US takes hard line on Greenpeace

While not actively supporting Greenpeace now, and critical of some of their past activities, I also recognize that like any group their membership covers a wide range of views.

Anyone that chooses civil disobedience to protest something recognizes their action may carry legal consequences.

That said, I have to concede the particular statue being resurrected to prosecute here does raise the probability of grasping at any means to come down hard on a group that is out of favor with TPTB.

Even though I feel Greenpeace is often over the line, and some prosecution is normal, I'll concede this specific case seems to be a targetted example, not just a normal legal reaction.

My overall view is that unfortunately the only way anything is ever done is because of extremest groups on both right and left fringes. No one listens unless they're forced it seems. Compromises to placate the less extreme populace that is attracted to a cause by news seeking acts is the about the only way something reasonable ever gets discussed and done.

roger

... using mail fraud to get the Mob boss. You don't see some of those obscure statutes prosecuted routinely either.

JMO, Evie

And that is a ship carrying goods from a sovereign nation is being harassed due to laws of other countries that interfere with the trade of that country. Our forefathers would have considered that intolerable if someone was doing that to America's exports. It's a bunch of busy bodies interfering in the commerce of another nation. The big story is the international treaties and how they put some nations under duress in regards to the use or export of their own sovereign national products.

It was contraband.

"... as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species..."

The USA is a signatory to that treaty.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

"THE GREENPEACE demonstration off the coast of Florida on April 12, 2002, was one of a series of similar ?direct actions? taken by the international organization near ports around the world as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species, ..."

which must be considered in light of this information:

"In November 2002, the United Nations Environmental Program upgraded protection of mahogany under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), a move that places even stricter controls on trade in the wood. The United States is a signatory to the treaty."

In other words there was NO VIOLATION in shipping or receiving the mahogany. (November comes several months AFTER April on my calandar...)

Hi, Ed,

No, I did not miss that . The way I read it, [B}Brazil [/B} had placed a moratorium, but NO date was given for that. The November date was for the UN treaty.

Perhaps the treaty would not have come to pass 6 months later had not attention having been drawn to the fact that the product was being shipped contrary to the moratorium.

I did not see in the article where Brazil complained.

As you fought for our rights and freedoms, I'm sure you are as willing to grant me my opinion as I am yours.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Hi Angeline,

no problem with your fighting for your causes but the only moratorium even Brazill had was on the cutting of new trees--had nothing to do with processing of timber already cut. Your opinion is based on false statements which aren't pointed out until the very last paragraph of the article.

I assumed you had MISSED the info because YOU stated:
"... as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species..."

The USA is a signatory to that treaty.

and the US was NOT signatory to any Brazilian moratorium In April although we were signatories of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which was only upgraded to include mahogany in the following November. There were NO VIOLATIONS either of moratorium not CITES.

James, I seem to remember a little "nastiness" in the early 1800's when England boarded U.S. ships. Granted, England was impressing sailors, but ever since then, the U.S. government seems to have a "dim view" of boarding ships without permission.

Are you speaking of English Naval personel boarding, or a civilian group?

I know our Coast Guard boards only under certain rules.

Thanks,

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

.

,

at the time of the incident there was no moratorium and no "violation".

The only "picking and choosing" involved was in which law that they broke to charge them under. There is a price for "civil disobedience" and most who engage understand and don't complain about their plight as it was they who made the concious decision to break laws.

HI, Ed,

I'll ignore the tone of "if I understood it" bit.

What I do understand is that the moratorium was in place, but not the treaty.

You are free to criticize that in which I believe to your heart's content. The beliefs of yours, of mine, or those of others will ot be changed here.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

understand it

Brazilian moratorium http://forests.org/recent/1996/gpmahres.htm

http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/press_releases/2002/08152002text.htm (note please that August is AFTER April)

Hopefully AFTER reading these your beliefs will indeed be changed at least in regard to the accuracy of the info presented in the article that you depended on.

There was no violation by the sellers, shippers, buyers, nor users of the mahogany at the time of the illegal boarding in April.

...as to what was what on specific dates. Thank you.

However, whether or not moratoriums, laws, treaties whatever- were broken in April does not carry the weight with me as it does with you.

There are laws and treaties that may not have been enacted had not attention been brought to the need for them through non-violent civil disobedience Civil rights issues was cited as a prime example. Though I'm not a women's libber, I am glad I can vote. My state has a "lemon law" after a man painted his car lemonm yellow, wrote what dealership had sold it, . drove it around town until he was arrested on complaint by the dealer. That news of that action brought citizens with similar complaints from all over the state, so got te attention of the legislature.

In my experience, it usually takes a person or a group to call attention to issues. Whether or not we think new legislation from it is a good thing or not depends on our personal feelings about specific issues.

Greenpeace, which does have its radical members, may lose it's tax emempt status for the boarding. But there are tax exempt organizations in which radical members committed murder and blew up buildings. My neighborhhod association is tax exempt. One neighbor in a fit of whatever vandalized our entrance signs. Sure hope we don't lose our tax exempt status!

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com