Skip to main content

This post on Tuesday, How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country, brings up one very interesting question...

HOW DID SHELL LEARN ABOUT A POTENTIAL AND hypothetical GREENPEACE PROTEST?

The case, Shell Offshore Inc. vs. Greenpeace, was filed by Shell Oil Company. Last summer, Shell assumed –based on conjecture — that Greenpeace USA would protest the company’s drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.  Shell asked the 9th Circuit court for a preemptive injunction and restraining order against Greenpeace USA
The real question, it seems to me, is this: Is this the type of info the NSA is gathering and distributing to mega corps?  photo keatonbehindbars_thumb.jpg

I've seen some very disturbing polls, allegedly asserting that at least half of Americans (and that includes modern Dems ... not my kind of Dem but oh well) support NSA programs, although there are indications Americans want um oversight of those programs. Yeah. Right. Oversight by whom?

Anyway. I do wonder how Americans would feel if that NSA spying on Americans program™ was primarily focused on disrupting the next OCCUPY protest? What if the NSA program is aimed at stopping Americans from protesting in the same manner as Brazil or Turkey? I wonder if Americans would approve. Maybe they would. Maybe America has changed so radically that people like me are the outliers... the bothersome and drab bearers of bad news trampling over the promise of more Brand Dems in the White House...

But one wonders why, with all the intel about the Boston Marathon suspects, that tragedy wasn't averted...

Maybe some of us still think this is about political parties and getting Dems in National Office, abortion, immigration, and marriage equality. It's not. They are cultural issues thrown into the waters like chum to attract a feeding frenzy by all those polarized and rapt in their "side-taking." What is at play here is far more urgent... in the-short-term urgent life-on-planet-earth urgent... and it involves the NSA program, the trade agreement being negotiated that will upend our sovereignty, bailouts, water, and our food sources. And that little thing called climate change.

So... where are the priorities? Hillary in 2016 (don't make me gag) or finding a way to change this game... and address the issues that will really change people's lives. Clue: voting Brand Democrat in 2016 ain't it.

I know one thing, I gonna continue to withhold my vote.

I'm gonna withhold my vote until we get candidates on the national slate who put the interests of human beings and our fellow earthlings before corporate profits.

No more voting for the lesser of two evils... no more participating and thereby giving tacit approval of a system that is corrupt.

It's a simple thing, but hey, there it is...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (18+ / 0-)

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:15:48 PM PDT

  •  Yes how did the Feds miss a guy the Russians (6+ / 0-)

    told us to watch a guy who went on jihad websites but the Feds still had enough people to spy on OWS?
         Did the banks insist that the NSA, FBI etc move resources from following terrorists and instead go after Lefties, Peace Activists and GreenPeace?
       Everyone talks about Benghazi but nobody talks about how the Boston Marathon bomber slipped by.

    •  They didn't "miss" him (0+ / 0-)

      They investigated as requested but couldn't find anything actionable. There's still no evidence available that he had any connection with any existing terrorist outfit.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 02:50:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why spy on Americans when you don't (4+ / 0-)

    spy on terrorists?  

  •  There was a diary on this topic on Tuesday (5+ / 0-)

    co-authored by someone from Greenpeace and another from the NAACP. There was a very lively discussion in the 175 comments. For those interested in this topic you can find that other diary here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:26:54 PM PDT

  •  How do you get an injunction (8+ / 0-)

    based on conjecture?

    The case, Shell Offshore Inc. vs. Greenpeace, was filed by Shell Oil Company. Last summer, Shell assumed –based on conjecture
     You need evidence last I checked or is America an Orwell World now?
         
    •  exactly the question to ask... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Things Come Undone, OldDragon, marina

      there are pieces we need to place together like a puzzle. and i'm pretty sure this, eminent domain, NSA, privatized prisons and criminalizing more and more of our behaviors... you know something, I can't go on with this list.

      it's too fucking depressing. we just have to change the game. that's it. we can't keep pressing on the shitstorm. we have to move away from it. reason i changed my sig line.

      don't think we've met before, but I hope all is well with you, Things Come Undone...

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The emerging narrative... (7+ / 0-)

    ...seems to be about how this is all done responsibly.  Which is generally what systems of authority have to say for themselves when they are damn well not going to change a thing, ever.

    The thing I've been thinking about these last couple of days is how these disclosures move the window for what is acceptable.  For a very long time now, "everyone" has known they do this.  Now we really know, in a formal and undeniable way (the difference between knowing your relationship sucks and having a breakup conversation, basically).  

    And now that we all know it is being done, now that it can be discussed openly in the press, I think there is a much lower bar to applying our surveillance to all the other ways in which we are bad citizens and bad people generally, who must be found and stopped.  One outcome of Snowden's revelations is "holy crap, we have to stop this".  But the outcome I suspect is more -- after some appropriate interval -- along the lines of "we're spending the money anyway, so let's get all the bad people!"  

    And in America, there are always more bad people, those people, you know, them.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:32:53 PM PDT

    •  i suspect those approving of this (5+ / 0-)

      are feeling immune to it and are completely sure it will relieve America of, you know, them.

      I keep hoping we are, collectively, better than that and those polls are lying just like so many other information sources.

      and i have to say it for you... i don't mean social issues aren't important... they are incredibly important. but they are being used to divide us and not to heal us. plus, how can I trust whatever the Dems or Rethugs or Libs say? no matter what they mouth, the results are more for them and less for the rest.

      i say we need to shorten the priority list and target the ways we can make a difference that will lead us to a better, fairer, more balanced country and influence on others in the world.

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:43:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There Are Only 2 Proven Paths (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, jessical, OldDragon, Lujane

        Work within the system to create better candidates for office than the party will do on its own, or begin misbehaving.

        But the same 1st step is needed for both: figuring out how to contact and inform enough people to be effective.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:49:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, they did it before the American Revolution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jessical

          and thar weren't no internet.

          i really thought that places like this one, dKos, would become the new town squares and act much the same.

          but i have come to realize that putting candidates and brands over issues is a mistake and a threat to real credibility.

          plus, i don't think we should "inform" as much as incite people to think... give them data as objectively as is possible using the kinds of questions or rhetorical devices that just might result in critical thinking.

          informing assumes we know what's right... i only know what side i've chosen and for such and such reasons... i'd rather have like-minded people who've made the decision to work for common good as I have ... rather than have people on my side expecting something from me i can't produce simply because i informed them... no they have to be willing to accept whatever comes from their choice. if that makes any sense.

          “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

          by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:55:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interestingly... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pfiore8

            ...my conclusion is that places like this are indeed the new town squares, but I may had a rather utopian view of what town squares were like.  

            Lack of authenticity is a bar to real credibility.  The left gets a fact and just starts spinnin' as fast as the right.  Very little on our lefty blogs makes me stop and shiver and see clear to the true.  Mostly it just evokes the spinmeister/wannabes vision of how small people are, to be bent to his or her rhetoric, buzzword issues, and outrage.  It does nothing to bring that percolation point of change closer, nothing at all, because it lacks courage and heart.

            This was well put

            i'd rather have like-minded people who've made the decision to work for common good as I have ... rather than have people on my side expecting something from me i can't produce simply because i informed them.
            But...the town square is not very often the site of acts of infectious courage nor a place of like minded folks in harmony.  For every Aaron Swartz, there are many thousands of us who are hanging out with our mead and talkin' about politics.  

            ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

            by jessical on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:35:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  eh (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, pfiore8, marina, tardis10

        you, m'dear, are a patriot.  I am not.  And on that, I founder...

        I say tend my garden and speak what I understand and hope for the best (knowing better).  

        I think there are too damn many of us, and those social issues -- wedge bullshit that they often are -- are ideological markers for an authoritarian view of the world.  Whether there is common cause with folks on the other side of that divide varies by color of skin, queerness, and wealth, I think.  

        You've touched on shortening the priority list a number of times over the last couple years and I think it makes sense, but I'm not sure it reflects how societies change.  I think societies change when everyone has truly had a-fucking 'nuf, you know, and when that percolation threshold is reached varies by era and history in really hard to predict ways.  Even with a nice short list and rolled up sleeves, it happens when it happens, and the people who stand up for what is right still do so without any assurance of effectiveness, by their own compass...

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:11:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here are the possible steps (2+ / 0-)

    1) Booz Allen Hamilton, a private corporation, does the spying under contract with the NSA.
    2) Booz Allen personnel review the spying data for information it call sell.
    3) Booz Allen salespeople contact the appropriate corporations informing them they have valuable information for sale.
    4) Money is exchanged using foreign banks and shell companies so it never shows up officially on the books.

    The government doesn't directly sell the information but the government doesn't directly do the spying either. The sale of spy information is very possibly a significant yet unreported revenue stream for Booz Allen Hamilton.

    Power is not sufficient evidence of truth. - Samuel Johnson

    by Knighterrant on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:49:28 PM PDT

  •  Greenpeace engaged in a pattern of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, VClib, coffeetalk

    these actions.  And, as the District Court noted:

    This court has also accorded a minor degree of weight to the fact that there is no sworn statement in this record from Greenpeace USA indicating that the organization will not attempt tortious or unlawful acts this summer against Shell.[58] Instead, on March 23, 2012, Greenpeace USA's Executive Director posted an article on a Huffington Post blog that stated, "Arctic drilling is one of the great mistakes of our age and it will not be allowed to happen. Whatever happens in court, Greenpeace will continue to oppose Shell's plans peacefully and vigorously ...
    •  and Greenpeace had been stepping up its (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      campaign against this particular project:

      http://greenpeaceblogs.org/...

      So it's not like Shell didn't know that Greenpeace was strongly opposed to this specific project.

      •  wow, that's really stepping things up... (0+ / 0-)

        calling for people to oppose this.

        what it doesn't say???? put on your winter jackets and join us in the arctic. not one word about showing up and protesting or going to washington or shell headquarters in den haag. nope. nuthin.

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

        by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:04:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that plus their history of trespass? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, VClib

          explains things better than a fevered CT.

          •  a fevered CT? (0+ / 0-)

            what is wrong with people like you? really. i'm tired of pretend Democrats acting like right wing ideologues. seriously. and that's directed to you and all the other real Americans who call our speaking out about the NSA as hyperbolic.

            you aren't interested in issues or common good. you are only interested in being part of a club, a group... and you want your team to win. had enough of your types.

            anyway.

            i ask a very legit question:

            The real question, it seems to me, is this: Is this the type of info the NSA is gathering and distributing to mega corps?
            i did NOT write that the NSA was involved... although I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be the case.

            “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

            by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:56:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  you do not provide one iota (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Things Come Undone

      of data to give weight to your comment. you just say shit, like Greenpeace engaged in a pattern of these actions... i mean, you're kidding me right? a link? other credible sources that back up your assertion???? anything???

      also, your timeline is off, as it seems to me this is AFTER Shell took them to court

      Whatever happens in court, Greenpeace will continue to oppose Shell's plans peacefully and vigorously ...

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:59:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is exactly what Greenpeace does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WB Reeves

        It's there raison d'etre. Haven't you seen Whale Wars? They are famous exactly for this kind of thing. I'm a strong supporter and I would fully expect them to do something about the Arctic drilling. I'm glad that they are.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whale Wars has NOTHING to do with Greenpeace (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          Please get your facts straight.  Greenpeace is RENOWNED for NOT engaging in those kinds of activities.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 04:14:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, here's a link (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        to the Court opinion.  It said that there was evidence in the record of what Greenpeace activists across the globe had done, including forcibly boarding vessels and rigs and putting their bodies in places so as to interfere with ongoing operations.

        But “stop Shell” is not merely a campaign of words and
        images. Greenpeace USA alsouses so-called “direct actions” to achieve its goals, and its general counsel has conceded that direct action can include illegal activity. There is evidence that Greenpeace USA and its counterparts around the globe are united in the goal of stopping Shell. When Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded an oil rig off the coast of Greenland in 2010 and used their bodies to impede a drilling operation, Greenpeace USA’s executive director described their conduct as “bold non-violent direct action” by “our activists.”  Greenpeace USA similarly endorsed the forcible boarding of a Shell vessel by Greenpeace New Zealand activists in February 2012, again referring to them as “our brave activists.”

        The record before the district court contained evidence
        that Greenpeace activists used illegal “direct action” to
        interfere with legal oil drilling activities on many such
        occasions. Several incidents involved Shell vessels that were subsequently named in the district court’s preliminary injunction order and used in Shell’s 2012 Arctic OCS drilling operation.

        The opinion goes on to describe in detail some examples.  
      •  Yes Doesn't Shell have to (0+ / 0-)

        show a pattern of action that results in damages to get an injunction. Greenpeace I am sure annoys Shell but its a big ocean.  Can Shell show that Greenpeace has caused them damages.

        Next question jurisdiction how far out in the water is the oil platform do American courts even have jurisdiction?
           For unless the drilling rig is within America's territorial waters America has no jurisdiction.

        Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    •  Exactly, I'm worried about the NSA spying (3+ / 0-)

      and I also don't like that case very much. As a strong supporter of Greenpeace and actions like this by them I have to say that anyone who needs to spy on them to know that there was a good chance of them doing something doesn't really pay attention to what they do.

      That said, we do know that a lot of firms that contract with the government on security matters also contract with private companies to do intelligence on their enemies. Modern day Pinkertons.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:04:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  really? not worried about it? (0+ / 0-)

        unbelievable. and all I can say is this: if it was Bush, there wouldn't be one word of "CT" or "hyperbole" relating to this.

        got principles? or is right/wrong simply situational?

        keyrist. this is pissing me off.

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

        by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:59:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They didn't need to spy on anything (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WB Reeves

          to know that the Sierra Club would try something. That's the whole point of the Sierra Club. They didn't even have to show proof that the Sierra Club would try anything. I'm definitely worried about the government and corporations monitoring environmental groups, and I know it happens and is a serious problem. This case has nothing to do with that problem.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 02:04:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  is it Greenpeace ? (0+ / 0-)

            You're not worried about the NSA spying on Greenpeace ... or the whole NSA spy program doesn't bother you?

            if it is only the former, then i apologize. i only use this as an example of how the NSA might use info... I believe it will be more to thwart us than those outside ...

            if it's the whole NSA thing, well, then not sorry.

            “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

            by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 02:10:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Would be easy for Shell to infiltrate G-Peace. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Things Come Undone, WB Reeves

    Bet that was how it was done.

    Probably easier, too.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:09:56 PM PDT

  •  Conjecture, yes; but let's be honest (0+ / 0-)

    you don't need the full resources of the NSA to predict Greenpeace would protest Arctic drilling.

    That does not, however, lessen the outrage that Shell was able to squelch the 1st Amendment rights of citizens.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:20:03 PM PDT

    •  Shell did not squelch 1st Amendment rights (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, rb608

      1st Amendment rights do not include forcing your way onto a drilling rig and putting your body in places to stop activities, thus, as the Court specifically found, placing lives and safety in danger.  

      That's what Greenpeace was doing according to the Court.  And that's what the Court enjoined -- the  injunction prevents Greenpeace from getting close to Shell drilling rigs and vessels and from illegally or tortiously forcing their way onto those rigs or vessels, because doing so could create "irreparable harm," according to the Court, which it said meant creating a serious safety risk.  

      The things that Shell DID squelch through the Court order -- forcing your way onto vessels and rigs and creating a dangerous situation -- are not protected by the First Amendment.  

      •  that's not what happened. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608

        it was, as the guy from Greenpeace said, ALL conjecture, unless they had specific information not public or via their website.

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

        by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:45:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. The 9th Circuit does not cite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          conjecture.  It cites evidence in the record at the District Court.  That means that lawyers for Greenpeace and for Shell introduced evidence and testimony, and the District Court made a decision.  Then, the whole record that was made at the District Court went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 9th Circuit put out an opinion based on that record -- on that evidence and testimony.  

          Read the opinion here.  

          All of the facts cited in that opinion are facts that are in the record from the District Court.   That means that there was evidence and testimony to establish those facts.  That's how appellate courts work.  

      •  Court specifically found, placing lives and safety (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfromga, tardis10, pfiore8

          Yes but all Shell needs to do to stop the danger is stop drilling for a few hours and call the coast guard. If Shell continues drilling thats their problem.
             I am sure that MLK many arrests for protesting were legal but that doesn't make them right.
             I know reading about MLK's Chicago Protest that the residents thought African Americans going into their neighborhood was placing lives and safety in danger.
             But any reasonable person can see that all Shell has to do is keep doing what they have been doing calling the coast guard and taking a break from work.
           Does a few hours of work and profits lost really override our civil rights to protest?  If so then every anti abortion group protesting better clear out.
            Does the Coast Guard not offer remedy when this happens?
        Showing Potential for damages is not the same as showing damages.
           If damages can be avoided or removed at low cost then who cares.
            Sadly the Media shares my opinion.

             

        •  Please tell me you're not that naive (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib
          Yes but all Shell needs to do to stop the danger is stop drilling for a few hours and call the coast guard. If Shell continues drilling thats their problem.
          Assuming that what you describe were to happen, as soon as Greenpeace realised that shell was suspending drilling during protests, they'd arrange non-stop protests.  The goal, after all, is to shut down the drilling and cost Shell money, right?

          Black Holes Suck.

          by Pi Li on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:13:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib
          Yes but all Shell needs to do to stop the danger is stop drilling for a few hours and call the coast guard. If Shell continues drilling thats their problem.
          If you read the opinion, the danger starts when the Greenpeace activists, in the words of the Court, try to "forcibly" board the rigs and vessels.  Read the opinion.  The activists force their way onto rigs, for example, that are inherently dangerous to the people on it if you aren't wearing proper clothing AND not following strict safety procedures.  It's not just a matter of "stopping drilling."  In addition, if you know ANYTHING about those drilling rigs, you can't just "stop drilling," like flipping a light switch.  Drilling is a very complicated, very highly regulated process, where things like the pressure in the well have to be monitored every second or you could have a tragedy like the Deepwater Horizon.  You can't just "stop drilling" -- to "stop drilling" involves a very lengthy  (can take days)and complicated process of shutting in a well.  That's why, for example, when there is a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, the companies begin the process of getting off those rigs days before the hurricane gets close.  When people suddenly try to physically get in the middle of that process, preventing the people from operating the well (including doing things like monitoring that pressure), that's inherently dangerous.

          Here in New Orleans, we've seen exactly how dangerous it can be when something goes wrong with one of those deepwater rigs in the middle of the process.  

  •   Yes we are assuming that Shell actually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pfiore8

    has evidence Greenpeace is up to something and they used NSA email, wiretaps to get it. They could also have planted some spies in Greenpeace.
       Also the mere fact this case sans evidence so far is going to trial suggests Shell just bought the judge and a bought judge alone could explain why shell is getting an injunction without evidence.
         

    •  There IS evidence. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Read the Court opinion.

      •  the court's opinion? (0+ / 0-)

        how could they have evidence of something that has NOT happened yet?

        “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

        by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's where you are wrong. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee, VClib

          To issue an injunction, the Court does not have to have actual evidence that Greenpeace is on the way to try to illegally board some Shell rig in the middle of the ocean.  They don't even have to have actual evidence that specific named individuals are planning it.  The law says that to enjoin Greenpeace -- to issue an order saying "you can't do this" -- they only have to have evidence that raises a reasonable expectation that the same illegal conduct will occur again.  From the opinion:  

          Turning to the second prong, we have every reason to
          believe that the underlying wrong will recur. Shell has
          drilling rights under a multi-year lease, and there is no reason to believe that Greenpeace USA’s “stop Shell” campaign was limited to the 2012 drilling season. We conclude that there is at minimum a “reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975).
          That "reasonable expectation" that the same illegal conduct will happen again is enough for a Court order NOT to do the illegal conduct again.  The Court based this on, among other things,

          1.  That Greenpeace had done it in the past -- both Greenpeace U.S.A. (see the footnote where they did it in the Gulf of Mexico)  and Greenpeace globally.

          2.  That Greenpeace U.S.A.  had called the people who did those things "our brave activitists"

          3.  That Greenpeace was advocating continued "direct action" against Shell, and that Greenpeace stated that direct Action included that illegal activity.

  •  I realized where this diary went wrong. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angryallen, FG, KenBee, VClib

    The diarist seems to assume that the Court had some "inside information" as to what Greenpeace was planning.  It did not -- because that is not the standard for issuing an injunction.  

    The Court does not have to have rock-solid evidence that someone is planning some illegal activity to enjoin it (issue an order preventing it).  Instead, when someone comes into court saying I've been subject to illegal activity, and here's the evidence that it's reasonably likely to happen again, they can get a Court order saying "don't do it." It's sort of like a protective order in a domestic case, ordering an abusive spouse to stay away from the other spouse.  You don't need to come to the Court with evidence saying, "here, my ex is planning to attack me next week."  You come to the Court saying, "here are the two times my ex has attacked me, and he hasn't said he will stop, and he's still saying the same things, so it's reasonably likely he'll try to do it again." That gets you a protective order telling him to stay away from you.  That's essentially the same order that Shell got here.  They showed examples where Greenpeace both globally and USA (see the footnote in the opinion) had done illegal stuff that put people's safety in danger, like forcing their way onto Shell rigs and vessels in the middle of the ocean.  They showed evidence that Greenpeace USA applauded "our brave activists" who did that, that Greenpeace advocated continued direct action against Shell, and that Greenpeace admitted that "direct action" included illegal activities.  That was enough for the Court to conclude that it was reasonably likely that Greenpeace would try it again, so the Court issued an order telling Greenpeace to say away from Shell rigs and vessels in the middle of the ocean.

    There was no spying on Greenpeace's plans, because there did not have to be.  

    •  i'm asking the question... (0+ / 0-)

      it is more rhetorical ... and because I believe this is how the info will be used: against citizens protesting against the gov't or corporations and groups protesting recklessness of those exploiting our resources and, especially, our access to them.

      as for putting people's safety in danger? seems to me Shell et al are the ones putting people's lives in danger...

      poverty & pollution in Niger

      big oils' ties to Iraq war

      devastation of oil spills

      not to mention the deaths on the BP oil rig.

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:40:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You really need to read the opinion. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Once again, it's here.

        it is more rhetorical ... and because I believe this is how the info will be used: against citizens protesting against the gov't or corporations and groups protesting recklessness of those exploiting our resources and, especially, our access to them.
        My point is that neither the Court, nor Shell, has any of that "info" that you are talking about.  The opinion makes clear that it was decided based on (1) things Greenpeace already did that were illegal and put people in danger; (2) statements Greenpeace made publicly about continuing direct action against Shell.  There IS NO "inside" or other information about a "potential and hypothetical Greenpeace protest" as your diary states.  There is information about PAST illegal actions, and the Court was convinced, based on things Greenpeace said publicly about continuing "direct action" against Shell, that they were likely to do those things again.  That's all the opinion is based on.  

        As for this

        as for putting people's safety in danger? seems to me Shell et al are the ones putting people's lives in danger...
        Again, you need to read the opinion.  The standard for getting the Court order that Shell got is that you prove (1) that there is a reasonable likelihood that someone will do some action; (2) that you are likely to be able to prove that the actions they are taking are illegal or contrary to law; and (3) that if they go ahead and do those illegal things, it is like to cause "irreparable harm."  "Irreparable harm" means something where money alone is not adequate compensation.  Here, the fact that Greenpeace's illegal actions put the safety of the workers on those vessels and rigs at risk equals "irreparable harm,"  If one of those workers is seriously injured or killed, money alone can't compensate for that.  

        If Greenpeace can prove those things about Shell, it could go to Court and get an injunction making Shell stop the illegal acts.  

        •  well, i think I'll send your (0+ / 0-)

          recommendation to Greenpeace because they could put together some compelling examples.

          however, the point of the essay was not Greenpeace vs. Shell per se, but the question that came to mind: would americans be okay with this use of intelligence gathering? because we are paying for it.

          would they be okay if intel was used to pick up and question their kids for planning a protest at their high school?

          it's like the NDAA... how can these things be used against us?

          “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

          by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:45:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting speculation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pfiore8

    but hardly necessary. Corporations have been in the business of spying on their critics since before the Patriot Act was a gleam in G.W. Bush's eye.

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

  •  Shell gets it's intel from the government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pfiore8

    because it is considered a critical infrastructure company via the patriot act.

    Ever wonder how oil companies can declare a no fly zone? Like BP did?

  •  That will show them (0+ / 0-)

    hold that vote and put a tea pisser in there.  Make your voice not heard man.  Geesh, if you are gonna be lazy, just be lazy.  When you get something worse, shut the hell up and wear brown.  Hold your vote indeed.  Just keep it to yourself and let the adults sort it out.  Now go change your wet pants.

  •  Shell doesn't need the NSA for that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pfiore8

    They hire their own spooks. It's a booming business. In fact, i wish that would get as much attention as the NSA is lately.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:16:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site