What changes will Greenpeace stunt bring to the National Park Service's law-enforcement ranks? Greenpeace photo.
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.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I can't say how I feel about what they did - but I have to say I wonder if it was worth it cuz this seems like it got barely any publicity.
Hope they get the max.
Hope all 11 knuckleheads get the max allowed by law.Enough is enough plus what makes them think they are right!
Throw the book at these clowns
What will be accomplished by prosecuting people who did not damage anything? If we send them to prison, we pay to feed, guard and entertain them. If we fine them, we will probably spend more money trying to collect it than we actually collect.
We should actually thank them. They provided a service to the country by showing how lax our security is. Of course, in a real national park, security is not that big an issue. Rushmore, being a park visited by people who eat ice cream a bucket at a time, probably needs more security than others. That being the case, security failed and we are fortunate to get a wake up call without any damage being done.
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.
Wow...Just amazing logic! How about the damage that was potential to themselves, the environment, responding police personnel and NPS people as well as blatant disregard for the law and the reasons for the law. Arrogance like this deserves the MAX penalty!
I'm going to play Devil's advocate on this one and wonder what the big deal is. I can see why they chose Mt. Rushmore because these were great presidents. They demonstrated on a monument dedicated to the men (well 2 out of 4) that help give us the freedom to demonstrate and voice our opinion. Yes it was against the law and I have the utmost respect for the law (ok...I speed a wee bit) but I don't think it's as big a deal as people are making it out to be.
And honestly I don't think this is as damaging as some of the things the NPS does to the monument. Just 2 months before this they were practicing search and rescue techniques off of Jefferson's forehead. I honestly think that people rappling up and down the monument with ropes and a litter is much more damaging than a sign.
Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry
RangerLady If its no big deal does that mean we can go out break the law as long as you feel no one is being harmed. I guess if someone had gotten hurt getting these Morons down its ok because two of the four Presidents gave them the right to demonstrate even if its breaking the law and endangers others! The reason the NPS was practicing live saving techiques is to save idiots like these from harming themselfs and others! By the way you wouldnt happen to belong to Green Peace you sure sound like one of them!
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
These people are Eco-Terrorists! They put the response team in harms way! If one of the "rescuers" had died ,well the charges would have been different! If they could enforce there view on us they would because there right and the rest of us are wrong! They should be prosecuted and if convicted given the max! I have no tolerance for these people who want to change the world by acting out! You want to make a difference become a teacher or a scientist!
you can't change this world without acting out, do you think the revolutions start by people living their lives of quiet desperation? Any person who thinks that all of mans laws need to be obeyed for "our safety" or any other reason is a complete sheep, and I personally feel terrible for you.
Usually RangerLady has some intelligent remarks, but this last comment requires a little more explanation than just "devil's advocate", being as she is, I presume, a Seasonal Ranger. I certainly hope while on duty, she performs the way the National Park Service expects her to perform, and not make decisions on her own. If the group had protested on the grounds of the monument, that is one thing; climbing the actual monument is another. To relate, people protest all the time in Washington DC; they don't actually climb up in Lincoln's lap, or climb up outside of the Washington Monument. At the very least, it is just plain disrespectful, if nothing else.
Lay off RangerLady. This is a forum, not her performance review....
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
Frank C.,
Excellent post. Rushmore itself is an abomination. The mountain was beautiful before it was carved into the shape of faces. People are way off base claiming response people were put in jeopardy. The Greenpeace people used the bolts which were already on the mountain (i.e. the govt damaged the mountain by putting the bolts in themselves). Outrage is good, just make it something worth being outraged about. Ask native Americans in the area how outraged they are. They can tell you stories that will make you cringe. Ask park rangers about maintenance projects which are on hold for lack of funding. The money we waste on Rushmore could be put to so much better use.
Frank and Kevin, this is not to condone 19th century U.S. conquest in the West, but does your disdain for the way Anglo-Americans treated Native Americans also apply to how Native Americans treated others?
The Lakota (Sioux), living on the North Central Plains, considered all Indians that did not belong to the Lakota people, lakholkichiyapi (alliance) to be enemies, thoka. The Lakotas were at constant war against neighboring tribes like the Pawnee, Crow and Arikara. Truce was only sought for the purposes of trade, and lasted usually only for a short time. -- Rani-Henrik Andersson, Ph.D. University of Helsinki/Renvall Institute/North American Studies Program
Frank;
For what it's worth I happen to agree with you statement "the long federal screwing of the aboriginal inhabitants". I am trying to understand what that has to do with the original story about Greenpeace. Are you saying that because Rushmore came into being and therefore breaking the treaty then Greenpeace was somehow justified in their actions because the current laws as they are should be null and void...ignorable by any who wish to? To me these are very different discussions and the "screwing of the Native American (which I agree with you on) is a red herring to the original discussion.
Frank;
All points well taken. However unless Greenpeace is a Sioux Nation organization or somehow affiliated with another Native American entity, I fail to see why the law should not be enforced in regards to Greenpeace's actions at Rushmore. I guess what I am asking in light of the facts you have put forth, facts that I certainly agree with, what is your take on what should happen to the Greenpeace members who were arrested?
BTW...I hate this frakkin captcha system!
Frank;
So in your line of thinking because of the legal argument about who owns the Black Hills including of course Rushmore then federal laws should not be enforced...anarchy prevails...enter at you own risk? I honour your beliefs but am thankful they aren't reality as far as present day law keeping goes.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
MRC - thank you, I did mean eminent domain, not public domain.
But also, thanks all you guys for this indepth history lesson.
If i could make a suggestion to the judge i would suggest these GREENPEACE idiots be put on a highway clean up program let them clean up all those gronola bar wrappers,banna peels and apple core left by all those eco-wackos
Flu-Bird, got a picture of who exactly left those wrappers, peels and cores?
If you add beer cans to the list, the eco-wacko is named George Hayduke.
If the Greenpeace criminals truly believed in their cause, they wouldn't be cowards and plead not guilty, costing the taxpayers additional tens of thousands of dollars. They would plead guilty, spend the time in jail and consider it a small sacrifice for the greater good.
Pleading not guilty places them in the same league as rich frat boys pulling a college stunt. And no one should respect that.