Ashcroft is pulling out all the stops to prosecute protesters

[zimv20]

link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley17oct17,1,3070227.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)


It has lain dormant in the darkest recesses of American law for 125 years, but this month Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft introduced critics of the administration to his latest weapon in law enforcement.

In a Miami federal court, the attorney general charged the environmental group Greenpeace under an obscure 1872 law originally intended to end the practice of "sailor-mongering," or the luring of sailors with liquor and prostitutes from their ships. Ashcroft plucked the law from obscurity to punish Greenpeace for boarding a vessel near port in Miami.

Not only is the law being used to prosecute one of the administration's most vocal critics in an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment, but it appears to be part of a broader campaign by Ashcroft to protect the nation against free speech, a campaign that has converted environmentalists into "sailor-mongers" and nuns into terrorists.

(more)

[ColoJohnBoy]

Ugh. Typical. At least it's a fairly narrow law that can't be used too widely. But nonetheless, it's still ridiculous to dig up a law from over a hundred years ago to help silence a group you disagree with.

[Sayhey]

It appears to be using the law as a partisan political weapon. Ashcroft should resign now.

[Desertrat]

(I'm waiting on the LA Times' email confirming registration.)

Miami is a port city. My question is, should I really believe that Ashcroft, himself did this "plucking", or is it possible that a federal prosecuting attorney who is likely more familiar with maritime law decide to apply some part of an existing law?

An awful lot of maritime law was codified back in the days of sail and applies now as well as then.

Hokay. Devil's Advocate hat off. Seems to me the evil in all this sort of stuff is the selective enforcement. Against those seen as enemies, but not against those considered friendly.

And this, folks, is why I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against the notions of "We need a government program to..." Police power is police power is police power, and can be selectively enforced against anybody at any time: Doesn't matter if it's environmental matters, or health and safety matters or fish/wildlife matters or health or welfare. It doesn't have to be matters of specific interest to the FBI or DEA or BATF or...Just an issue of whether you history is one of friendship with the feds, or as a whistle-blower sort.

"Interference with a federal employee in the course of his duties" is a federal felony. Problem is, the feds get to define interference, just as now they're doing with terrorism. And there are more than enough laws on the books to put most anybody in similar straits to Greenpeace or the nuns.

'Rat