Mr. Ashcroft don't need no stinking Patriot Act, he has found an much older law that works just fine. The United States Attorney in Miami is prosecuting Greenpeace under an 1872 law that bans unauthorized boarding of ships about to arrive in port. According to the Washington Post, the law was aimed at boardinghouse owners of the 1800s and was intended to "stop them from jumping on board harbor-bound ships and luring away sailors with booze and prostitutes." The current case, the first one brought under the old law since 1890, stems from an April 2002 incident in which Greenpeace members took their Zodiac boats three miles offshore and boarded an inbound ship as part of a protest urging the Bush administration to stop what Greenpeace considers to be illegal logging. The members pleaded no contest and were convicted of relatively minor charges. Now, our illustrious Justice Department has decided to use a long-dormant law to go after the Greenpeace organization. Gee, I wonder why they would want to do that? It certainly can't be to stifle dissent, right?

That does seem rather ashcroftish. Digging back like that just seems stupid, and does nothing but make them look even worse.

...wonder if this'll turn into a thread about Greenpeace...

Seems kind of dumb, unless one considers Greepeace prostituting rational argument by grandstanding.

But I'm curious, is there no trespassing law that applies to vessels at sea?

Botnst, wrt trespassing laws... the Greenpeace people had already been reprimanded by the law for boarding that ship. What concerns a lot of people is that ashcroft is 1) dredging it all up again, and 2) targeting the entire organization instead of just the offending individuals. Also, he's doing it with what appears to be a very arcane law.

I know nothing of admiralty law, but I suppose the members who pleaded guilty were prosecuted under some form of law prohibiting trespassing.

I also know nothing about the merit, or lack of merit, of Greenpeace's environmental complaint, but I don't think risking one's life should be passed off as "grandstanding". They obviously want to make a big show of themselves, but how else do such groups get their message out?

Okay, my attempt at humor was unsuccessful. I thought it worked.

In general terms, I think Greenpeace is usually on the right (make that correct) side of environmental arguments. But they're as humorless as trotskyites. It makes them easy targets for people who prefer shooting messengers to reading messages.

What's wrong with using old laws? Heck, one of the oldest is, "Thou shalt do no murder." I'm rather glad it's still on the books.

Botnst

If you don't like the law, get it repealed. Search your state laws and local ordances for silly ones too. Your States Attorney could do the same thing as well.

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

Whats funny about all them greenpeace people is i bet they all live in homes comprised of a fair amount of wood, probably from logging.

I usually get your humor, but I still ain't getting your joke on this one. I am kind of thick that way sometimes.

Nothing wrong with old laws. Most laws are old. The problem here is that we have a chief prosecutor in Mr. Ashcroft who has no, as in zero, credibility. So, when he exercises his discretion to dredge up an old law to go after a political opponent, I assume the worst. He has been abusing his power since long before he became Attorney General. I have no reason to think this Greenpeace prosecution is any different.

The ship they boarded was carrying what they claim was illegally harvested mahogany. I am not familiar with the construction techniques used in the homes of Greenpeace members, but I am guessing they don't use a lot of illegal mahogany.

I didnt know mahogany could be illegal

Mahogany is related to the ornamental yard tree, chinaberry (Melia). Mahogany has some great characteristics for furniture making. It is a hard, durable, rot-resistent wood with a pleasing color, grain and natural fragrance.

Virgin old-growth mahogany is worth an awful lot of money. Kind of like virgin backwalnut. Its value is so great compared to neighboring trees that the mahogany is worth harvesting and transporting even when the others are not. It also reproduces slowly. By most estimates harvest rates exceed regeneration rates. So NGO's convinced some governments to regulate harvest.

The downsides of closing-down trade in mahogany include creating artificially high prices for legal wood and creating a large black market that circumvents international law, increasing official corruption. That cut supply so the value of the wood skyrocketed, putting more pressure on the available stocks. Now there is a big, lucrative black market trade in mahogany.

Also, it affects folks in the rainforest who want to feed their families. What will they do when this source of income is gone? They'll likely grow Cannabis, coca or poppies. If you're gonna do something illegal to support your family, may as well make a lot of money at it.

I'm in favor of closing trade in mahogany as a short-term strategy to inflate prices sufficiently to encourage commercial plantation production. But the plantation solution has its problems, too. I don't think there are any clean, simple solutions. Like most enviromental rules, every action has a downside.

Excellent, as usual, Botnst. You have proposed a practical, real-world solution to an issue you care about, instead of illegally boarding someone else's boat and making a complet fool, and criminal, of yourself, as the Greenpeace folks and others often do. Kudos.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Do you have some reason to think that Botnst's proposal will actually become law?

Do you deny that civil disobediance has helped bring about positive change in other areas of the law?

No, did I say it would? I just said that it pleases me to see someone think and act constructively, instead of staging ridiculous and often illegal and/or destructive publicity antics.

"Civil disobedience" is just a PC-term for BREAKING THE LAW, whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. Work constructively to change the law, don't just flaunt your ability to break it. That does nothing to legitimize one's cause.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic