REPLY: You are 100% correct. Lesson learned. Ignore Greenpeace in the future as they are irrelevant

“If Greenpeacr defaced the monument by attaching a banner, what did the monument do to the mountain?

Ridiculous overreaction here.”

No, a ridiculous comparison. Not everything is considered “defacing”.

But Greenpeace did deface the Monument, as surely as grafitti does, apparent in the picture above.
**********************

Benjamin (05:52:50) :

“My two cents… I’ve read this story before coming here and seeing it posted, and according to that report, they used “anchors already in place to post the banner”.”

“Now, I don’t know what the laws are for climing Mt Rushmore without permission, but if they were arrested on the grounds of vandalizing a national monument, damages should, provided this is still the USA, be proven before arrests and other charges are made. This is not how it was handled.”

Sorry, we do not need to prove anything before arresting people. There are very reasonable grounds to arrest the punks for vandalism among other charges that may be brought later, since Park officials caught them in the act, and the banner itself is evidence of vandalism.

Park spokesmen so far have not volunteered information as to how they managed access to the Monument, citing security concerns. But there is a security system in place, including an alarm system, which monitors access to restricted areas. Apparently at least some part of that alarm system was either disabled, damaged or defeated. They “broke in”.

So far, I’m only aware of the charge of tresspassing being brought against the individuals directly involved. But this was a Greenpeace operation, and it may be that the organization has some responsibility as well. If I were the judge I’d charge them with the maximum possible fine and punishment and not allow the organization to foot the fine and court costs, and fine the dickens out of Greenpeace as well. Greenpeace has shown itself to be willing and to have put lives and property in danger on a regular basis.

No, Jim Hansen will jet in to testify for them; if he’s not too busy having his opinions suppressed.

How much carbon did their little exercise and the Greenpeace website burn?

Thats what I thought, but the stories I read about it (three thus far) are saying vandalism or at least making it out to be that charge. Media bias, perhaps. But tresspasing… Okay, works for me! :-)

Now, I don’t know what the laws are for climing Mt Rushmore without permission, but if they were arrested on the grounds of vandalizing a national monument, damages should, provided this is still the USA, be proven before arrests and other charges are made. This is not how it was handled.

I don’t support the green religion, but to arrest on the mere basis of a beleif, on which no damages are yet proven from this particular action… Well, that means they can sue on the basis of having had their civil rights violated, doesn’t it?

If so, bad call. And people wonder why green groups can stay so funded as they are so that they never go away. If ther are no damages… they have ammo. Oh and btw… didn’t they just promote that liberal-biased judge to the Supreme Court, who among other things is a greenie? Yeah. Way to go South Dakota and the Parks Dept!

Ridiculous overreaction here.

BTW, it snowed in Yonkers, NY, today. http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082009/news/regionalnews/snow_plows_remove_hail_after_summer_stor_178218.htm

have there been other crop flattening hailstorms in the last fortnight, or did Piers Corbyn pitch his forecast a bit early?