Protest vessel plans to ram anti-whaling line home to Tokyo (Sea Shepherd)

[Barrett808]

Go Sea Shepherd!
http://www.seashepherd.org/whales

Japanese whalers are expected to face the most powerful anti-whaling protest ship when they try to kill up to 1000 whales south of New Zealand this summer.

The Leviathan - a converted US Coast Guard ship - was recently bought by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Its leader Paul Watson has boasted of ramming whalers to stop them.

The 61-metre ship has a top speed of 17 knots, enough to run down the Japanese whalers, and the Leviathan crew won't be simply waving banners and trying to get in the way, Sydney's Sun Herald newspaper has reported.

Captain Watson, who has sunk 10 ships in his 27-year crusade to save the leviathans of the sea, has vowed to hurl all the might and speed of his new vessel against the Japanese whaling fleet.

...

This season, there is expected to be a protest fleet of four ships, two from Sea Shepherd and two from Greenpeace.

(more)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10413950

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. He's literally trying to ram their ships?

Wouldn't that qualify as attempted murder?

[Judi Lynn]

4. Maybe they'll use their LIFE BOATS if necessary, or leave the ####ing whales alone. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. ...

So if an anti-choicer decides he's going to ram an abortion clinic then maybe they'll use the emergency exits, or leave the ####ing babies alone?

[Judi Lynn]

7. Not playing that obnoxious game with you. Grow up.

RAM an abortion clinic?

The subject is not abortion clinics, is it? If you want to discuss abortion clinics, start your own thread, and be honest about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The subject is acts of terrorism.

The idea that one becomes so zealous with their political ideology that they make the decision to hurt or kill people over it.

"be honest about it."

I've got to say the same to you.

[Judi Lynn]

32. Why not tell DU about these terrifying injurires and murders he's committed?

A quick google provided this info., but the author apparently doesn't know as much about this fiend as you do.

Sea Shepherd heads for Antarctica to defend whales
by karen dawn
Tuesday Nov 28th, 2006 4:26 PM
Dawnwatch: Sea Shepherd heads for Antarctica -- Brisbane's Courier Mail, 24 November, 2006

~snip~
However, "Operating under the United Nations Charter for Nature, which was ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1982 and empowers non-government organisations and individuals to uphold international conservation law, he has never been convicted of an offence for his actions." And "In almost 30 years of shutting down many whaling and illegal fishing operations nobody has ever been injured." The article tells us that's because Sea Shepherd will only sink ships dockside with no one on board. Still, "At last count, Watson had sunk a total of nine whaling ships."
(snip)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/28/18333876.php

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. How many do you think he's planning on injuring?

Given that he's moving from uncrewed ships at dock, to crewed ships at sea, I'd say quite a few.

How many whalers would you like to see hurt or killed, Judi?

[Judi Lynn]

36. You lean toward the melodramatic, don't you, Bornaginhooligan?

Hoping to catch me off guard, no doubt, in my Martian phase, without my human face on, as I slobber in glee contemplating the fantasy of a ship with these killers hanging from meathooks along the side. Yeah, that's the ticket! Drool. Oh, baby, now you're talking!


http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=73326

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. You are advocating violence.

Are you not?

[Judi Lynn]

39. What on earth do you think you're doing? What gives you the right

to put words in other people's mouths?

I'm saying I ABHOR violence, and I'm not changing my mind.

Nothing you can say, or twist around is going to change one word of what I have written, or what I have communicated. You are NOT smarter, you are NOT better than I, and I see right through you, as would anyone else over 5 years old.

As any dolt can see this man has never hurt one single creature, unlike the monsters you are pushing forward as martyrs. Just drop it. You'll never persuade ANYONE, not in a lifetime, to see things your way who isn't bent that way to start with.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. "I wish this man... all possible luck and protection."

"I hope others would join them."

Your own words, Judi.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Where, in that, is any death threat to the killers?

You're attempting to bully me, but it's not going to work out for you.

Nice try.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Certainly a threat of violence.

With grave indifference to human life.

How would you like to hear that somebody was going to try to drive you off the road on your way home from work, eh?

I'm not bullying you, Judi. You're the one advocating for bullies.

[Judi Lynn]

51. You keep trying, don't you? Can't work. The situations you attempt to

drag out as being similar are simply NOT SIMILAR.

Pointless to keep whacking away.

Please, do call me "Mrs. Lynn."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. They're perfectly similar...

and you know it.

It appears you've painted yourself into a corner.

[Judi Lynn]

53. Ha ha ha. Drive me off the road on my way home from work.

A similar situation would be if I were on a snowmobile and could go any direction I chose, and could see them miles away first!

THAT WOULD BE SIMILAR.



They're coming to get you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. How about you're in a building, Ms. Lynn.

A big, tall office building. And somebody decides to ram it with a jetliner. But, hey, you can see it coming from miles away, right? You can always jump out of the building. Right, Ms. Lynn?

[Judi Lynn]

56. Not exactly, you know! In a building, a person would have only

a choice between up and down. On an ocean, a ship not only can go down, which would NOT be preferable, it can also move any of 360 degrees on the surface.

I guess you forgot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. You're right, Judi.

It's such an important point.

:eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

58. Yeah, so important I just wouldn't shut the #### up, right? Oh, yeah. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. heh.

This is why I mentioned how you painted yourself into that corner.

[Judi Lynn]

63. Please define what "that corner" is. All ears, here!

Or something!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Well, let's see...

first you blatantly advocated for violence. Then you tried denying it. And now you're just digging yourself deeper into that hole, if you'll allow me to mix metaphors.

[Judi Lynn]

65. Proof of advocacy of violence. Where is it? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. See, this is exactly the sort of behaviour I'm talking about.

I already quoted you. Post #3. But you already knew that.

[Judi Lynn]

68. Here's that Post #3.....

"I wish this man and his companions all possible luck and protection.
It's time for this vicious, brutal, hideous practise to end. There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION whatsoever. Not now, not ever.

I hope others will join them, and pursue the Norwegian and Icelandic whaling monsters, as well, until they put away their filthy, fiendish activities and live as respectful, civilized men.

Leave these intelligent, helpless whales alone, what is even left of them."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope, no advocacy of violence. Pity. You lost.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. ..

advocate: 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

violence: 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

ram: 4. (formerly) a heavy beak or spur projecting from the bow of a warship for penetrating the hull of an enemy's ship.
10. to drive or force by heavy blows.
11. to strike with great force; dash violently against: The car went out of control and rammed the truck.

[Judi Lynn]

73. I support their pursuing them all over the ocean.

All the time.

I do not support their killing them. Never did, always did NOT support it. They, themselves don't seem interested in killing anyone, either, as you should recognize.

You're desperately grasping at straws.

Main Entry: 1straw
Pronunciation: 'stro
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English strEaw; akin to Old High German strO straw, Old English strewian to strew
1 a : stalks of grain after threshing; broadly : dry stalky plant residue used like grain straw (as for bedding or packing) b : a natural or artificial heavy fiber used for weaving, plaiting, or braiding
2 : a dry coarse stem especially of a cereal grass
3 a (1) : something of small worth or significance (2) : something too insubstantial to provide support or help in a desperate situation <clutching at straws> b : CHAFF 2
4 a : something (as a hat) made of straw b : a tube (as of paper, plastic, or glass) for sucking up a beverage

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Uh huh. Sure.

1. free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something

[Occulus]

117. fact: the poster never mentioned killing or any physical harm in post #3 n/t

edited to add: you have done this in other threads and you need to stop. Like, Stewart on "Crossfire", stop.

You're being something else he mentioned on that segment. Take a shower, smoke a joint, play a game, jack off, whatever. Just... relax. You're doing yourself a disservice.

[krispos42]

139. Counter-fact

From the story:

Japanese whalers are expected to face the most powerful anti-whaling protest ship when they try to kill up to 1000 whales south of New Zealand this summer.

The Leviathan - a converted US Coast Guard ship - was recently bought by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Its leader Paul Watson has boasted of ramming whalers to stop them.

The 61-metre ship has a top speed of 17 knots, enough to run down the Japanese whalers, and the Leviathan crew won't be simply waving banners and trying to get in the way, Sydney's Sun Herald newspaper has reported.

From Mrs. Lynn, post #3:

I wish this man and his companions all possible luck and protection.

Mrs. Lynn is wishing Paul Watson luck and protection is his attempts to disrupt whaling, even though Mr. Watson's tactics include publically boasting of ramming the whaling ships, which, aside from severe property damage, includes substantial risk of injury and loss of life to both ships, plus any ships and sailors attempting to rescue those in the water.

He may be abrasive, but Hooligan is right.

[Occulus]

116. And YOU would be LYING

rather blatantly.

edit: FYI, readers... there is NO advocation of violence in the post this... ah, member... is referring to.

At least, I doubt any reasonable person would interpret it that way... but then, look who I'm responding to.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. Do you think so?

"At least, I doubt any reasonable person would interpret it that way."

And I'm of the opinion that any reasonable person would interpret it my way. I'm certainly not worried about it.

[Zhade]

150. Um, it's actually a very salient point.

NT!

[Irreverend IX]

71. What's wrong with a little violence against whalers?

If I were in command of the Navy, I'd give orders to torpedo every whaling ship on the radar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Sure.

And if Eric Rudolph were in charge of the Air Force he'd bomb every abortion clinic.

[Irreverend IX]

75. Women exercising autonomy over their bodies...

Is quite different from killing a highly intelligent animal to reinforce your facile national pride. And it seems whales aren't so tasty; Japan has so much frozen whale meat sitting around they've had to start grinding it into dog food. Most Japanese have only eaten whale once or twice in their lives, and the only reason the practice continues is because a few politicians want to thumb their noses at the West and the UN.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. That's true.

However, ramming a ship because you think the whale's right to life is more important than the whaler's is the moral equivalent blowing up an abortion clinic because you think the fetus's right to life is more important than the doctor's.

[Irreverend IX]

80. Whales are autonomous creatures. Fetuses aren't.

They're just an extension of the mother until born.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. And?

[Toucano]

123. False analogy.

Whaling is illegal. The law must be enforced.

Abortion is legal. People are free to exercise their right.

Give up the abortion analogy. It simply doesn't work.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. "The law must be enforced."

I'm pretty sure killing whalers is illegal too.

[Toucano]

134. Justifiable manslaughter, baby.

Ramming a whaling vessel is not killing whalers. You've made this conclusion that one leads automatically and necessarily to the other. Ain't so.

However, killing a criminal who is in the process of committing a heinous crime is not necessarily illegal.

[krispos42]

140. Attempted murder. Depraved indifference to loss of human life

Or is that manslaughter of some kind?

Irregardless, Watson would be responsible for every injury and death caused, directly or indirectly, by his felonious attack. This is not just a property issue when sailors are rattling around in steel ship like beads in a rattle.

The law only gives the right of justifible homicide if the person is acting to prevent grave and imminent bodily injury on that person or a bystander. You have the right to shoot the intruder stabbing your daughter; you do not have the right to shoot the intruder stabbing your dog.

[flvegan]

142. Oh, for fuck's sake...you CAN read, right?

Attempted murder? Depraved indifference? OH, my.

BTW..."irregardless" is NOT a word. What you are suggesting, though, suggests that any police force is not justified.

BTW, a felony is just that. You might want to check the laws of your state before making such allegations.

[krispos42]

146. Yeah, I'm idjamakatd. Even went to kolodj. Can you type?

Or do you just slam your head against the keyboard?

BTW, research before you insult. And don't type angry; it looks terrible.

What you are suggesting, though, suggests that any police force is not justified.

Um, what?

Do you mean an officer using force isn't justified, or that a police department isn't justified? And what isn't justified? And a felony is just what?

Watson is not a sworn law enforcement officer, and he's operating in international waters. He has about as much legal authority to use deadly force as I do. And I'm in Minnesota, just a tad bit from the ocean, yanno?

Perhaps you should read up on the various shades of homicide are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

Hmmm... most of them are felonies! :wow:

Have at it.

And ramming a whaling boat with a 200-foot-long ship moving at 17 knots is deadly force. Destroyers used to ram surfaced submarines, and it wasn't to warn them. It was to kill them.



One of the ships the Japanese use is a 425-foot 8,000-ton factory ship, the others are far smaller, in the 700-to-1,000-ton range, and about 230 feet long. Depending on how the impact takes place, the Leviathan can cause serious enough damage to disable and/or sink the smaller hunter ships.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/whales/expedition/jan7/jan7.html

[MGD]

151. Whales eat plankton. Small fish also eat plankton. Big fish eat small fish & Japanese eat big fish

The more whales there are, the less plankton there is for little fish to eat so, consequently, there's fewer smaller fish for bigger fish to eat and, consequently, there's fewer big fish for the Japanese to eat. I don't believe they are interested in eating whales as much as they are interested in getting rid of them. Interestingly enough, I have seen killer whales kill blue whales for no obvious reason either. I believe they were affecting their food chain just like the Japanese - very intelligent of them but very sad for the blue whale and her calf.

[RetroLounge]

149. So you compare women to whales?

You'll win lots of friends that way...

:eyes:

RL

[w4rma]

77. It appears that he is acting under jurisdiction of the UN. As a sort of police. (nt)

[conscious evolution]

82. Dont the police have the authority to use violence to stop a crime?

[krispos42]

141. Yes, as a sworn law enforcement officer

And the force must be proportional. Hudson is not a sworn LEO, nor is he acting to prevent immenent and grave injury or death to a human.

The sailors on the whaling ship, IMHO, would have the right to fire upon his vessel with whatever they have in order to stop his ship.

[conscious evolution]

144. On a ship,in the middle of the

ocean,who has the authority to swear him as a LEO?No one does.As a matter of fact,He doesn't even have to be sworn in as a LEO.As Master of the vessel he has absolute right to uphold international law as he sees fit.A ships Captain is a law unto his self.He has absolute jurisdiction as to what his ship may of may not do and over all who sail aboard his ship.He may even shoot down in cold blood others on his ship and not face legal action for doing so.
And if violence is necessary to save the lives of legally protected sentient beings he has the moral and legal right and authority as ships Master to act in their defense.

[krispos42]

147. Exactly why it's not a good idea to get involved

Watson is outnumbered. The hunter ships in the fleet carry grenade-tipped harpoons,in addition to whatever small arms the crew may have. And if the masters of the hunter ships decide to protect themselves from the Leviathan, it is Watson who will be floating in the ocean in a life vest. The whaling fleet might not be that inclined to rescue his soggy ass, either.

And I don't know what legal powers a ship's Master has beyond the gunwhales, but if a non-military or non-police unit tried enforcing laws on the crew of another ship, I think the other ship would have the legal right to call the attempted interference 'piracy' and act in self defense, including deadly force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_%28nautical%29

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Rightwing talking point?

Flvegan, the rightwingers are the ones who like to solve their problems with violence.

[flvegan]

86. No, the rightwingers like to bury what's wrong

under profit. Besides, "terrorism" is the weakest fucking word you can use. You toss that at the police, too?

Check your definition of "violence" as you. have. no. idea.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. Catch post 69.

Way ahead of you.

[flvegan]

89. You fucking wish

you were ever way ahead of me.

So, a cop, he/she pits a felon driving a stolen car. Cop does the ramming, totalling the car. That's violence?

[eleny]

10. Maybe he's doing "research" ramming...

Since the Japanese are calling their hunt "research" to get around the law banning commercial hunting.

[tavalon]

114. Actually, that was relevant

It is no better if our side practices terrorism than if the other side does. I hate that the Japanese are doing this but ramming a boat with the intention of sinking it (and what else does one plan by ramming a boat?) is terrorism.

[GDAEx2]

13. This is LEGAL

thanks to UN charters that grant whales sancuary in the Southern Ocean.
No country will enforce it so Captain Watson is empowered, again by the UN charter, to do so.

Thank God for Paul Watson!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Same sort of logic abortion clinic bombers use.

No country will enforce God's law, so God grants them the right to take the law into their own hands. To protect unborn babies. Thank God for Eric Rudolph, and all that jazz.

[Barrett808]

19. Yes, SSCS operates under the authority of the UN's World Charter for Nature

World Charter for Nature
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm

[satireV]

30. That particular UN charter

Does NOT legalize ramming of whaling boats in any manner whatsoever.

If Watson is ramming he is being violent without sanction.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. No authority under UN Shipping conventions

The power to police the actions of vessels on the high seas is defined by UN Treaty.
SSCS has no authority and is not a signatory to any if the International Shipping Treaties. And only those members have the authority to undertake any action on the high seas. And in the case of a Japanese Flagged vessel. Only Japanease authorities or authorities of the other states with the express permission of Japan, may take law enforcement action.

[One_Life_To_Give]

67. UN Gives Enforcement of Japanese Vessels to Japan

From the UN Charter on Shipping

Article92

Status of ships

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.

While on the high seas the only Law Enforcement power a Japanease Flagged Vessel need recognize is Japans.

When SSCS signs the IMO Conventions (right after becoming a member of the UN) and issues the flag of SSCS to it's nations vessels. It can then exercise Law Enforcement powers over them on the high seas.

[flvegan]

92. Let's give Diebold full enforcement over voting machines, then.

Oh, wait...

Better yet, let's find a lawless nation and sail under that flag. Surely beatings at sea are okay under that same UN Charter on Shipping, eh?

I believe that regardless of where/how a vessel is flagged, she needs to adhere to the laws of the waters in which she sails.

[One_Life_To_Give]

96. They are in International Waters

Yes all ships must comply with and are subject to State Law Enforcement when within the Teritorial Waters. Or within the Exclusive Economic Zone. Although the latter generally refers to fishing vessels and the like.

Past the 200 mile limit it is illegal for the USCG to conduct LE on a Panamanian Flagged fishing vessel without permission from the Panamanian Government.

[flvegan]

97. What in the sweet motherfucking hell are you talking about?

International waters are just that. Sanctuary waters are just that as well...

[One_Life_To_Give]

100. IMO Doesn't make exception for Sanctuary

Stopping and conducting Law Enforcement actions on a Foreign Flagged vessel operating on the High Seas (i.e. Outside Terratorial and Exclusive Economic Zone) is against the International Treaty. Just because I believe a vessel does not have a functioning oil/water seperator on it's bildge pumps, is dumping plastic or any number of other activities that may be outlawed by treaty. The Flag country is responsible for among other things enforcement of international treaties on all it's Flagged Vessels.

Just because * is in the WhiteHouse doesn't give him the authority to stop and board every South Korean Merchantship. Note the case a few years ago where the Spanish intercepted a SK ship in the Mediteranean. The vessel was not flying a flag of State. By treaty that is a Pirate Ship and hence all Nations that signed the IMO treaty are obligated to take action against her.

The rational behind this is to prevent an economic blockade from being practiced on the high seas. Can you imagine if the US stopped and searched every ship trying to enter or leave the ports of some other country. That would rightfully be called an act of war.

[flvegan]

102. Well, crazy is as crazy does...

Act of war? Indeed.

[One_Life_To_Give]

104. Thats what Japan called conciderably less 65yrs ago. nt

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[One_Life_To_Give]

128. UN Convention on Laws of the Sea

Article 87. Freedom of the high seas

1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

Article 92. Status of ships

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas


The convention is intended to prevent conflicts arising from disputes occuring over the high seas and varying interpretations of territorial waters. One of the oldest principals is the Freedom of the High Seas. Any Flagged Vessel, in the US we call it a Documented Vessel, is entitled to sail anywhere on the high seas. Years ago nations tried to lay claim to the Seas and enforced Tarifs and other sanctions on vessels caught navigating on the high seas. Freedom of the high seas means that any flagged vessel is free from interference by other nation states. e.g. The British Navy cannot stop and search a Gloucester Sword boat fishing the Flemmish Cap and demand to inspect the boat, catch, PFD's etc.

Now if they were within 24 Nautical Miles of the Coast they could be stopped by that Coastal Nation for possible violations of pollution regulations. Otherwise it's the 12 NM limit unless there is a treaty or other convention giving specific exemption/authority to conduct Law Enforcement on Foreign Flagged Vessels.

I do not see where SSCS has any legal authority to conduct Law Enforcement Actions on the High Seas against a Japanese Flagged Vessel. The specific are/refuge in question lies outside of the territorial seas and even the exclusive economic zone of any nation. Enforcement authority can only lie with the Flag state or as specifically authorized in a International Treaty or Convention.

[piedmont]

99. you're overlooking one very important clause...

Here, I'll bold it for you to make it easier to find:

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.

It is the height of absurdity to claim that a nation can send its ships out into international waters without any other nation being able to enforce international laws. That clause I just pointed out makes it possible. Does that make the SSCS' actions legal? Depends on the provisions of the treaty that the Japanese vesel is violating, but I think probably not. Unless the U.S. is willing to prosecute them when they return to port, it probably doesn't matter.

[One_Life_To_Give]

103. You won't find many exceptions

It would be too easy to put a stranglehold on someone elses economy. All the while claiming you are just holding up International Law. Arms and other special materials embargoes are a case where specific exceptions are made. Such as inspecting all freighters headed to Iran for Nuclear Weapons Materials or parts used in the manufacture of such weapons. The Neocons might like to do that, but it would be an act of war. Should the UN issue sanctions prohibiting certain materials then those sanctions might include provisions to search any ship in a specific area i.e. 3-10 miles from the Iranian coast.

If the US could just claim that they saw a sheen on the water near a freighter headed toward Iran. And could thereby conduct a search, the mideast would be a whole lot worse now.

[slackmaster]

152. If I were the CO of a ship that he rammed, I would retaliate

With rifle fire and Molotov cocktails. I'd make every effort to sink his vessel.

[Kagemusha]

15. Take it from me, I had this argument on this forum last year

You're right but no one's gonna care.

[hughee99]

33. I remember that.

You made a good argument, but you're right, this is one of those issues that people interested enough to post have already made up their minds on.

[Barrett808]

25. In fact, the Farley did ram one of the catchers last year

Made a little scratch.

This is not attempted homicide.
Captain Watson has never been convicted of any such crime. Even after presenting himself to Icelandic authorities after scuttling the entire Icelandic whaling fleet, they refused to press charges.

Operation Leviathan is not criminal; it is law enforcement. SSCS is a 501c(3), so apparently the US agrees.

You can donate now at www.seashepherd.org.

[hughee99]

48. Since everyone seems to know which whalers are where...

Why have they (or the parent company) not been convicted of illegal whaling?

[flvegan]

91. Convicted by whom? The IWC?

Spineless, toothless "enforcement" isn't convicting anyone of anything.

Better question...why hasn't Bush been convicted of war crimes?

I'll wait for both answers, thanks.

[One_Life_To_Give]

106. Japan bought the IWC.

Thats why the IWC goes along with this "Research" hunt.

It's only a small group of countries that are in favor of Whaleing. But they and some countries who are economically dependent on them, have the seats on the IWC. To get anywhere via the IWC the seats need to taken by countries that can't be economically bought.

[Barrett808]

131. And here's a shout out to Israel for being the spoiler in Japan's IWC takeover last year

:loveya:

Israel tips the scale against commercial whaling
http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enScript=PrintVersion.jsp&enDispWho=Articles%5El1341

[hughee99]

132. So your saying that the fact that someone hasn't been

convicted of doing something illegal, it's not proof that they didn't do anything illegal?

If someone were to argue that Bush didn't commit war crimes, and cite as evidence of his innocence the fact that he hasn't been convicted of war crimes, that would be a bogus argument, wouldn't it?

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. Where in IMO is SSCS given Law Enforcement Authority?

My reading of the International Maritime Conventions under the United Nations do not give Law Enforcement Authority to anyone other than a Member State of the United Nations.

[The Stranger]

41. No, it is a privileged action seeking to enforce international law.

Next question.

[Waya]

2. Well......I dunno if I should.....

........applaud this guy or be appalled by his planned actions.......I really dunno.......

[Judi Lynn]

3. I wish this man and his companions all possible luck and protection.

It's time for this vicious, brutal, hideous practise to end. There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION whatsoever. Not now, not ever.

I hope others will join them, and pursue the Norwegian and Icelandic whaling monsters, as well, until they put away their filthy, fiendish activities and live as respectful, civilized men.

Leave these intelligent, helpless whales alone, what is even left of them.

[hughee99]

6. I also wish for protection for the people on the ships he's planning to ram. n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

42. No, those people could choose not to kill innocent animals in violation of international law.

[hughee99]

45. So if a drug dealer is shot by the police

or a vigilante, he deserves it as well? After all, he could choose not to sell drugs in violation of the law.

[The Stranger]

55. "Deserves it" is loaded,, but he cannot cede all responsibility for his own actions.

The inescapable fact is that if the drug dealer chose not to deal drugs, he would likely not get shot at by police or other drug dealers.

[hughee99]

61. I agree...

are all the members of the whalers crew necessarily involved in whaling, though? You could certainly argue that everyone is since even if they're not directly doing the whaling (engineers, cooks, medical personnel, etc...) that they are working in support of the crew and are therefore also complicit. You could also argue that they are just running the ship (which is perfectly legal) and not participating in the whaling activities.

And I apologize, "deserves" is a loaded word, and I should have phrased it better.

[flvegan]

93. I also wish for their safe passage.

Life boats and survival suits are onboard for a reason.

The boats, on the other hand...scuttle those floating shit-barges, Capt. Watson.

For the whales...

[leftchick]

133. You got that right Judi Lynn

I am boycotting anything Japanese and am forgoing a trip there next year. I am sending as much money as I can to Greenpeace and the Sea Shepards! May they continue to protect our precious marine life before they become extinct!!!

http://www.seashepherd.org/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/save-our-seas-2/save-the-whales

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. On a side note: Anyone know which USCG Cutter was bought

The article talks about SSCS having bought their new ship Leviathan. Which was formerly a USCG Cutter. Was wondering if perhaps this was USS Tamaroa, of Perfect Storm fame.

[Endangered Specie]

12. I hope they sink themselves...

and no I dont support whaling, but I also don't support what will be 1st degree attempted murder either.

[the other one]

16. Applause for Captain Watson

a kick and a recommend

and a healthy holiday donation to SEASHEPHERD as well

http://www.seashepherd.org/

[Robb]

17. How many poorly-paid crewmembers does he have to kill

...to get a corporation to take notice and stop a very lucrative hunting effort?

And how many are worth it? :shrug:

[Barrett808]

20. In fact, Nissui did take notice, and sold the entire whaling fleet

The current slaughter is essentially a public-sector operation.

[piedmont]

18. Would this be considered "piracy?"

and if so, would the parties involved be at risk of being arrested when (if) they got back to port? I'm pretty conflicted on this. I'm against whaling, and the Japanese, by one poster's assertion, are violating a protection zone of some sort. But ramming a ship with the intent to sink it thousands of miles from land is much more extreme than I'm willing to condone. I'd guess that with that former CG cutter they could completely frustrate this whaling expedition without sinking any vessels.

[Barrett808]

34. Yes, sinking is not in the game plan

Disabling, however, almost certainly is.

Ramming will not disable or sink any of the (very large) vessels in the whaling fleet.

The plan is to impede and shut down the whaling operation. Ramming is only one of the tactics likely to be used.

[slackmaster]

138. BY THE SCUM OF THE SEVEN SEAS, YES it would be Piracy!

Intent to sink or not, SS would be acting for PRIVATE reasons as they have no authority to enforce law.

[ThomCat]

21. I applaud that captain.

If no other efforts, and no diplomacy has succeeded in stopping the slaughter of whales then this is the next step. How else do you stop people who insist on doing whatever they want regarless of laws or environmental consequences?

A couple of damaged ships might just deliver a convincing message.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. I applaud the japanese.

If whales are so intelligent, why'd they decide to be so tasty?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toucano]

124. Just like fetuses. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

24. Can't begin to imagine where the hysterics come in appropriately, concerning

someone's feverish anxiety this man intends to KILL the killers.

Yet, he does have such a bloody history, doesn't he? Probably not.

Maybe one of the hysterics who fear the bullies won't get to give full play to their need to slaughter helpless animals will reread the material and see where it is indicated the Sea Shepherd presents a mortal threat to the lives of these tender, quivering, helpless, lovalble little killers, who are just trying to make a living on accounta they're real poor and hafta take what work they can get. Sniff, sniff, sob.

Where is that THREAT to their very fragile lives indicated? Is it possible they can just turn their boat around and go home, or seek employment in another line of work, if their boat gets bent?

How many whaling ships have been sent to the bottom of the sea by the terrifying, (soooo scary, kids) bloodthirsty Sea Shepherd?



I know I'm scared for them

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. hysterics?

the "mighty white of you" non sequitor is not hysterical?

"Is it possible they can just turn their boat around and go home, or seek employment in another line of work, if their boat gets bent?"

Is it possible that this guy doesn't have to resort to violence to get his message across?


"How many whaling ships have been sent to the bottom of the sea by the terrifying, (soooo scary, kids) bloodthirsty Sea Shepherd?"

According to the OP, ten.

[Judi Lynn]

29. More precisely, how many whaling ships with their human cargo have been sunk?

Looks like a good place to underscore the fact the crew members themselves remain free, healthy, unKILLED, as intended, to continue making the world a happy place.

[Barrett808]

79. None -- Although Sea Shepherd did scuttle the entire Icelandic whaling fleet

No charges were pressed.

[judaspriestess]

27. Ram those bastards

1000 whales? Isn't is bad enough the ocean is becoming increasingly polluted affecting many sea creatures? Why do humans have to destroy every fucking thing in their paths for eating or wearing fur, for aphrodisiacs and lord knows everything else. This is wrong plain and simple. Someone needs to stand up and say STOP.

[pokercat999]

28. This is stupid.......

They should use torpedoes.

[superconnected]

44. rofl

I agree.

[katsy]

70. bwa ha ha

:thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. Sounds like terrorism to me

[flvegan]

87. Terrorism...yikes! Careful, or you'll Code Orange

in your pants.

Terrorism, indeed. Mark.

[slackmaster]

136. Arrrrr, ye scurvy bilge-sucking lampreys, WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YE?

Intentionally ramming a ship on the high seas is PIRACY, not terrorism!



Definition of Piracy

The Law of the Sea Convention 1982, Article 101 defines piracy as the following:

Piracy consists of the following acts:

a. any illegal act of violence or detention or any act of depredation committed for the private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft and directed;

(i)on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or person or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii)against a ship, aircraft, person or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

b. any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with the knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

c. any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

[Quantess]

46. This isn't a good way to handle the situation.

It gives animal rights people a tarnished image, IMHO.

[superconnected]

62. True and that was my first reaction.

But ya gotta admit, if they just used a torpedo, it might not seem so terrible.

[flvegan]

90. As an "animal rights" person, no it doesn't.

A tarnished image comes from doing nothing. Shouting "shucks" and "darn" each time the Japanese commit felonious acts, shooting an exploding harpoon into a whale, is tarnish. Tarnish upon humanity.

[BreweryYardRat]

47. Sea Shepherd may be able to keep the whalers out of there...

...but to actually have a chance of stopping whaling, they need to focus on the various whaling fleets' HQs and executives.

[Barrett808]

78. Last year's boycott against Nissui was very effective

Unfortunately, the fleet is now in the hands of a quasi-public agency.

[BreweryYardRat]

94. I'm not quite getting that.

More details, please. Is it associated with the Japanese government now or something?

[Barrett808]

130. Japan's Institute of Cetacean "Research" now owns the fleet

Greenies claim a victory over Japan's whalers (Nissui sells whaling fleet)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2203139

The shares will be transferred to a series of public interest corporations. They include the Institute of Cetacean Research, but the rest are as yet unidentified. "Present shareholders will eventually be completely divested of their ownership," the statement said.

So, whaling is now a state-run enterprise, essentially a jobs program with a veneer of "national pride."

[hankthecrank]

49. Captain if you please set to ramming speed

Take those asshole out
K&R

[flvegan]

83. My money is where Sea Shepherd's mouth is.

2 things keep me from being crew.

Fuck the whalers. Get your survival suits, boys, Leviathan is coming...

[ulysses]

95. sort of like spiking trees.

Something violently stupid done in the name of a good cause, and which does harm only to folks making a living at a hard job and nothing to the folks who are really behind the practice.

[flvegan]

98. Yes, something violently stupid...

Ummm...hmmmm...a hard job. Okay...like spiking trees. Okay...

Mark.

[ulysses]

105. ?

Not sure you got my point.

[flvegan]

109. I got your point.

It's just that the anti-spiking trees point was, well...kind of stupid.

Sorry.

[ulysses]

113. help me out, then.

Where did I go awry?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. anti-spiking trees point?

As opposed to pro-spiking?

Where do you stand on that particular issue?

[piedmont]

101. FYI, Law of the Sea, from the UN's website

Very interesting stuff there! Articles 92 through 98 or so of Part XI are the pertinent bits here, I think. Still doesn't make SSCS's actions legal, but it seems tought prosecute them if our government turns a blind eye.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

[slackmaster]

137. READ ON TO ARTICLE 101, ye chum-swilling limp-wristed landlubber

[piedmont]

145. Aye, you scurvy son of a sea-dog, I saw it, but it don't pertain here I reckon

From UNCLOS:

Arrr, piracy consists o' any o' the followin' acts:

(a) any illegal acts o' 'iolence or detention, or any act o' depredation, committed for pri'ate ends by the crew or the passengers o' a pri'ate ship or a pri'ate aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on shanty men such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction o' any State;
(b) any act o' 'oluntary participation in the operation o' a ship or o' an aircraft with knowledge o' facts makin' a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act o' incitin' or o' intentionally facilitatin' an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

---------

D'ye see, th' SSCS ain't in it fer pri'ate ends-- they be innit fer th' public good, see.
Now go aft t' th' gungeon, you scallywag what deserves the black spot!

[slackmaster]

148. Those Scurvy Sea Shepherds have no letter of Marque or Reprisal

D'ye see, th' SSCS ain't in it fer pri'ate ends-- they be innit fer th' public good, see.

So SAY they, 'tis true.

But without papers t' back it up, and them not bein' sworn military of any state, they be vigilantes under the law. They be doin' as they see fit, having no commission; and without backin' of a nation, their ends be by definition pri'ate.

Vigilantes at sea be Pirates in the eyes of the law, and any damage the Sea Shepherds do to a vessel is likely to get 'em all keel-hauled.

[seriousstan]

107. Save the whales....for dinner.

[flvegan]

110. Is there any way

you could possibly, please, teach me to be as fucking cool as you?

That's all I really want.

[LeftyMom]

112. .

:rofl:

[LeftyMom]

108. Go get those bastards.

:thumbsup:

[Xithras]

115. If he does it, I really hope he sinks himself or gets sunk by someone else.

I'm a pretty damned devoted environmentalist...ride my bike every day, live in a green house, mulch my garbage, protest the hell out of development, and even chained myself to a tree once, but I ABOLUTELY draw the line at actions that put the lives of people at risk. I had plenty of arguments with braindead primadonna fucks like this guy back in my anti-logging days when they wanted to spike trees because loggers were "evil" and "deserved it". Just like those loggers, the guys on these boats are just working stiffs doing their best to feed their kids and get through the day. The people who own the boats is the enemy. The guy who markets the meat is the enemy. The lawmaker who permits this kind of slaughter to go on is the enemy.

The guy who fixes the ships engine, or works 15 hours a day for $5 and a cot, or who handles drag lines on the deck is NOT the enemy. They're normal people like you and me who got stuck with shitty jobs and are simply trying to make the best of it. Sinking these boats doesn't put the ship owner at risk...he's in his big house back in Tokyo. It's not hurting the guy who sells canned whale meat...he's enjoying the view from his beach house in Hokkaido. It's not even hurting their bottom lines...if the ship sinks, the insurance will pay it off and he'll just be back with a bigger one next year. He is, however, putting the lives of everyone on those ships at risk. No sane person should support that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

118. What a bunch of retards. n/t

[Nihil]

119. Yeah

Killing whales really is fucking dumb.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

120. Guess what's dumber thank killing whales. n/t

[Nihil]

121. Posting support for whalers on an internet discussion board? (n/t)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

122. I don't support whaling.

Nor do I support this unmedicated shithat in his plan to damage whaling vessels.

[darkism]

135. I do hope you're referring to the terrorist planning to ram the boats.

There are certainly other ways to get your point across.

Watson is, to borrow your word, a shithat. Plain and simple. And the people who are supporting him here are simply condoning violence.

But then again, animal lives mean more to AR extremists than human lives, so I'm not surprised.

[flvegan]

143. "Terrorist"????????????????

AR extremist? Animal lives meaning more?

I like you. You make "shithat" real to me. Thank you.

[Barrett808]

129. Australian navy to shoot at fish poachers

Australian navy to shoot at fish poachers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2644367