A New Breed of Pirates?
As another diversion into the world of the obscure, yet interesting, news, today's topic is a description of the new breed of pirate. This insidious organization is boarding ships illegally, has been doing so for years, and until this point has suffered little or no consequence. Who am I talking about? I guarantee you know them, and I hope that none of you are members. Greenpeace, yes you read it right. The organization fights for the good of the planet, I won't debate that fact, but their actions are illegal. See the following article.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61558,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Which tactics are we talking about? Well, they seem to think that it is a good idea to take little boats and run them into bigger boats. Then, they try to board the boats and prevent proper delivery of the cargo. If this isn't an adequate definition of piratical behavior, you will have to explain it to me. It doesn't really matter that they aren't trying to take the cargo for themselves, they are interfering in a free trade in legal goods, which as we all know can adversely effect the fair market price for consumers.
Furthermore, think about the ships' captains, and the position these people put them in by acting irrationally. The captain is simply trying to navigate from point A to point B in a timely fashion, avoiding weather, shoals, buoys, other boats, and EVEN small pleasure boats who wander into internationally recognized shipping lanes. This person is responsible to make sure he doesn't accidentally hurt people, which he can do if the other boats have the same goal of not running into each other. However, these people steer toward him, no matter what he tries to do. If he does run them over, then he is the bad guy. Therefore, they are basically taking advantage of basic human nature.
What would you do if you are driving down a road, and a cyclist is coming toward you on the other side of the road? He starts slowing down, and veers directly into your path. A)You start slowing down, B) you continue to watch what he is doing because you start to think he is crazy, drunk, or jsut stupid (all three are dangerous), C) you eventually stop to let him pass before proceeding. Why? The person in the car is AT FAULT if they hit a cyclist, even if the guy is being dumb. Now, instead of passing you, this guy climbs on the hood of your car and starts preaching to the world about how the company you work for doesn't recycle their white office paper. He stays up there until you call the police, and they come and haul him off for a couple of nights away. He has now clogged up traffic, dented the hood of your car, delayed you from getting home for dinner, distracted police from tracking down the serial rapist/murderer, and is wasting public resources (ie. tax dollars). In short, he has hi-jacked you!
The Constitution does allow citizens the right to form peaceful protests, however, especially in light of the attacks on military ships in recent years by suicidal small boats, one can make a case that a small boat approaching a larger one without permission could be considered an aggressive, terroristic act. Military vessels have been instructed to use force, if necessary, when small craft get too close. As soon as a protest takes on this form, it is NOT protected free speech.
To continue with the car analogy, the protester would be allowed to stand on the sidewalk at a corner of the intersection, holding a sign that doesn't obstruct drivers' view of the cross-traffic and shout. It is peaceful, he can be heard, but we also have the right to IGNORE him. He doesn't interfere with the normal daily routine. Larger marches require the permission of city, state and federal governments because they do obstruct traffic, create congestion, and prevent emergency personnel from reaching people who need them.
I think it is an often overlooked fact that free speech is controlled very precisely. You are not allowed to violate any of the other freedoms, laws, or pursuits promised to us in the Constitution in pursuit of your own agenda. It doesn't matter what that agenda is, there are NO exceptions. YOU are not that special, and you aren't actually saying anything that hasn't already been said.
John Ashcroft and the Justice Dept. may be making a "tactical" mistake in the courtroom by trying to apply a law passed in 1875 to Greenpeace, however, I think it may just be a very elegant way to get the public thinking about what the actions of these people are MOST like. Are they like the peaceful protests of Gandhi? Or are they more like the terrorists who hold hostages, demanding attention?
That's just my opinion, but you think about it and judge for yourself.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61558,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Which tactics are we talking about? Well, they seem to think that it is a good idea to take little boats and run them into bigger boats. Then, they try to board the boats and prevent proper delivery of the cargo. If this isn't an adequate definition of piratical behavior, you will have to explain it to me. It doesn't really matter that they aren't trying to take the cargo for themselves, they are interfering in a free trade in legal goods, which as we all know can adversely effect the fair market price for consumers.
Furthermore, think about the ships' captains, and the position these people put them in by acting irrationally. The captain is simply trying to navigate from point A to point B in a timely fashion, avoiding weather, shoals, buoys, other boats, and EVEN small pleasure boats who wander into internationally recognized shipping lanes. This person is responsible to make sure he doesn't accidentally hurt people, which he can do if the other boats have the same goal of not running into each other. However, these people steer toward him, no matter what he tries to do. If he does run them over, then he is the bad guy. Therefore, they are basically taking advantage of basic human nature.
What would you do if you are driving down a road, and a cyclist is coming toward you on the other side of the road? He starts slowing down, and veers directly into your path. A)You start slowing down, B) you continue to watch what he is doing because you start to think he is crazy, drunk, or jsut stupid (all three are dangerous), C) you eventually stop to let him pass before proceeding. Why? The person in the car is AT FAULT if they hit a cyclist, even if the guy is being dumb. Now, instead of passing you, this guy climbs on the hood of your car and starts preaching to the world about how the company you work for doesn't recycle their white office paper. He stays up there until you call the police, and they come and haul him off for a couple of nights away. He has now clogged up traffic, dented the hood of your car, delayed you from getting home for dinner, distracted police from tracking down the serial rapist/murderer, and is wasting public resources (ie. tax dollars). In short, he has hi-jacked you!
The Constitution does allow citizens the right to form peaceful protests, however, especially in light of the attacks on military ships in recent years by suicidal small boats, one can make a case that a small boat approaching a larger one without permission could be considered an aggressive, terroristic act. Military vessels have been instructed to use force, if necessary, when small craft get too close. As soon as a protest takes on this form, it is NOT protected free speech.
To continue with the car analogy, the protester would be allowed to stand on the sidewalk at a corner of the intersection, holding a sign that doesn't obstruct drivers' view of the cross-traffic and shout. It is peaceful, he can be heard, but we also have the right to IGNORE him. He doesn't interfere with the normal daily routine. Larger marches require the permission of city, state and federal governments because they do obstruct traffic, create congestion, and prevent emergency personnel from reaching people who need them.
I think it is an often overlooked fact that free speech is controlled very precisely. You are not allowed to violate any of the other freedoms, laws, or pursuits promised to us in the Constitution in pursuit of your own agenda. It doesn't matter what that agenda is, there are NO exceptions. YOU are not that special, and you aren't actually saying anything that hasn't already been said.
John Ashcroft and the Justice Dept. may be making a "tactical" mistake in the courtroom by trying to apply a law passed in 1875 to Greenpeace, however, I think it may just be a very elegant way to get the public thinking about what the actions of these people are MOST like. Are they like the peaceful protests of Gandhi? Or are they more like the terrorists who hold hostages, demanding attention?
That's just my opinion, but you think about it and judge for yourself.