In April of 2002, members of the environmental activist organization Greenpeace engaged in a routine demonstration. Two activists boarded a freighter off Miami that was believed to be carrying mahogany from a protected Brazilian forest, intending to unfurl a banner that read “President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging.” But before they could do so, they—along with four other activists—were detained, arrested and sentenced to time served. Case closed, right? Wrong.

The Justice Department is now pressing criminal charges against Greenpeace for authorizing the protest. If found guilty, the group could lose its tax-exempt status.

The case is drawing considerable attention, in part because it is nearly unprecedented for an organization to face criminal charges for the non-violent protest activities of its members. Greenpeace has suggested that the case might even be a first in this respect. Some legal experts disagree, however, citing a particularly proud chapter in our nation’s history—harassment of the NAACP by southern states during the 1950s and 60s.

The case against Greenpeace is hardly clear-cut either. The attorney general is prosecuting the organization under an obscure 1872 law—last enforced in 1890—that was intended for “sailor-mongers,” who lured ships’ crews ashore to shady bars and brothels. But you can hardly blame him. How many good sailors must environmental activists lead astray before the attorney general takes a stand?

What’s going on here? The government normally doesn’t dust off anachronistic old laws unless it’s out to make a point, and this is no exception. It might be reassuring if the Greenpeace case were just a weird outlier. But it’s not. It is emblematic of a concerted effort by the White House and its allies to curb unwelcome dissent.

Consider the use of “designated free speech zones” (can you imagine a creepier, more Orwellian name?) to sanitize crowds during public appearances by top administration officials. Protestors carrying signs critical of the administration are herded into these “designated free speech zones”—also called “designated protest zones”—out of sight of the motorcade route or event; those demonstrating in support of the president are not. Protestors who refuse to move have been arrested, and a South Carolina man is currently facing federal charges. The ACLU is seeking a federal court injunction to force the Secret Service to discontinue this unconstitutional practice.

Then there’s the speech that Andrew S. Natsios, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, delivered at a conference of relief and development nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) last May. These groups were receiving government funding to pursue humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he reportedly reproached them for failing to make clear to the citizens of those nations that they are “an arm of the U.S. government.” According to those present, he then “threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners.”

Natsios’ comments are deeply troubling. Referring to the NGOs as merely “an arm” of government demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of their mission and public value. True, the government ultimately has the right to choose who receives its contracts. But it is vital that NGOs be allowed to retain their independence. An unswerving commitment to their causes often demands that NGOs offer a critical perspective on government policy. But the Bush administration would rather co-opt these groups or, failing that, prosecute them a la Greenpeace.

The Bush administration’s hostility toward much of the NGO community—and toward dissent more generally—is reflected in a new initiative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies entitled “NGO Watch.” The initiative is motivated by the rather overwrought concern that the “extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs...has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies.”

Now, I know what you’re asking yourself: “Aren’t AEI and the Federalist Society both NGOs themselves? Don’t both of these conservative groups peddle a huge amount of influence in the current administration? Isn’t this all just the slightest bit ironic?” Yes, yes and yes. That’s chutzpah for you. Unsurprisingly, the NGOs being “watched” are mostly left-leaning consumer, environmental and social justice groups critical of the administration and possessed of pathetically little influence.

But it’s not just NGOs and individual protestors that are feeling the brunt of this current crack-down on dissent. The latest issue of The Nation includes a story that examines what journalists see as “deliberate decisions” on the part of Pentagon officials to restrict their ability to cover some of the more politically sensitive aspects of the Iraqi engagement, such as the repatriation of the bodies of troops killed in Iraq. And remember the case of Valerie Plame, the CIA officer whose cover was recently blown? An ongoing investigation is still trying to determine whether a senior aide to President Bush disclosed Plame’s identity to the columnist Robert Novak after her husband began voicing criticism of the Iraq invasion.

The Bush administration is clearly determined to quash dissent; they’ve made a pretty good go at it already. But at the rate they’re heading it looks like they’ll have their hands full for some time to come.

Sasha Post ’05 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. His column appears regularly.