps the reality that the purpose of the
prosecution is to inhibit First Amendment activities," said Bruce S. Ledewitz, a law
professor
at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh who has studied the history of civil disobedience
in
America.
Matthew Dates, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office in Miami, declined
to
respond to questions about whether the prosecution was unusual or politically
motivated. In
court papers, prosecutors defended the indictment.
"The heart of Greenpeace's mission," they wrote, "is the violation of the law."
The trial is scheduled for December.
Greenpeace, a corporation, cannot, of course, serve prison time. But, it can be put on
probation, requiring it to report to the government about its activities and
jeopardizing its
tax-exempt status. If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Greenpeace could also face
a $10,000
fine.
The group is charged with violating an obscure 1872 law intended for proprietors of
boarding
houses who preyed on sailors returning to port. It forbids the unauthorized boarding
of "any
vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination."
The last court decision concerning the law, from 1890, said it was meant to prevent
"sailor-mongers" from luring crews to boarding houses "by the help of intoxicants and
the use
of other means, often savoring of violence."
Mr. Passacantando said he had authorized the boarding in 2002. "The buck does stop
with me," he
said.
Greenpeace maintains that the ship in question was illegally importing mahogany from
Brazil.
The harvesting and shipment of mahogany is governed by stringent international rules
meant to
prevent damage to the Amazon's environment. In the indictment, federal prosecutors
said that
Greenpeace's information was mistaken. A spokesman for the ship's owner, APL Ltd., did
not
respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Passacantando said the prosecution of the organization was unwarranted and part of
what he
called Attorney General John Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties. He acknowledged,
however,
the importance of ensuring the safety of the nation's ports in light of the Sept. 11,
2001,
terrorist attacks.
"If we were to lose this trial," he said, "it would have chilling effect on Greenpeace
and on
other groups that exercise their First Amendment right aggressively. The federal
government is
using 9/11 to come down harder on an action like this, which was a good and dignified
and
peaceful action."
Even a minor criminal conviction, legal experts said, could have profound consequences.
"You in effect have a record," said Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of
Richmond School
of Law in Virginia. "It has a chilling effect."
In their legal papers, prosecutors acknowledged that a conviction could have tax
consequences
and "a chilling effect on First Amendment rights." Still, they opposed the
organization's
request for a jury trial, which is ordinarily available only where the defendant faces
more
than six months in prison.
The potential loss of constitutional rights, prosecutors wrote, does not require a
jury. They
cited a misdemeanor domestic violence prosecution in which the defendant was denied a
jury
trial although he faced losing his license to carry a gun. In contrast to speculation
about the
impact of a conviction on Greenpeace's First Amendment rights, prosecutors wrote, the
defendant
in the gun case "was not entitled to a jury trial even though he was definitely faced
with loss
of his Second Amendment rights."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
*
[Fascism tightens the noose.]
*
> The material in this post is distributed without profit to those
> who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research and educational purposes.
> For more information go to:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
> http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for
> purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
> from the copyright owner.
