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
This type of thing has been going on since man has been on the planet. The fact of it is, whoever had the power to take land and control it are the ones who own it. It was the same with the lakota or any other race on our planet. Alot of conquering armies would have eliminated or enslaved the conquered. I'm fairly sure that someone will say that the indian tribes were enslaved,or still are. Would those same people prefer what the lakota would have done if they had won the battle? It would not have been a birthday party. Living in the long gone past is not going to change the present. Deal with the present situation and try and change it if you don't like it.
I knew this would get a response. The sioux did not live by our laws. did you READ what i said? When you conquer and control the land YOU make the laws. Whether you like it or not the sioux lost their battle to control what they had. They no longer make the law, unless they go through avenues that have been allowed now that they do have to abide by u.s. law. these are facts,like it or not. All of the indian tribes have much more than they would have had if some other invading force would have dealt with them. would you have rather had the japanese? or germans? i doubt you would be alive to say anything. it might not be right, but this is where we are. deal with the situation in a reasonable, legal way or buy a rifle and go psycho.
"Your writing contains no facts whatsoever; it's simply an opinion-laden diatribe"
Frankly, Frank, I find that offensive. Must you insult everyone you disagree, be a jackass and talk down to people? And what happened to NPT's policy of no personal attacks?
At least other people on this site don't pretend to be know-it-alls who have perfected rhetoric, the English language, and are all-knowing.
The US Government claimed the hill under Public Domain, probably. You know, like they took ranch land from other people to make up the LBJ Ranch National or Historical Whatever. Like they take land and houses now; i.e., in Arlington to build a foodball stadium, whether people who lived in those houses for years wanted to move or not. Maybe the US Federal Government didn't really break a law - what they probably did was not adhere to their Treaty. Isn't there a technical difference?
The name calling and personal attacks in this thread will cease and desist. Right now.
Gee. Bob, just when I was beginning to enjoy it.
Rick Smith
What puzzles me, Frank, is that the Icelandic community to which you refer, while it may not have had a king or a parliament, still had authority and structure, which is NOT anarchy:
The medieval Icelandic state had an unusual structure. At the national level, the Althing was both court and legislature; there was no king or other central executive power. Iceland was divided into numerous goðorð (plural same as singular), which were essentially clans or alliances run by chieftains called goðar (singular goði). The chieftains provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between goðorð members. (From the same Wikipedia article you quoted (and suggested I had not read), granting for the moment that Wikipedia is a reliable enough source on these matters.)
You're making the case that a peaceful anarchic society is in some way possible, if not a good thing, and I simply cannot agree with that. People without some form of agreed-upon rule will eventually descend into chaos. Even the Icelanders you refer to from 930 to 1262, while they may not have had king, president, or parliament, still had structure and order. The Native Americans most certainly had structure and order, and not the anarchy you imply. My point is back to your original definition of anarchy, that
each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder) (from Wikipedia, 3rd definition)
is patently impossible. Icelanders then did not have "absolute liberty." Does it even make sense to suggest that anyone ever has? No governance, no laws or courts, or no agreed-upon rights and wrongs will quickly descend a society into situational ethics, and then all bets are off.
And please, I, too, do not condone ad hominems, but I think it's valuable for you to know that while you may not be actually making direct ad hominems against other writers, you most certainly and clearly come across in your tone as doing so.
@Dottie: Do you mean "eminent domain"? Because Public Domain makes no sense in your posting.