I've copied Saywhat's post from another thread here. This seems really important and it deserves more discussion than it's getting. Wouldn't it be nice if some other groups joined hands with Greenpeace on this one?
Saywhat's post:
***************************************************
They're trying to prosecute an entire organization for the actions of 2 people. How long before they try to do that with the anti-war movement organizations in the US?? They're testing the waters. It all has to do with Patriot Act II.
<clips>
US puts right to protest at risk
Government prosecutes Greenpeace over protest
Greenpeace is being taken to court by the US government because of its action against the illegal importation of mahogany. Its lawyers says it is the first time an entire organisation has been criminally prosecuted for the activities of two members.
The prosecution arises from the activity in April last year of two Greenpeace members who boarded a vessel off the coast of Miami allegedly carrying mahogany from Brazil to the US and hoisted a banner saying: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."
They were accompanied by journalists who recorded the event. Both protesters and 12 other Greenpeace activists in support vessels were arrested and jailed over the weekend. Six were charged with misdemeanours, and pleaded guilty.
Normally that would have been an end of the matter, a familiar event for Greenpeace, whose activists are regularly arrested and usually fined or sentenced to short jail terms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1074676,00.html--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an article about the Patriot Act:
<clips>
... One of the most significant features of the Act is a new, broader definition given to terrorism. The definition now also includes “domestic,” as contrasted with international terrorism. Section 802 states that a person engages in domestic terrorism if they do any act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if that action appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Further, the act or acts must take place primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
This definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of such organizations as Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Environmental Liberation Front, protests about Vieques Island, and protests at the meeting of the World Trade Organization. Civil disobedience, such as entering on the premises of a U.S. military base, which is a violation of federal law, would now be included within the definition of an act of domestic terrorism. Disrupting a meeting or procession of vehicles as a means of drawing attention to or attempting to influence an unwanted governmental policy all could be considered acts of domestic terrorism. The implications are huge and the Act can be used to prosecute political dissidents of many stripes. The Act potentially violates at least six of the ten original Bill of Rights: the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 13th Amendment. It grants broad new powers to law enforcement and permits law enforcement officials to side-step or avoid entirely many traditional controls on the surveillance, investigation, arrest, and prosecution of civilians residing in the United States.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2003/0806patriot.htm