Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Post–9/11 limits on dissent claimed
Law enforcement cites terror threat
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 12/14/2003
WASHINGTON –– Two years into the post–Sept. 11 era, police across the country are cracking down on street protests, and federal prosecutors are invoking obscure laws to punish activists whose aggressive displays of political expression were once more tolerated, according to groups as diverse as Operation Rescue and Greenpeace.
While law–enforcement officials acknowledge only that the specter of terrorism has made them more wary of large crowds and disruptive behavior, activists say the newly aggressive tactics are jeopardizing a form of dissent as rooted in American tradition as the Boston Tea Party.
On Friday, lawyers for Greenpeace USA, the environmental activist organization, were in a Miami federal court to defend the group against unheard–of criminal charges of breaking an obscure 19th–century law against "sailor mongering."
The charges, which could lead to a $20,000 fine and five years of probation, sprang from a protest in April 2002. Six Greenpeace activists motored out to a freighter off Miami that they believed held mahogany taken from a protected Brazilian forest. Carrying a rolled–up "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging" banner, two clambered up a ladder and were chased down by the crew. All were later convicted of unlawfully boarding a ship.
That should have have been the end of the event under the old rules of protest, say leaders of the group, whose activists been boarding ships to make political statements for three decades. They say that the Justice Department is trying to intimidate them into dropping their signature political act.
"This is clearly an attempt to chill the kind of nonviolent direct action that Greenpeace does," declared John Passacantado, executive director of Greenpeace USA.
… Still, John Firman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police said that since Sept. 11 many law enforcement agencies have made tactical improvements to guard against the danger that a peaceful protest could be hijacked by terrorist infiltrators using the chaos of the crowd.
"While the protest itself may have no relationship to terrorism, the presence of protesters could be a vehicle for people with other issues on their minds," Firman said. "The police have the obligation to respond in a heightened way because of that window of opportunity." In practice, that increased awareness can make protesters feel as if they are "viewed not as citizens with a right to protest but as an enemy and a threat" for something as simple as showing up with a sign, said Operation Rescue president Troy Newman.
"They call out the bomb squad dogs to sniff you," he said. "They're checking your driver's license. They want to know your name, your Social Security number, how long you'll be there, and what your intent is. This is a huge change since Sept. 11. It's a mindset that law enforcement has, even toward peaceful nonviolent American citizens attempting to voice their opposition to legislation and policies."
He pointed to the annual "Red Mass" at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington, D.C., traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices on the Sunday before the beginning of their new term. Newman said he and other Christian activists have picketed outside the Red Mass for years without incident.
But on Oct. 5, when activists showed up protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building, US marshals in body armor swept the sidewalk clear of anyone with a sign and arrested those who wouldn't move, Newman said. He was let go after six hours and was fined $25 for "crossing a police line."
Posted by P6 at December 14, 2003 08:36 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2525The thing is though, that the protesters WERE illegally boarding a ship. If no one was being prosecuted for that before, it is the fault of law enforcement. It isn't as though any false charges are being invented to 'stifle free speech.' Would anyone have bothered them if they unfurled the banner on their own ship within sight of the one they were attacking?
According to what I read, Greenpeace's action was only illegal under a century old statute.
It's very strange to see so-called libertarians seeming to approve of this because the groups targeted are left-wing. Very strange indeed.
And you know, murder is illegal under a statute that is centuries old. Since it is so old, why don't we scrap it, because obviously the rules that applied in the past don't apply now because we are so much more enlightened and 'progressive.' The past is so dirty and hateful and bigoted and racist and sexist and ageist and blah blah blah. This is a new progressive age where trespass should be legal.
I have no problem with this as a libertarian because libertarians respect RIGHTS. Whose rights are being violated here? The protestors who trespass onto a privately owned ship? I'm sorry, they were in the wrong, and it shouldn't take a genius to see that. Obviously you refuse to see that because you think your innate sympathy for their cause allows you to overlook their crime. I am consistent on this, no matter who is doing the protests. Let me ask you if you are: Would you object to the use of the statute if the people were neonazis protesting the fact that the ship crew included blacks?
You had better answer yes if you have a shred of credibility.
And you know, murder is illegal under a statute that is centuries old. Since it is so old, why don't we scrap it,
Because society has consistantly prosecuted murder, proving it was and continues to be against the standards of the community. Whereas this century old law had ceased being enforced, basically because the reason it was passed (context again) ceased to exist.
There is no doubt that Greenpeace knows that the protests they are organizing are illegal. They send protesters out with attorney's phone numbers written on their arms. They know it is illegal and do it anyways. It is time that the organization that funds, organizes, and sanctions these illegal activities is brought to stand for its actions.
As a libertarian, I am all for peaceful protest that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I haven't seen more than a handful of Greenpeace protests in the last 3 years that didn't involve trespass, vandalism, or intentional damage to a private entity. Those are crimes with victims, and something that no libertarian should condone.