Greenpeace At War

Hopefully, this terrorist organization, disguised as an environmental savior, implodes and ceases to exist. I hope Part 2 is titled: "Greenpeace Destroy's Itself". This is a great thing to see. Mr. A

From <a href="http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html">http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html</a> ("Is Greenpeace A Terrorist Organization?")<br />
<br />
"Hence, the EU definition of a ‘terrorist act’, on which EC Reg. 2580/2001 is based, results to be extremely wide and in many cases too blur and imprecise, leaving an open margin for interpretation to both national police forces, when prosecuting offences, and national judges, when requested to apply the norm. Thus, in the present case against civil disobedience, the legal provisions may easily comprehend almost every form of social battle that may «disturb the peace»."<br />
<br />
"As an immediate consequence, the latent recognition of the collective responsibility of Greenpeace - a principle which is normally abhorred by European criminal systems - may function as a deterrent for future actions of other organizations aimed at protecting environmental or human rights."<br />
<br />
"However, notwithstanding the fact that non-violence and peaceful methods are at the core of Greenpeace - which furthermore derives its name from an ideologically quiet and harmonic ecological world -, judges should in principle give a restrictive interpretation to what may constitute a «terrorist act», encircling solely what strictly falls within the scope of the Council Common Position and subsequent Regulation."<br />
<br />
"Additionally, Denmark is not the only EU country to put on trial Greenpeace actions. Five activists were in fact recently charged with various, and in some cases severe, criminal offences by the Spanish Court of Cadiz for the Rainbow Warrior’s «symbolic blockade» of March 2003. Two Spaniards, an American, a New Zealander and an Argentinean, face prison for having obstructed the normal functioning of the US-Spanish naval base at Rota, in a broader protest against the use of the base for US vessels affected to the Iraqi war.<br />
<br />
"According to Mr. Pérez, a spokesperson for Greenpeace in Madrid, the blockade was merely « symbolic », not capable of impeding war ships to maneuver in and out the port. "<br />
<br />
The question is probably best re-framed as:<br />
<br />
Can any/all civil disobedience be classified as terrorism? If so, we've officially passed that point where we might have been able to stop this.

MK, forget civil disobedience. How about 'speech' that can be interpreted as 'terrorist threats'? I'm not talking about a tape supposedly recorded by 'Terrorists', either. I'm just talking about two drunks arguing about a girl, or two people arguing about a stupid parking space. So then, if speech can be classified as such, in JUST TWO very real scenerios, then we are way past that 'official point'! Mr. A

And yet you're cheering this on, just to get rid of an environmental org you happen not to like?

You know, they never go after the "good guys" with this stuff first round, that would severly limit the prospect.

mk

I had the pleasure of being interviewed for a television program called 'Hunter's Gatherings' about a year ago, in relation to my work with wildlife rehabilitation. The host of the program, the late Bob Hunter, was one of the founders of Greenpeace (along with Paul Watson).

I was able to spend a significant amount of time with Bob over the course of a week and it seems evident to me that Greenpeace's moral centre left the organization when Bob left it.

It is bereft these days of much moral authority although it does remain an effective campaigner in a lot of instances (and continues to get my money). But there is no doubt that the organization is bloated and cocksure of its self-importance.

Paul Harris

There are always the internal problems within any organizational structure-the 'bloated, self important' line. To me, what it is trying to achieve supersedes all those things. The only reason we even know of them is because the organization is so public in it's organization. You don't think "Coca Cola" is bloated with self important tendencies? Trouble is, with private enterprise we have no way of knowing what is really going on internally.

And yet we see Coke doing horrible things around the world for a product which the world would be just as well off if it didn't exist, but do we hear people arguing against it's existence? The idea that just because Coke does one thing bad (more like 'debatable' to make it fairly analogous to Greenpeace) it shouldn't exist is absurd. In fact the corporation is often touted as the symbol of capitalism, american ingenuity, american society and other such rubbish.

Any organization once it gets big enough is going to have debateable aspects, and often some sacrifices are necessary. Nothing in the world stopped Mr. Hunter from leaving the organization, and I doubt very much that he would have argued for it's demise, even if it had 'lost its moral centre'. To me, when individuals are prepared to make such sacrifices, it cannot be said to have lost its moral centre. It may be DIFFERENT than it was, but I certainly wouldn't put it on par with the problems we face with corporations, in fact, I'm done talking about since I don't feel they need any validation. I'm going to check out a 'boycott coke' site!

The difference between Coca Cola and a thousand other organizations manufacturing and selling harmful products, and Greepeace, is that corporations make profits, which are scrosanct and are the main demand in any modern treaty, called "free trade agreements".

Nobody is permitted to question any actions for profit. Anybody who does is slapped with defamation suits etc. The best examples are privatized services that went downhill and are destroying lives anywhere on Earth. The minute somebody questions their cutbacks and lousy services, or raising costs, they can be sued.

This is why we hear so few and weak complaints against corporations. The bigger and more crooked they are the more they can get away with. Which doesn't excuse the alleged downfall of Greepeace, just an explanation of what is going on in the "real" world.

Profits, profits ueber Alles...........

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC. r

Just curious, you caknuckleheaded idiots: Where does that line of thinking place France on your spectrum of evil-doers, for bombing the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, July 15 1985, in Auckland Harbour, NZ? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp">http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/about/rainbow-warrior.asp</a><br />
<br />
Eh?

We canucklaheaded idiots would like to point out, respectfully, to the great minds hiding behind anonimity and nom de plumes that the article in question was written by a former Rainbow Warrion captain, like now, not 20 years ago.

While the vast majority of the members of Greenpeace must still be dedicated environmentalists, the captain was referring to the stagnating top management. Also, as in many organizations, there are the Judas.

E.g. One of the founders of the original Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who never forgets to put the PhD behind his signature, has for years been working for the clearcutting forest companies and fishfarms as a lobbyist.

Ed Deak.

Once again, Ed, you answer no questions, but yet, in my poorly deserved defense of you, you make no attempt to answer the questions with another.

However, I will happily agree with your self-description as one of a bunch of "canucklaheaded idiots", poorly spelled as that may be.

And so your country shall be known.

"canucklaheads"