Well. I am impressed. Some lawyers and clerks buried in offices deep in the Department of Justice had to search long and hard for this particular law to be used.
In April of 2002, a cargo ship, the Jade, was steaming toward Miami carrying a cargo of mahogany illegally cut from the Brazilian Amazon. Two Greenpeace activists tried to clamber aboard the ship and hang a banner that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." None of which is unusual. The trees of the Amazon are logged day after day, year after year, despite a host of treaties and laws and despite the fact that scientists agree that an intact rain forest is essential for everything from conserving species to protecting the climate. And Greenpeace, day after day, tries to call attention to such crimes. It pesters rich, powerful interests about toxic dumping and outlaw whaling and a hundred other topics that those interests would rather not be pestered about. The Miami activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served. All in a day's work.
But here's where it starts getting weird: More than a year after the ship boarding, the Justice Department indicted Greenpeace itself. According to the group's attorneys, it's the first time an organization has been prosecuted for "the speech-related activities of its supporters."
How far did the government have to stretch to make its case? The law it cited against boarding ships about to enter ports was passed in 1872 and aimed at the proprietors of boardinghouses who used liquor and prostitutes to lure crews to their establishments. The last prosecution under the "sailor-mongering" act took place in 1890. The new case could be like something straight out of "Master and Commander."
The matter goes to trial next week in a federal district court in Miami, and if Greenpeace loses, the organization could be fined $20,000 and placed on probation. The money's no big deal; outraged supporters would probably turn such a verdict into a fundraising bonanza. But the probation would be. The group might well be prevented from engaging in any acts of civil disobedience for years to come. If it crossed the line, the group's officers might be jailed and its assets seized. Since civil disobedience is what Greenpeace does best, the Justice Department might in effect be shutting the group down.
It's clear that the probation and shutting the group down are, in fact, exactly what the government is aiming for. I have to admit, I'm truly astonished that the judge didn't toss this case both as a matter of improper use of the law itself -- and any law that hasn't been used in 115 years could reasonably be called a dead-letter law -- and I wonder how this doesn't constitute double-indemnity. Perhaps it's that the prior charges were aimed at individuals, and this is aimed at the organization itself, but still, the intent to prosecute the same crime twice is very clear.
Time and again, this government launches this type of case. And time and again, one can but wonder: what exactly does the government think it's protecting by doing this? It's clear that they don't believe in free speech. Other prosecutions indicate that they pretty much don't believe in the Constitution at all. At a broad policy level, should they get another four years in which to achieve all that they desire, when they look back at their accomplishments, will they be proud of having eviscerated the principles on which this country is based?
And will we be proud of having allowed them to do so?
Posted by iain at May 14, 2004 04:13 PM
