A recent publicity stunt by Greenpeace activists at Mount Rushmore National Memorial has produced a slew of charges against the activists that could lock them up for quite a while and prove quite costly.
While authorities aren't publicly discussing exactly how the 11 activists evaded Mount Rushmore's security systems on July 8 when they reached the top of Mount Rushmore and then rappeled down to drape a banner calling for more action from the Obama administration on climate change alongside the chiseled face of President Abraham Lincoln, they weren't being bashful with the charges they brought against the activists.
A federal grand jury has returned a four-count indictment charging eleven people and Greenpeace, Inc., a California corporation, with three or more misdemeanor offenses each relating to a July 8th incident in which a protest banner was unfurled on the mountain. The charges against Greenpeace and the eleven include one count of conspiracy to climb Mount Rushmore as prohibited by law. The indictment contains further specific allegations concerning the conspiracy charge which include the following:
Greenpeace provided planning and training for the individual co-conspirators.
Greenpeace caused the individual co-conspirators and their climbing, video, and photographic equipment to be transported to Rapid City, South Dakota, in preparation for climbing Mount Rushmore.
Greenpeace hired a helicopter to carry its members, agents and employees in order to allow them to observe, photograph and record the actions of individuals who were climbing Mount Rushmore on July 8th
As part of the conspiracy, certain individuals attempted to impede responding law enforcement officers by placing locks on security gates as well as by chaining themselves to areas where it would be difficult or impossible for responding officers to get around the individuals without risk of personal injury.
Greenpeace, Inc., is also charged with the following offenses:
Aiding and abetting eleven individuals trespassing in a national park by entering an area not open to the public without permission.
Aiding and abetting nine individuals with climbing Mount Rushmore as prohibited by law.
Aiding and abetting six individuals with intentionally interfering with a government employee or officer engaged in an official duty.
Charges against the eleven participants included conspiracy, trespass, illegally climbing the mountain and abetting others in these offenses. The maximum penalty for each of the four counts against Greenpeace is a $10,000 fine and restitution. The maximum penalty for each count naming an individual is six months’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine and restitution. The investigation is being conducted by the Mount Rushmore rangers and by special agents of the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant US Attorney Mark Vargo.
While how the activists deal with the charges remains to be seen, so too will how the National Park Service's security arm responds to the success of their protest. Supposedly Mount Rushmore is home to one of the more sizable and better equipped law-enforcement contingents found across the National Park System.
Comments
Let's put this into perspective: The very first activities of Greenpeace were directed against US and French open-air nuclear weapons tests. Those tests contaminated vast proportions of the Pacific Ocean and can still be easily detected in every little amount of air all over the world, because since the early 1960 there are radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere that do not belong there. To protest they sailed into the closed zone around the Pacific islands, played cat and mouse with the Navy and did everything to delay the tests. One of their earliest activists, the owner of the yacht "Vega" was aptly named David (McTaggert) and that is their That was of course illegal, the waters around the islands were closed by law, the Navy was there to stop trespassers.
Do you believe it was appropriate to break the law back then to protest against open-air nuclear weapons testing?
This reply is sad. What is the purpose of laws if there are no consequences to breaking them? Also, did you consider those who took their vacation to go to Mt Rushmore and on the day they were there got a Greenpeace banner? Had that been the day I visited, I would have been very angry! Instead of focusing on the costs to feed, guard, and collect, maybe you should ask why it costs so much and is so hard to collect from criminals. And "thank them" for revealing potential security issues? Should we thank those who rob convenience stores but don't actually hurt anyone? Or maybe we thank the guy takes a gun into a school, but doesn't actually shoot anyone? If we really had tough laws and tough courts, perhaps we wouldn't need as much security, but if we go with your approach we will need ever increasing amounts of security.
Oups! The incomplete sentence should have been: One of their earliest activists, the owner of the yacht "Vega" was aptly named David (McTaggert) and that is their strategy ever since: They take up against the big guys, the guys in uniforms, the guys with guns and the ones who make laws.
Anonymous, apparently my point didn't come across as clearly as I meant it to. What I was getting at is yes, they broke the law and went into a closed area as many, many visitors do every single day. I was trying to say they don't deserve all the attention they are getting because to me it was no different than the person who goes past the closed sign to get a better picture. I said I could understand why they chose that spot to demonstrate but I didn't condone them breaking the law.
There were some people commenting on resource damage caused by greenpeaace and I was trying to compare it to what the NPS has done up there and they didn't cause that much damage.
Didn't mean to cause such an uproar! Just didn't word it well I guess
Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry
Frank C, as a Native American that is a topic I don't get started on. My mother marched with AIM in her youth and would have been right up there on Rushmore demonstrating if she didn't have a young child.
Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry
Whoa, Frank...you're advocating anarchy, even in Wiki's third definition? Really? I defy you to come up with one example of anarchy anywhere that fits this definition. People are too selfish for anarchy as defined here to work. What you will get is the first or second definitions--just look at Mogadishu. If each "person has absolute liberty," then we degrade into situational ethics, and I think that "(without the implication of disorder)" is impossible. Otherwise, you have to acknowledge that there are agreed-upon laws, and once you do that, then someone must enforce the laws, and that is a form of governance.
Even if the land reverts to its rightful owners, there would be governance (i.e., tribal eldership), NOT an anarchic condition.
However, I agree with your point that the U.S.'s treatment of Native Americans is abysmal, and that we don't honor our treaties with them is unconscionable. But then...who owned the lands before the Lakota? Should the land therefore belong to them?
Speaking of AIM, isn't Leonard Peltier about due for parole?
Frank,
Aren't you out of red herring cards yet?;-)
I'd disagree that my question was a red herring. You are condemning the actions of one society for its treatment of another. And yet, the Lakota have their own history of warring with their neighbors. Plus, as Skihde put it, "who owned the lands before the Lakota? Should the land therefore belong to them?"
I think my question is valid in light of the issues you raised regarding the Treaty of 1868, and to better understand your thinking. If you dismiss/ignore the Lakota's treatment of their peers, how can you hold the 19th century U.S. government to a higher standard?
Now, Bob's question could truly be viewed as a red herring to this discussion.