The Chase Continues - Day Four: Whalers on the Run for 96 Hours

[Barrett808]

The Chase Continues - Day Four
Commentary by Captain Paul Watson
On Board the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin

“Crikey, danger, danger, you whalers, the Shepherds are coming”
- What Steve would say if he were with us

We’ve been on the tail of the Japanese whaling fleet for 96 hours since finding them near the Shackleton Glacier on the Queen Mary Coast of Wilkes Land.

As we pursue the Japanese whalers, the Japanese Coast Guard on the Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68 continues to tail our ship the Steve Irwin.

The weather has broken temporarily and treated us to calm seas and sunny skies but another storm is sneaking up on our stern with the promise of all hell breaking loose within the next day.

The Japanese whalers have turned South heading towards Vincennes Bay between the Budd Coast and Knox Coast of Wilkes Land.

At noon on February 26th they were at 65 Degrees 10 Minutes South and 109 Degrees 25 Minutes East. They are moving into an area where they can kill whales and if they stop to harpoon whales we will be on them.

We imagine that the whalers on the Yushin Maru No. 2 have been tearing their ship apart looking for our tracking devices. They won’t find them, and the batteries are good for over a year. We may even be able to use the devices next year if the Japanese fleet returns.

A couple of reporters have asked why we would admit to planting tracking devices on the ships. The answer to that is we want the Japanese whalers to know that we know where they are. We want them to know we are on their tail constantly. We want them looking over their shoulders constantly scanning the horizon for the black ship that will intervene against their poaching activities.

The Steve Irwin is coming and if Steve were with us he would be saying, “Danger, danger, crikey you whalers, these Shepherds are dangerous, because like the rest of Australia they are very filthy with what you’re doing.”

Since finding the whalers, the Japanese ships fled from the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters for two days and are now returning again. They have zig-zagged for over 800 miles to get to a point only 300 miles from where they were when we found them. Most importantly they have not killed any whales.

We saw a small pod of Humpbacks today as we passed them by.

Someday, because of our efforts today these magnificent creatures will be able to swim unmolested and at peace in these wondrous waters and the only harpoons to be found will be found in nautical museums or in the wax museums of horrors.

Whales weep not for the Steve Irwin is coming!

http://seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080226_1.html

[Zachstar]

1. Enough is Enough

I call upon the world Navies to engage and destroy the pirates (In my and many other's views) any known hostile in my view ship sailing under the name "Sea Shepherd"

They refuse to let the economy settle this mess and are violent in my view. The time for reasoning is over for these pirates (In my view). If they refuse to surrender, I recommend a warning shot followed by multiple hits below the water line to give them time to abandon ship. I would have said use a torpedo but an MK-48 or an MK-50 is more valuable than those pirate criminals in my view.

Do not leave that sorry ship afloat to encourage more of them. Send it to the bottom!

Start with the Steve Irwin and follow up by boarding and seizing any other of their pirate ships.

[Barrett808]

2. So the poachers get a pass, eh?

:eyes:

[Zachstar]

3. They are not getting a pass.

Note the collapsing market for whale meat. People are disgusted by it so its sitting in places rotting now.

No market NO hunts.

The more attention the pirates in my view give to them the more the "Interest" in whale meat could climb. Leading to a market in the future.

Sea Shepherd needs to back down now and accept arrest or be sunk in my view by the Navies of the world.

[Barrett808]

4. "No market NO hunts."

False. There has been no significant market for whale meat in Japan since WWII. The slaughter is subsidized. The market alone has not and will not stop the poaching.

[Zachstar]

6. And it has continued to plummet to the point where not even those will help.

But I guess that gets in the way of the fantasy where dolphins and whales smile whenever the pirate group Sea Shepherd roams the seas.

The only reason why nobody will sink that ship is because they know it will further disgust the world and kill the market. However, It needs to be sunk. Either peacefully by pulling the plug or with shells from a warship. The more Sea Shepherd is allowed to pirate the seas. The more encouragement pirates will take from it. And I mean the extra bad pirates that raid ships and kill people.

This isn't that fucking anime show with the pirates (I forget which one it was some ad on TV). The real world has a reality which states you cant go around terrorizing other vessels without eating lead. Its just these Sea Shepherd freaks in my view have found a small loophole with the fact that their sinking will lead to the collapse of the market so bad whale meat will be the symbol for death.

The faster they are arrested and sunk. The faster the whale hunts will end.

[Barrett808]

7. Does the Esperanza (Greenpeace) also need to be sunk?

What's good for the gander, as they say...

[bananas]

8. Sea Shepherd acts legally and morally to stop poaching

It's a shame to see people defending poachers on a progressive liberal website.

http://www.seashepherd.org/about-rules.html

International Laws and Charters

Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.

Sea Shepherd cooperates fully with all international law enforcement agencies and its enforcement activities complying with standard practices of law and policing enforcement.

Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society respects and acts in accordance with the following international treaties, declarations, conventions, and charters:

<snip>

[izquierdista]

72. Another free market idolator

Why are you posting here when you could be spending the time worshiping your favorite idol, the "free market"? Remember, can't spend too much time comparing prices, checking supply and demand. Otherwise, you'll end up like this guy:

[dbackjon]

5. They are not pirates.

They are heroes. the only missiles needing fired are at the whaling ships.

[arikara]

11. Let the economy settle the butchery of whales???

I got 2 words for you and they ain't happy birthday.

:mad:

[Zachstar]

17. Go ahead and get angry over sea creatures.

Meanwhile coal and oil are killing untold numbers and will continue to kill. Get angry over sea creatures that WILL be hunted to nothing once people get desperate over loss of cheap oil.

How about you wake up from the fucking fantasy and start giving donations to technology that will turn the tide on oil and coal so that people wont get further into that mode.

Always remember that Environmentalism WILL go out the window once people get desperate.

Until we get off of Coal and Oil the whales are as good as gone. Encouraging the pirates will encourage Japan to make that process faster.

[rasputin1952]

9. Whale meat rotting in Japan, huge piles of it...

it is not the meat they are after, not much money in that anymore...it is the bone, there are gobs of cash to be made.

besides, the Japanese whalers claim they are doing this for "research"...appears to me that their "research" has shown nothing...except that whales are still targets for the greedy and immoral.

[kristopher]

10. Law of the Sea Treaty

Is the legal framework under which this event is occurring.

Here are the relevant sections. Regarding the claim to Australian sovereignty to these waters. This claim is outside the parameters outlined elsewhere in the treaty. To that end, this section allies"

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:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to
Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations
permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in
section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for
the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas,
and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to
activities in the Area.

Article 88
Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes
The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

Article 89
Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its
sovereignty.


Article 101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of
depredation, committed for 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
against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons 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 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)

Article 102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft
whose crew has mutinied
The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship,
government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken
control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private
ship or aircraft.

Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by
the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one
of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft
has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control
of the persons guilty of that act.

Article 104
Retention or loss of the nationality of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft may retain its nationality although it has become a
pirate ship or aircraft. The retention or loss of nationality is determined by
the law of the State from which such nationality was derived.

Article 105
Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any
State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken
by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the
property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may
decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action
to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights
of third parties acting in good faith.

[1620rock]

12. Zachstar...you are an asshole.

[kristopher]

13. Piracy is piracy

Watson is wrong. His actions are having exactly the opposite effect of what is desired.

I don't see what's hard to understand about that - when we invaded Iraq, it was self evident that our actions would stir nationalism and opposition. This entire problem is of the same nature. The only reason the Japanese have any domestic support for whaling is because of the nationalism our tactics have engendered.

Let me repeat that = the ONLY reason the Japanese have ANY domestic support for whaling is because of the nationalism our tactics have engendered. All Watson is doing is increasing support for a policy we would like Japan to change. Oh yeah, he is also feeding his own ego.

Poor whales.

[Barrett808]

14. When the Steve Irwin shows up, the whale slaughter stops.

Let me repeat that: When the Steve Irwin shows up, the whale slaughter stops.

[Zachstar]

18. Of course it does!

The whalers are trying to make themselves viewed as victims of piracy so they get additional support at home.

Its fantasy that anyone actually thinks they are afraid of the pirates. Its helping business grow! Why would they do anything otherwise?

[Zachstar]

16. Sorry it seems that way to you.

Sorry I am not in a fucking fantasy land where whales smile every time a pirate ship sails the seas.

I guess I ought to be sorry that I care more about order of the seas rather than some fucking fantasy that Sea Shepherd/others and their supporters think gives them the right to attack another vessel at sea. But no thanks I don't live in fucking fantasy land.

Sorry that I have the be the asshole that breaks the fantasy. However, It is a fantasy and has nothing to do with the real world. The real world that knows it cant sink the pirates less they completely destroy the remaining whaling industry.

People are willing to give attention to a few whaling ships in a dead market rather than the MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS such as the need for funding towards new and better renewable energy alternatives to murderous Coal and Oil. So yes I am going to be an asshole about it. Because the loss of human live while nuts go around supporting pirates is insanity.

So yes I think Sea Shepherd needs to be taken down NOW. A few shells below the water line and it is over for their pirate ship. Special forces can round up the rest of them later.

Wake up from your fucking fantasy. When people start to get desperate from the loss of cheap oil. Whales will be hunted to extinction along with just about everything else in the sea. You can either face it now or cry about it later.

[phantom power]

19. Article 101: Definition of piracy

I'm posting this because it's not clear to me that what the Irwin is doing constitutes piracy in any lawful sense. Are they engaging in violence, detention or depredation?

Article 101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for 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 against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons 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 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).

[Zachstar]

20. Yes

Please go review the reports over the past few years. Please note here when you have done that.

Then you will know why they are considered by me to be pirates.

[phantom power]

21. Back up your own claims.

[Zachstar]

23. I will pass on the oppertunity.

Not trying to be full of myself. I just don't think I ought to be the one posting the reports as my view is obviously biased. (For after trying to remain neutral after watching these pirates for some time it just gets to be too much) For clarity I suggest you do so just for your own info.

On top of that the issue is that of a crime and not a global issue which I tend to think is much more important than the small market for whale parts.

The whales as I see it are doomed UNLESS we at once turn the tide on a global scale of oil and coal outclassing. Japan is one of the few ones who hunt out in the open. The numerous others who hunt under the shadows are poised to make a comeback when a market returns due to desperation.

Whales are a side issue. Sea Shepherd is making it into a major issue and needs to be stopped.

[kristopher]

22. You're the one that posted the story about Wilson's plan to board & destroy equipment

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) .... illegal acts of violence or detention, ...committed for private ends by the crew or the
passengers of a private ship ... and directed:... on the high seas, against another ship ... or
against persons or property on board such ship...

[phantom power]

24. I don't recall posting anything having to do with whaling.

Maybe you are thinking of somebody else. That aside, if they were to board the whaler without permission and wreck stuff, I have to agree that would be piracy.

[Zachstar]

25. They dont have to wreck anything. Boarding without permission is still piracy.

Even worse is their admitted use of spying(In this case spying via radio tracking) equipment which NO LAW on earth gives them even a fantasy right to do.

I hate to be the one to say it again but this is piracy. They have to stop or be stopped! The effects of this continuing will be bad for the whales and sea travelers!

[GliderGuider]

26. Boarding without permission is piracy?

Really?

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship

If they were to board with the intention of commandeering the vessel or committing illegal acts of violence, I might agree. I don't think "boarding with the intention of delivering a letter" or even "boarding with the intention of planing a tracking device" qualifies as violence, detention or depredation.

Your comment about SSCS behaviour being bad for sea travelers is a bit over the top. Paul Watson et al are not about to spawn a global outbreak of cruise-ship banditry. FYI there is a lot of actual piracy going on in places like the Straits of Malacca. Compared to what's being perpetrated there, SSCS isn't even on the radar.

I'm not sure what you have against SSCS, but accusations of piracy in this situation are nothing but right wing talking points, calculated to provide a handhold on a situation that is, legally and morally, utterly in Watson's favour.

[kristopher]

27. Sea Shepard routinely uses violence.

That is his claim to fame. Phantom, you are right, you didn't post that, it was Barrett808.

Seriously, if you don't see how Watson qualifies as a pirate, it is only because you haven't followed the details of his campaigns. For example, he depended for one fund of his raisers on a film of him sideswiping a Japanese ship in an attempt to destroy their rigging. He developed his tactics in the North Atlantic. He would catch foreign vessels poaching and assault them. In those cases, the ships were breaking the law and even though Watson's actions were also illegal, the poachers declined to attempt prosecution.

This circumstance is totally different. The Law of the Sea is unambiguous about the area the Japanese are in, the Australian claim to ownership has zero merit. The Japanese have every right to be there and frankly, considering the undisputed attacks Watson has engaaged in in the past using ramming as a technique of violence, the Japanese would be within their rights if they sank the Sea Shepard for merely coming into close proximity.

[GliderGuider]

28. If the case against Watson is a clear-cut as you claim,

It's a wonder no-one has attempted to arrest him and try him. All they can manage are lame registration hassles. If he is legally guilty of piracy, it would seem the case should be a slam-dunk -- he's not shy about telling the world where he is. On the other hand, if all he's guilty of is violating your sensibilities while protecting whales, he doesn't have much to worry about.

The people he goes up against are raping the seas -- the last great commons on the planet. I really don't understand why people get so worked up over his tactics, when they say nothing whatever about real pirates.

[kristopher]

29. I just understand both side, the law, and the real roots of the issue

My hope is that the practice of whaling stops. What Watson is doing is not going to achieve that goal, it is going to make the problem worse. It all boils down to the golden rule. The entire process we have followed in our attempt to end whaling has been based on bad faith tactics - this is just the icing on the cake.

As to speaking out on other acts of piracy besides watson; that is a red herring. The other acts of piracy aren't the topic of discussion. If they were I would condemn them. Would you? Or are you more in the Bush mold - the ends justify the means?

[GliderGuider]

31. No, in this case I agree with both the end AND the means.

And I think applying the label of "piracy" to what Watson is doing both devalues the word and distorts what's really going on.

"Bush mold"? WTF? That's kinda lame, isn't it?

[kristopher]

33. Nothing lame about it.

Bush obviously embraces a philosophy of the ends justify the means.

You say you support the end and the means - since the means are a clear violation of long established international law against piracy, you are saying you support piracy. If you deny that you generally condemn piracy but approve of it in this case because of the ends, then you are in the mold of Bush. QED

If you don't like that logic the remedy isn't to rail against the messenger, but instead to reflect on alternatives means.

[GliderGuider]

35. I reject the idea that what Watson is doing is "piracy" in any legitimate sense of the word.

As a result, I view his means as being every bit as legitimate as the ends he's trying to achieve.

I view your use of the word "piracy" to describe what SSCS is doing as an illegitimate assault on the language, and frankly scurrilous.

[kristopher]

37. I see. You've resigned your membership in the reality based comminity.

We know who prefers that approach, don't we.


YOU reject....

I don't like it so...

If you are against the practices of the Bushies, then you are being hypocritical.

[GliderGuider]

39. Who on earth are you?

All we have are Internet assertions that Watson's acts are somehow piratical. All the actual legal opinions that have been expressed (by lawyers) say they're not. Because I reject some Internet assertions that he's a pirate and accept legal opinions that he's not I'm somehow a "Bushie"? That's amusing. And the accusation makes exactly as much difference to me as being called a liberal by the other side.

I'm not sure what you hope to gain from tactics like that. They sure don't help you win debates, and around here they don't even enhance your status.

[kristopher]

40. The Law of the Sea Treaty isn't some "internet assertion"

It is the law that governs the worlds oceans. As long as Watson just trails the ships, he is legal. But when he starts boarding ships - for whatever reason, of when he rams ships engaged in legal activities on the high seas (which he has done) then he is engaging in piracies.

Who am I?

To deny that Watson is engaged in illegal activity when it he admits to actions that clearly contradict the relevant law (which was posted) isn't rejecting me, it is rejecting reality.

The principle claim about piracy is based on two thinks - one, Watsons past acts of aggression against ships acting lawfully on the high seas; two, his stated intention to board these ships and destroy their equipment.

He can follow all he wants, but he is asserting that he is willing to cross the line into illegal actions that are piratical.

I'm an expert in three topics - Japan, energy policy(especially as it relates to climate change), and ocean governance. I know this is the internet, and I don't expect you to take anything I say at face value. But the LOS treaty and Watson's actions/intentions are matters of public record, not my assertions.

[GliderGuider]

42. Why has he not been charged, then?

SSCS claims the following:

Sea Shepherd cooperates fully with all international law enforcement agencies and its enforcement activities complying with standard practices of law and policing enforcement.

Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans.


Sea Shepherd Conservation Society respects and acts in accordance with the following international treaties, declarations, conventions, and charters:

The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)

The International Whaling Commission (IWC)

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
March 3rd, 1973, Washington, D.C.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
December 10th, 1982, Montego Bay

The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
November 23rd, 1972, Paris, France

The Convention of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NAFO)

International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)

The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
June 5th -16th, 1972, Stockholm, Sweden

ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
July 9th, 1985, Kuala Lumpur

The Berne Convention

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

I would think that if they were violating the law somebody would have acted against them. They've been making no secret of their activities for a long time.

Sorry, I'm with the whales on this one. The murder of whales is a lot more important to the future of the planet than a few bumped (or even sunk) ships. Has SSCS ever willfully injured or killed a sentient being? If not, you're saying the law of property supersedes the value of life. I disagree, and Watson will continue to get my full support unless and until he is tried and convicted.

[kristopher]

44. Murder?? of whales???

That is why you are so totally wrong on this issue. The Japanese are acting strictly in accordance with the Law of the Sea and with the voluntary provisions agreed to in the IWC.

I challenge you to show any specific law they are violating. I've shown the definition of piracy under the relevant legal framework. The vidoes released by Watson himself shows that he is violation those laws.

You consider killing whales to be murder, but that doesn't make it so.

Are you so far gone that you are incapable of understanding that not everyone shares your values?

Are you so far gone that you don't understand the law isn't on your side in this issue? I've said once before that I think I know a way to actually accomplish the goal of stopping Japan's whaling and invited anyone interested to PM me. No one did. To me, that tells me that those supporting Watson are acting more out of a motive that is similar to evangelicals against abortion. They aren't engaged in reason, they are on a "holy crusade" that is centered in the reptile portion of their brain.


The invitation stands.

[GliderGuider]

45. .

[kristopher]

49. I already answered #2.

And I've indirectly addressed #1. He started this tactic with poachers of various nationalities in the north atlantic. They declined prosecution because they were fishing illegally.
When he sideswiped the Japanese whaler, they withdrew because the Japanese are slow to respond. They like to be extremely sure of their position before taking action.
We saw them detain the boarder last trip. He could have been tried and imprisoned under Japanese law.
This time, there is a Japanese gunboat escorting them. I take that as a signal that they are willing to make a stand and enforce their right to not be victims.

Since when has civil disobedience involved illegal acts of that put people's lives at risk That isn't civil disobedience, it's hooliganism.

[GliderGuider]

51. Whales' lives aren't just being put at risk, they're being taken.

I consider a bit of hooliganism a fair trade. Your buddy upthread was advocating sinking the Irwin with gunfire. Strange crowd you run with - all laws, no morals.

[kristopher]

54. That not true

Just because I disagree with your tactics, doesn't mean I'm amoral. I happen to think the approach you advocate pursuing is the height of stupidity because it has exactly the opposite effect of the goal you seek to achieve.

If they attack the Japanese ships again, I think they will be met with force. If that results in an international backlash, I think the Japanese will withdraw from the IWC and resume full scale commercial whaling. Is that what you are hoping to achieve?

Please answer this post with some specificity.

[GliderGuider]

58. What I think and hope will happen

Is that SSCS will continue to shadow and harass the whalers and thereby prevent further killing. What I think they're doing is using their acquired reputation as an intimidation tactic. If push came to shove, whould he ram again? He might, he might not. Would the Japanese respond with violence? They might, they might not. Would global public opinion then support the SSCS? Probably. Would that cause the Japanese to to return to rogue whaling? Who knows? Too many hypotheticals in there. Let's just see how it unfolds. If Watson decides to just stick with intimidation that's fine with me.

[GliderGuider]

55. Hold on, back the truck up there for a second

The whalers are being accompanied by a gunboat? First I've heard of it. One of their ships, the Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68, is apparently carrying a detachment of armed Japanese Coast Guard officers. However, she's just a trawler outfitted for elint and surveillance, just like those old Russian trawlers off Cape Canaveral. A gunboat???? Goofs like that don't add to your credibility, Mr. Law and Order.

[kristopher]

57. I understood a gunboat from the Japanese coast guard was escorting them.

I could be wrong, but that has nothing to do with my credibility - unless you are back in that alternate reality again.

[GliderGuider]

59. It makes me question your grasp of the facts of this situation.

If you're not even reading the news stories carefully, I have to wonder if your assessment of the legality of the actions of either side is being informed in the same casual manner.

[kristopher]

61. My assessment of the legality isn't informed by the moment to moment news

It is formed by understanding the various legal instruments that apply to the situation. Relevant facts are that the Japanese whale hunts are legal. The Australian claim to those waters is extraordinary and not valid; it is, in fact a clear contradiction of the law they've agreed to abide by. Knowledge of past acts of violence gained through the primary source of Watson's own documented claims.
My prediction on the course of events is based on the above plus a deep and intimate understanding of the Jspanese.

None of those are related to whether the armed coast guard escort is an independent vessel or a detachment on a whaler. I freely admit I don't hang on the moment by moment reporting of the incident. I find pointless violence and stupidity repugnant, frankly.

[GliderGuider]

48. 1. Why has Watson not been charged?

2. Is simple "boarding without permission" an act of piracy?

Following the law was what got us here, with the seas fished out and the last whales dying for no reason. I'm fully in favour of civil disobedience, especially when the stakes are this high. That's how I see Watson's actions, as civil disobedience. Now answer my two questions, Mr. Law of the Sea.

[Zachstar]

32. Why would they want to take their their perfect excuse to continue?

If Sea Shepherd is sunk or arrested. The Nationalism dies and the remaining support dies.

That is why I hope another navy will swiftly move in for the arrest and sink.

As for the whalers. Well if the world has it's head on straight now then either arrest them or fine the hell out of Japan.

[kristopher]

34. Fine/arrest them for what?

We may not like it, but what they are doing is perfectly legal. This type of arrogance, that presumes our preference have the weight of law, is precisely why they engage in whaling. They are determined to press on with this tactic until we realize the limits of our ability to force our desires on others.

Think of Japanese history - they are THE ONLY nation in the world that successfully stopped the efforts to colonize them. That wasn't an accident.

[Zachstar]

38. Why breaking international law of course.

I think there is enough evidence to show that what they are doing is total BS and a few fines here and there and they will calm down some. The industry cant be profitable enough to survive constant crap from other nations AND fines. No Profit, No Hunts, all done.

Chasing the ships around and being hostile will not lead to the same result.

[kristopher]

41. The Japanese are not violating international law.

The law is solidly on their side. It isn't even arguable. If you think it is, I strongly urge you to try with any specific references of laws you think they are violating.

[bananas]

52. They did arrest him - the court ruled that his actions are fully authorized by international law

http://www.seashepherd.org/about-mandate.html

<snip>

Sea Shepherd is guided by the UN Charter World Charter for Nature and cites Section 21 under the heading of Implementations as the Society’s authority to act on behalf of international conservation law.

<snip>

This UN Charter was upheld in 1995 when Captain Paul Watson cited the Charter as his authority to order Spanish and Cuban drag trawlers off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Captain Watson had been arrested in this area, outside of the Canadian 200 mile limit, by Canadian authorities and was charged with felony mischief.

During the court proceedings, the jury was advised by the Judge that Canada was a signatory to the World Charter for Nature, and as such, they must take the Charter into full account.

Captain Watson was acquitted “by reason of colour of right,” and at the same time established a Canadian precedent for using the Charter to defend actions of intervention against illegal fishing activities.

Note: Colour of Right is a common law defense defined as “an honestly held belief in entitlement to property” (Source: Jurist Canada)

[kristopher]

56. If you investigate, I think you'll find the ships were poaching

They were clearly engaged in violating international law.

In the case of the Japanese, there is no question they are operating within the law.

[bananas]

73. So you acknowledge their legal authority to intervene against poaching? nt

[kristopher]

74. Do you consider two wrongs make a right?

No I don't. That is the duty of the state. Vigilantism is a very dangerous thing to endorse as it signals the breakdown of social order.

It is exactly the same as bombing an abortion clinic. There is no ethical difference.

[Barrett808]

30. The Japanese whale slaughter is flatly illegal:

Japan's Whaling Fleet Sails Despite International Censure

...Legal analyses by international panels of independent legal experts convened in Paris, Sydney, and London agree with Watson's long-held view that the Japanese whale hunt is a crime.

In a report issued November 14, they state that Japan's expanding whaling is in violation of IWC regulations and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare, IFAW, which commissioned the legal review, says the time has come for decisive action to end Japan's expanding whaling program.

"Some of the world's top legal experts have made the case. Japan's whaling is not just cruel, it's criminal. It is time for the international community to act to end this illegal activity," said Patrick Ramage, IFAW's Whale Program manager.

(more)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-20-01.asp

Japan whaling illegal, court says

An Australian court has ruled that the activities of the Japanese whaling fleet are illegal and ordered it to halt its operations.

(more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm

"The Japanese have every right to be there."

False. Japan has no legal right to slaughter these whales.

[kristopher]

36. Your sources are not authoritative. They are a self serving joke.

Why don't you listen instead of blustering and being so belligerently mouthy?

Have you ever been to Japan?

Have you ever studied the treaties you harp on?

Do you know ANYTHING other than YOU don't like what they are doing?

[GliderGuider]

43. This question still hasn't been answered

Is simple "boarding without permission" an act of piracy?

Yes or no?

[GliderGuider]

15. The SSCS is the only environmental organization that has my unqualified support.

I am fully aligned with their mission, motives, methods and morality.

Paul Watson, :yourock:

[kristopher]

46. I think the default reading of the law is that yes, it is.

This isn't a point I strongly defend, but since the Captain of a vessel operating on the high seas is the ultimate authority regarding what happens on his vessel (it is in the LOS) I believe that unless you have the permission of the captain to board, the default interpretation of such an act is that it is illegal. The motive isn't relevant.
If you are going to counter with someone in distress, I believe there is a provision obligating a vessel to assist someone in distress unless it compromises the vessel's safety.

[GliderGuider]

47. The fact that it may be "illegal" doesn't make it piracy, though, does it?

Piracy is a very specific kind of maritime illegality. Equating the two is like calling illegal parking "negligent and reckless operation of a motor vehicle".

[kristopher]

53. I think there is some lattitude there

The default assumption is that boarding without permission is, in fact, an overt act that places the safety of the ship at risk. That justifies apprehension and restraint. Beyond that I believe the actual risk to the ship would be the determining factor. That could be determined by the captain (who is going to be answerable for his decision) or the determination could be made at trial in the flagged country of the ship, of depending on the location of the ship, in, if docked or within the 12 (I think) mile limit the courts of the country.

[GliderGuider]

60. But piracy has a specific definition that would have to be proved at trial, right?

Something to do with violence, detention, depredation, things like that. Otherwise it's essentially a trespassing charge.

[kristopher]

62. True, but the issue of jurisdiction wouldn't favor the boarder. nt

[GliderGuider]

63. It would be interesting to see Watson charged with piracy. I'm quite sure he'd relish the fight.

The impression I got from talking with him last summer is of a man who is very sure of his moral and legal footing. Her may be adamant about his beliefs, but he's no brain-dead cowboy.

[kristopher]

64. Most real zealots are that way.

I've asked you some questions you've passed over.

Do you understand that not everyone shares your values regarding whales?

Do you see the similarity between your crusade and the antiabortion activists?

Do you understand what is motivating the Japanese? (OK, I haven't asked that one, but it is important.)

Are you willing - personally - to take tale nonviolent action that requires a large commitment of your time and money to end Japanese whaling?

[GliderGuider]

65. To anwer your questions

Do you understand that not everyone shares your values regarding whales?

Of course I understand that not everyone shares my values about non-human life on this planet. Most people are still intensely anthropocentric. I support the principles of Deep Ecology, and that automatically drops me into a minority. No problem there.

Do you see the similarity between your crusade and the antiabortion activists?

Yes, I understand the similarities - Watson "speaks for the whales", the fundies "speak for the babies". The distinction I draw isn't objective, because it can't be. It's purely subjective. I see whales as fully formed, fully independent, sentient lives, while I don't think human fetuses are any of those things. The fact that a human fetus can eventually become a person doesn't tip the balance for me, because I see people as having no greater intrinsic value than any other living being. That view is going to offend a whole lot of people, but it's the only position I'm comfortable with, given that we have to share a finite planet with a lot of other creatures.

Do you understand what is motivating the Japanese?

No I don't, beyond some sense that they feel they're defending their national honour. Since I view the killing of whales as tantamount to murder, the only acceptable consideration for me would be extenuating circumstances. It's hard for me to see anything related to the national psyche as extenuation for this slaughter. Are there more concrete reasons why they must do this?

Are you willing - personally - to take tale (sic) nonviolent action that requires a large commitment of your time and money to end Japanese whaling?

I support SSCS. That's good enough for me.

[GliderGuider]

66. A slight clarification of #2

If humans were an endangered species, I'd be anti-abortion. We're not, so I'm not

Oddly enough, I'm not against the Canadian east coast seal hunt, for pretty much the same reasons.

[kristopher]

68. The whales the Japanese are hunting aren't endangered.

Therefore...???

[GliderGuider]

70. In that case I'm in favour of whale abortions too.

There, consistency restored :-)

[kristopher]

75. )

[kristopher]

67. Your choice of action belies your stated values

You don't understand what is motivating the Japanese, and you answer expresses an attitude that doesn't attach much importance to the task.

Interfering in their hunt and the tactics used in the IWC have only made the situation progressively worse.

You have your values (and I share them) yet there are obvious problems with the actions you support to address the threat to those values. They are obviously counterproductive.

So, are you REALLY concerned about the whales or are you motivated by more mundane considerations of ego and self-identity?

I'm don't want your money, btw, but I could suggest a course of action that if you and like minded people would follow, it would convince the Japanese to stop whaling. It would require you to go to japan - thus the time and money. (I just realized my post could be viewed as a scam. It isn't. You would use your money to fund your action)

[GliderGuider]

69. Perhaps my mother rejected me as a child?

It's always wise to go easy on the armchair psychoanalysis on the internets.

I'm actually very new to the DE game, and it's entirely possible my positions are a still a little broad of brush. Despite what someone might think from following this thread, I'm not much of a wild-eyed anti-whaling zealot. It's just one small part of a very broad spectrum of human activity that has pretty well ruined this planet as habitat for us and everyone else. It happens to be one part of the damage we almost have under control, and I'd like to see another species besides us win a round for a change.

I'm much more concerned by all the carbon we're sticking into the air and the oceans, and by what we will probably do to the planet as the oil begins to run short and the food starts to get scarce. I'd like to see us have a "don't kill things unnecessarily" ethos in place before that happens, but I also know that outcome is vanishingly improbable.

Please point me toward some information that would help explain why the Japanese feel forced to do this. It's such an irrational action that it's very hard for a simple gaijin to understand.

[kristopher]

71. I can't

The information is still in my head. It is based on 11 years there and discussion on the topic with literally hundreds of Japanese.
Since I plan to write a paper on the topic I prefer not to go into detail in public discussion.

[hunter]

50. All this "piracy" talk has quite a lot to do with Navy Sonar...

...in case anyone is wondering.

If the Japanese can't mess with whales, who's next?

[losthills]

76. Watson and Sea Shepard are not "Pirates."

They are Protesters. There's a big difference. Protesting is an honorable tradition that brings public attention to causes and leads to changes in unjust laws.

If Watson is a pirate, then Martin Luther King was a pirate.

Without Sea Shepard, the whale slaughter would be waged out of the public eye. They deserve our respect and support for their boldness and audacity in their quest for justice. Labelling them as pirates is mean and ignorant...

[kristopher]

77. Labelling them as pirates is mean and ignorant... and true and correct.

When did MLK advocate violence?

If you want to compare Watson to past "protesters" you need to look to groups like the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army (S.L.A.) or, more recently, those militant anti-abortion extremists such as Eric Robert Rudolph (more on him here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=410 ).

But i understand, when it is done for a cause You support, it is ok. It is "boldness and audacity".

Right....

[losthills]

78. Eric Rudolph?

Don't you think that's over the top?

Specifcally, what acts of violence are you accusing Sea Shepard of? If you can't show an instance of them killing or maiming anyone, then you're going to have to retract that post and all your other slanderous posts....

[kristopher]

79. No I don't, but here's the video, you decide.

I say he wantonly disregards human life and it is only a matter of time until lives are lost.

His tactics are terroristic and counterproductive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YLe6xAIFAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxRC-eDNXMs&feature=related

I'm sure the one of him ramming the Japanese ship is among those clips.

[losthills]

80. Direct Action is not violence.

Comparisons to abortion clinic bombers are not valid.

Watson in his own words:
"Question No. 2
Greenpeace accuses Sea Shepherd of being a violent organization. Is this a valid?

"Captain Paul Watson: Our record speaks for itself. In 30 years of operations the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never caused a death or a single injury. We have never been convicted of a felony.

"Yes we have sunk whaling ships, rammed whalers and drift netters, boarded poaching vessels and destroyed equipment used for illegal exploitation of the oceans and we believe that these are valid tactics.

"Martin Luther King once wrote that violence can not be committed against a non-sentient object. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has given Sea Shepherd a letter of support in praise of our record of non-violence"


http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080119_1.html

Sea Shepherd uses direct action to prevent violence against a protected species.
Your posts are slanderous and inaccurate.

[kristopher]

81. So sayeth KKKarl Rove also. I don't accept his denials either.

The videos speak for themselves. I'll leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions.

I think he is guilty of piracy and using terroristic tactics the are counterproductive. He is causing more whale deaths than he is preventing by challenging the sovereignty of the Japanese.

[Annces]

82. Fantastic

Praise for Sea Shepherd, applause, applause, applause.