Sea Shepherd lodges piracy charge against Japanese ship

[Robb]

Source: Herald Sun

ENVIRONMENT lobby group Sea Shepherd has lodged a piracy complaint in the Netherlands against the captain and crew of a Japanese ship that collided with one of its vessels.

"We have lodged a complaint of piracy with the Dutch prosecuting authority against the captain and crew of the Japanese vessel," Sea Shepherd legal representative Liesbeth Zegveld told AFP today.

"This was close to murder. It was such an extreme act that if no-one takes action now, we may have an even more serious incident in future."

The New Zealand-registered Ady Gil, a high-tech protest boat of the Sea Shepherd group, sank on Friday after being badly damaged in a collision with a Japanese ship, the Shonan Maru 2, two days earlier. Both parties blame each other for the crash.

Read more: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sea-shepherd-lodges-piracy-charge-against-japanese-ship/story-e6frf7jo-1225817530111

[Omaha Steve]

1. K & R!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. LOL

[thunder rising]

3. That's the response (the piracy charge) that I was hoping for!!!! Even after the strike the SS

blasted the survivors with the water cannon point blank.

[Ignis]

25. ...And didn't respond to SOS as the ship was sinking. (nt)

[Bodhi BloodWave]

104. one question

Considering the fact that the BB was close by do you really think the Japanese ship would risk picking up the people(especially knowing how Watson loves to twist the facts)?

I can predict the headline the moment they did: Japanese whalers ram protest ship; kidnaps crew

[me b zola]

50. It seemed like they were trying to knock the survivors off the Ady and into the frigid sea

There needs to be accountability from the whaling fleet for their vicious actions, and the international community needs to demand that the Japanese stop whaling all together.

[MineralMan]

4. Watch for a counter-charge from the Japanese.

It could go either way in maritime court.

[glitch]

7. Never happen -- they might have to prove their "research" in discovery. nt

[jberryhill]

10. What they were doing out there is irrelevant to navigation /nt

[MineralMan]

14. Not so. Both vessels were under way, by the definition of international

maritime law. The Whaler was the stand-on vessel, from what I could see in the videos. The bat boat was the give-way vessel. It did not give way, but deliberately obstructed the navigation of the whaler, which may have "mistaken" the bat boat for a pirate boat. That's certainly be the argument they would use, anyhow.

Unless the whaler was actively engaged in hunting a whale at that particular time, they weren't whaling illegally, under the law. If they were, fishing boats generally have the right of way while fishing. The type of their target is irrelevant to navigational rules.

You're looking at this from a non-legal point of view. Believe me, in maritime court, the things you raise are irrelevant. The navigation rules are relevant.

[vanbean]

32. It wasn't a whaler, it was a security vessel.

[jberryhill]

57. I think you replied to the wrong post

Since you said the same thing I did.

[conscious evolution]

73. Check out the vid down post from the Ady Gil itself.

It clearly shows the Ady Gil sitting still and the other vessel chasing down and deliberately going out of their way to ram the Ady Gil.
They also used weapons(non lethal,but weapons none the less.) against the Ady Gil.

Such actions fall under the definition of piracy.

[MineralMan]

11. What court do you think this would be tried in?

The rules of evidence used in US courts are not necessarily the ones used in maritime court.

Further, the issue is whether the bat boat interfered unlawfully with the navigation of the Japanese ship. What the Japanese ship was doing is another matter. You're assuming that the court cares about whether whales are killed or not. They aren't.

The high-pressure fire hoses could be explained away easily by a claim of a defense against piracy. Even the ramming could be defended by that, although, the video of the bat boat accelerating into the path of the whaler could just as easily be evidence of piracy on the part of the bat boat.

It's by no means certain that the court would find for anyone but the whaler. The laws of navigation were violated by the bat boat. Of that there is no question. Was it in a good cause? Certainly, but that will not affect the court's decision, I'm quite sure.

As I said, watch for the counter charge.

[glitch]

59. Public Opinion. Otherwise, they would have attempted a case a long time ago.

I don't think they'll risk it.

[conscious evolution]

75. The bat boat did not intentionally accelerate into the Japanese ship

It did accelerate at the last moment in an attempt to avoid the collision.
As for interfereing with the whaler the Ady was doing no such thing.It was just sitting there when the Japanese ship approached and rammed them.The Japanese ship even started using weapons long before they came close enough to strike the Ady.

Self defense will not work for the Japanese in this incident.

[TorchTheWitch]

87. It accelerated directly into the fishing boat's path

The opposite of trying to avoid a collision. To avoid a collision it would have to either vear away or accelerate backward instead of forward into the fishing boat's path... or they could have taken their chances by continuing to remain still in which case it may have just been a close call. It may be that had it not accelerated into the boat's path it would have been struck anyway, but having done so made it a certainty that it would be struck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYxdkXlimk&feature=related

[TorchTheWitch]

89. sorry dupe

DU is acting whack for me today.

[Harry Monroe]

27. You obviously know nothing about maritime law and the proportion of blame in cases of collision

[glitch]

51. Why so nasty oh brave keyboard warrior? Piracy isn't just about collision as you already know. nt

[Harry Monroe]

60. I am a Merchant Marine officer, have been for 22 years and the harrassing actions

...of the Ady Gil could be construed as piracy, in our maritime world. If a vessel gets that close to any commercial ship that I am serving on and harasses us, we are well within our bounds to try and defend ourselves. So, Oh Brave Keyboard Warrior, what is your experience? Maritime Law is a bit different than Laws of Nations and has its own rules, so I know a bit of what I am talking about.

[Dead_Parrot]

64. So what's your take on this clip, Harry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0ak

[Kolesar]

5. The Wooden Shoe Conspiracy...eom

[zonkers]

6. Why don't Japanese people care more about whales?

[MineralMan]

12. You'd have to ask a Japanese person. I don't think there's one

in this thread.

[Starckers]

49. Bat Boats

Escuse my ignorance, but what is a "Bat Boat?"

[MineralMan]

66. Look at the videos of the incident.

[slackmaster]

23. They do care about whales

The same way they care about cattle and fish and rice.

ETA I saw whale meat for sale in a grocery store when I was in Japan in 1996. It was very, very expensive.

[MoonRiver]

72. They also ate American G.I.'s during WWII.

Just saying.

[kristopher]

83. Why didn't Americans care more about whales in 1960?

Or why hasn't any known culture before in the history of humans ever cared for whales like we here in the West do now?

The real question you need to answer is why WE have changed our values.

[Generic Other]

91. This Japanese American cares!

Most Japanese citizens have never even tasted whale. The younger generation supports conservation. It is the government and the fishing lobby that is trying to revive the traditon of eating whales. And we all know why the corporats do what they do. Even though they kill more whales than they can sell in Japanese markets, it doesn't stop them. Even though the price is at an all-time low because many are unwilling to eat endangered animals, it doesn't stop them. Even though whale meat tastes awful, it doesn't stop them. Instead the whale killers go into the schools to try and convince children that it is okay to hunt more, that it is acceptable to thumb their noses at the international ban against the practice of exterminating endangered species for profit.

I curse these fishermen to agonizing deaths on the high seas for their actions. And I hope anyone who buys this meat chokes on their own putrid bile. Sickening dogs.

[Nagasaki]

109. All political parties here...

All political parties, including the Communist Party, support the whalers.

[Generic Other]

92. accidental dupe

oops

[Skip Intro]

108. hmmm...accidental dupe....are there other types of dupes....purposeful dupes, perhaps? HhhmmmM?

[deaniac21]

107. They care quite a bit about whales. They really LOVE them!

[ManiacJoe]

8. Is that the correct charge?

How would piracy apply?

[gorfle]

9. Personally, I have little sympathy for the environmentalists here.

These people are interfering with a legal trade. They are towing ropes in front of ships with the intent of fouling their propellers and rudders, leaving them stranded on the high seas.

I was quite happy to see the anti-whaling folks get their comeuppance as their boat was cut in half. Perhaps they will think twice before they park their million dollar boat so close to another whaling ship.

[sudopod]

13. "These people are interfering with a legal trade."

Whale hunting for purpose of meat production is legal? Really? Have you read anything about the history of Japanese whaling before you rolled in and shot your mouth off?

If you're going to gargle the whalers' balls in some misplaced attempt to be internet manly, you should at least pretend like they are doing "whale research" while you're trolling.

Attack on a legal trade...Jesus Christ on a seesaw.

[Harry Monroe]

28. Can you provide a link where you can prove you assertion that they were illegally whaling?

They were whaling in what looks like international waters off of Antarctica. Could you provide some evidence or a link that whaling is illegal in that section of water? I will assert that what they are doing is immoral, but under maritime law, could you prove to us that it was illegal?

Edited: The act of whaling in itself is not illegal. It all depends on what type and species of whale are protected and/or the limits. There may be limits to how many whales you can take from an endangered species or there may be complete bans on hunting certain species? But whaling in and of itself, while immoral, is not an illegal activity worldwide.

[marshall]

33. They are purportedly doing whale "research"

It's highly arguable. At the very least they are attempting to gather data to make a case for restarting "sustainable" whale fishing.

I think the point could be that even IF it can be proven that the Japanese ship was not just conducting research, is that grounds for the other ship to interfere with their path?

In the US I think it's similar to cases where somebody booby traps their home after it has been burglarized numerous times. Courts have found in favor of the wounded burglar who was for instance shot by a gun set up to go off when a door is broken into. While the burglar isn't justified in breaking into a home, the owner is liable for creating a hazard.

[Omaha Steve]

68. Oh it is research, most certainly!

Do you like the taste of the whale you are eating?

[kristopher]

85. It isn't arguable at all...

The same treaty that is being manipulated to permit a de facto ban on whaling to be created from what was supposed to be a temporary moratorium for some final, last minute scientific study on harvest limits is now being manipulated by the Japanese to circumvent that ban. The treaty not only gives them INDISPUTABLE rights to define research as they wish, it also MANDATES that the meat from such research be processed and used instead of being wasted.

Wiki has an easy read on the IWC and the treaty governing the mission of the International Whaling Commission.

[vanbean]

34. Hey! You! Be nice.

[sudopod]

37. heh heh, sorry

People justifying their lack of sympathy for other people tends to get under my skin, and thats before we get into slaughtering a possibly sentient endangered species because they're apparently delicious. ;)

Unfortunately, there is a good chance that I'm lowering the level of discourse.

[gorfle]

40. Are you saying their hunting is illegal?

I was under the impression that this was legal hunting.

[sudopod]

42. They don't get hauled into court because they claim the whales

are taken for "research," and are only sold for meat afterward, though if anyone can point out what they've researched other than how tasty whales are I'll be damn shocked. Thank god they don't "research" lions and california condors this way.

[gorfle]

46. so is what they are doing illegal or not?

My understanding is that what they are doing is currently legal. Is this correct?

[sudopod]

47. Was Bush's election in 2000 legal?

It depends on your value of legal.

[gorfle]

48. Don't change the subject.

Is what the Japanese whalers presently doing legal or not?

[Number9Dream]

52. Many nations think they're whaling in whale sanctuaries

Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and many others believe that Japan is illegally whaling in recognized whale sanctuaries. Australia has made idle threats regarding enforcement, but hasn't found the spine to back their threats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_australia_japan_whaling

In addition... "...evidence that meat from endangered species of whales can be found in Japanese markets was presented by New Zealand researchers at the meeting of the Scientific Committee. Results from DNA tests on whale meat showed that endangered sei, humpback, and fin whales are making their way to the Japanese public for sale as food."

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/evidence_of_endangered_whale_meat_in_japan_underscores_need_for_commercial_whaling_moratorium.html

[gorfle]

61. Was the ship in question in a recognized whale sanctuary? n/t.

.

[sudopod]

55. How did I change the subject? I answered your question.

It isn't black and white. The Japanese authorities say it is, but they clearly have a conflict of interest, much like certain supreme court justices did in Bush v. Gore, but in Japan those authorities have the final say in what is "legal" and what isn't.

As far as international law is concerned, catching and killing endangered species of whale for resale is illegal. Taking animals for research isn't. So the whalers renamed their company "Institute of Cetacean Research," though I'd bet all the tea in China that no one can find a link to a journal that has anything they've ever published scientifically. There's currently a great deal of legal wrangling going on to determine if this is, in fact, following the letter of the law even if it clearly violates the spirit. They don't need an answer, though, they just need enough uncertainty and doubt to keep the navies of the world from shooing them off.

Look, there's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but defending this shit edges into contrarianism for its own sake. That way lies madness.

[gorfle]

63. Because you answered a question with an unrelated question.

The Japanese authorities say it is

As far as international law is concerned, catching and killing endangered species of whale for resale is illegal. Taking animals for research isn't

So according to both Japanese and international law, this whaling ship was not violating the law, right?

The correct solution to this problem is to change the law to outlaw whaling. Until then, I have no sympathy for folks who get their boats run over by whalers. Even if they were breaking the law, this is vigilantism. Sometimes I sympathize with the cause of vigilantes. But it's hard to feel sorry for them when the tables turn on them.

[sudopod]

90. By that same logic

no one should have felt sympathy for civil rights protesters being prosecuted for breaking Jim Crow laws.

Also, way to cherry pick quotes. The legality (with respect to international law) of the whalers actions is NOT certain, and you no way addressed the analogy to Bush v Gore.

Why is it so important to you to pooh pooh these protesters, anyway?

[sudopod]

95. bump

in case the system hiccupped.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7423555&mesg_id=7425129

[ZombieHorde]

84. Whaling is legal for some countries but not others.

Many countries whale, including the U.S., Greenland, and Norway.


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

[Generic Other]

94. There is an international moratorium on hunting whales

so they claim they are not commercially hunting them, merely doing research.

Same way we always claim our invasions of other countries are not aggression.

[groundloop]

16. "Legal Trade" - that'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic

Whaling has been outlawed for years. It's just a matter of time befor the Japanese whaling industry loses their ass in the laughable claim that they're doing "research".

[glitch]

17. +12,000 (as in whales a year needed for "research"). Uh huh. nt

[Ignis]

24. They're researching how to keep a dead industry afloat. (nt)

[gorfle]

41. Were they acting legally or not?

Yes, I realize that they are playing games with the wording, but my impression is that what the Japanese are currently doing is legal. Are you saying it is not?

[whopis01]

96. It is not legal.

As you correctly stated earlier in the thread:
"As far as international law is concerned, catching and killing endangered species of whale for resale is illegal. Taking animals for research isn't."

The Japanese ship was taking the whale for resale. The ship was operating in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. This was clearly an illegal whaling operation.

Some make the argument that since the Shonan Maru 2 is operated by the Institute for Cetacean Research, that its actions are protected under the International Whaling Commission's 1986 moratorium. However, this institute does resell the whale meat. If they were to use the whale carcasses for research and dispose of the waste when they were done, everything would be legal. But that is not the case - they resell the meat - which means that the ship is taking the whales for resale, which is in violation of the IWC.

[kristopher]

88. No it hasn't.

A moratorium (by its nature temporary) is in effect. The antiwhaling advocates brought in nonwhaling nations as members (yes I know the Japanese did this too, but the antiwhaling group did it first) to stack the deck at the International Whaling Commission. They have since managed to reject the type of evidence that the IWC had developed to evaluate whale populations for sustainable harvesting. The data clearly shows that such harvesting is possible, but the antiwhaling nations have ensured the moratorium is kept in place in spite of the scientific evidence. In other words, we cheated first.

Whaling is a barbaric practice, but you aren't going to bully the Japanese into stopping - they'd lose too much face. If you are a supporter of
Watson you are supporting actions that make the problem worse.

[The Stranger]

35. It is one thing to see equivalent actions by both sides as equally unacceptable.

But you side exclusively with and defend the group that is destroying endangered species. And you condemn the group that is trying to save endangered species.

Did you get lost somehow?

[gorfle]

43. Nope.

As I understand it, endangered species or no, what the Japanese are doing is currently legal.

Consequently, I have no sympathy for the folks who got their boats chopped in half by the people trying to earn a living doing something that is currently legal.

[arikara]

101. Unreal...

so in your opinion, artificial laws created by corrupt, greedy men take precedence over endangered sentient beings. That's if in fact what they are doing IS "legal", which I highly doubt.

[arcadian]

71. Something tells me you personally have little sympathy for the environmentalists anywhere.

[petronius]

105. Shiver me timbers! The black spot!

:rofl:

[Bonobo]

15. Why did the Ady Gil have arrows on their ship?

http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img207.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/whalers-now-claim-ady-gil-was-armed/story-e6frg6nf-1225817485505

Must be for that "non-violence" they brag about.

[Iggo]

26. I heard they had knives, too.

And some of 'em had very sharp teeth.

Sounds nefarious to me, it does.

[Bonobo]

30. You're right. The arrows were probably just for archery practice on their days off. nt

[The Stranger]

38. You're kidding, right? Arrows?

Arrows are supposed to constitute "violence"?

What is this -- the year 1510? Give me a break.

[Bonobo]

39. Well what were they for then? Seriously? nt

[spoony]

54. What do you think they were for?

Do you think arrows are desirable weapons against a giant whaling ship? I've watched SS and they are never in a position where a shot with an arrow could be in any way practical, the distances, presumable target, and movement of the ocean preclude any logical use for them.

[Bonobo]

65. I agree it's weird. But there it is... NT

[Mendocino]

102. I'm sure the whalers would never

resort to planting evidence. Remember they're only there for "research".;-)

[Cherchez la Femme]

100. Are you contending arrows are non-injurious?

Non-lethal, 'nerf' arrows?

I'm 100% against whaling but to discredit arrows is ridiculous. The question is, are they legitimate, i.e. not planted?

Seriously, WTF?

[petronius]

106. My first guess is to put the arrows in the same category as that bullet Watson

was waving around last year - i.e., highly likely to be BS. However, even if they were from the Gil I'd bet they were there as playthings, like how people hit golfballs off of cruise ships (at least, in the movie they do)...

[fascisthunter]

18. I Hope they Get Nailed!!!!

whales are endangered you bunch of desperate greedy assholes!

[Bustercat]

44. There's a reason for that..

Certain species are endangered. The reason why there was such a push to "Save the Whales" was because it looked like even with normal whaling practices, whale populations were dying out. The real reason for the decline? Soviet Russia saw the rest of the world's compassion and environmental concern, as an opportunity to dominate the resource; they were whaling with huge factory ships in secret with no catch limits, literally killing anything they could get their hands on. Populations have been recovering since then. Research makes sense, if that's all they were doing.

http://www.hsus.org/hsi/oceans/whales/international_whaling_commission/2009/soviet_whaling.html

[ExPatLeftist]

45. Not all species of whale are endangered. Those species most hunted are not endangered. n/t

[GliderGuider]

19. What a hoot!

I haven't had so much fun since the pigs ate my sister. :rofl:

[John Kerry VonErich]

20. It astonishes me.

All those years Paul Watson and the gang ram whaling boats and now one pushes back and they scream bloody murder. And that never occured to them it would happen?!? :eyes:

[GliderGuider]

21. Not me.

This is a PR war. I expect both sides to scream bloody murder about everything that happens.

[spoony]

56. The entire point is to cause problems for the whalers

operational and legal. They aren't surprised by what happened, and they'll use it in every way they can.

[slackmaster]

22. Hilarious!

As if what the Ady Gil was doing - Interfering with the navigation of another vessel on the high seas - was NOT an act of piracy. The charge will get laughed out of court after the captain of the AG tries to explain why he wasn't maintaining a safe distance from the Japanese ship.

[Ready4Change]

29. Anyone have links to a longer video?

The only video clip I've seen was relatively short. Ie: a few seconds before the ram, and as the whaling vessel passed the bat boat. I wanted to see a longer clip, something that would indicate if the whaler altered course to ram, or if the bat boat set itself into the whalers path.

[Dead_Parrot]

62. Try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0ak

[tammywammy]

67. OMG! I hadn't seen that video

The Ady Gil was stopped waaaay out there and the Japanese came right up to them. Fuckers.

[flvegan]

74. That ought to make the apologists STFU, eh?

Hacks.

[Bonobo]

76. Actually quite the reverse. Watch this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQlnBfkophg

Now, if you are being fair, you will admit that the AG guns its motors in the last second or two. It is undeniable.

If you can't admit that, there is no room for discussion.

[flvegan]

77. I won't deny that at the very last moment

with collision inevitable, it appears the Ady Gil does attempt to flee.

Not having been there, I can't say that the LRAD didn't screw with the pilot badly enough for him to have pushed the throttle at that last moment either.

However, there is NO way that the pilot of the Ady Gil, with crew on TOP of the boat not wearing survival suits intentionally collided with that massive ship.

[Bonobo]

78. I agree it would be insane to do it on purpose.

But to me, it is equally insane to suggest that those whalers are trying to kill.

It is NOT normally in the character of most Japanese people to do so.

My honest guess is that they were trying to avoid, and like people that cross the street sometimes bump into each other when trying to get out of the way... they both jigged in the wrong direction and collided.

[flvegan]

81. I don't think that this action is at all indicative of the Japanese people.

However, the whalers have been getting exceedingly more violent over the last couple of seasons. I can tell you I was VERY surprised last year when they aimed their LRAD at the SSCS chopper. And again when they started hurling big chunks of metal at the activists in the Zodiacs. VERY unlike the Japanese to me.

[Bonobo]

82. Well there truly have been growing bad feelings indeed.

You can't really blame the Whalers for feeling that they are under attack, can you?

Still, Fivegan, I really do wish that whaling wasn't happening. And I really, really feel that this is a bad approach if you want it to stop.

Japanese are like anyone else. Force their backs against a wall and they get very defensive and ultimately aggressive too.

[flvegan]

86. The difference to me is that SSCS hasn't intentionally tried to harm anyone.

But the whalers have gone from defensive to offensive with intent to harm. I understand that the whalers are under intense pressure having lost so much money over the last couple years and definitely have their backs to the wall.

However, I think that this is the only approach that will ultimately work. Relying on governments to do anything about it is never going to amount to anything because the Aussie govt relies on the Japanese importing their goods so heavily. Greenpeace has failed year after year after year to get anything done. They don't even slow them down. The economic destruction of the industry is the only way. Money is all that matters in this case.

[tammywammy]

79. The Japanese ship had plenty of time to manuver away from the Ady GIl

They came up on to them. The Ady Gil was stopped in the water, you can see from the video the Shonan Maru started from way behind. They had ample time to change course to either hit them or not. At the time when Ady Gil stopped they were not engaged in any behavior like throwing the butter acid bottles, etc and the Shonan Maru came up on them with their water cannons and LRAD going and hit them.

[jmowreader]

93. I don't think they actually wanted to release that video

Go to 0.32 and stop motion. You will see, from left:

Ady Gil's starboard heat exchanger
Pete's head
The Japanese ship way off in the distance
Another crewman whose name we don't ever hear

Using this, the Japanese ship was approaching Ady Gil from the rear on the starboard side. Further, the Japanese ship seems to have been on a course parallel to Ady Gil--look at the port-side sponson; it's aligned with the path of the Japanese whaler.

According to the video shot off the Japanese ship, Ady Gil was sitting at about a 60 degree angle to the Japanese ship. Also, the video Bob Barker shot shows Ady Gil sitting at an angle. So why the disparity?

This also conflicts with the extended-length disco version of the Japanese video, which shows Ady Gil approaching from the port side, cutting off the Japanese ship and roaring into the side of the Japanese ship. That one I don't think is cut together--the other video of Ady Gil harassing a Japanese whaler shows her using an Argon laser to attempt to blind the crew. Argon lasers can cause PERMANENT blindness; These lasers are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions (http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm) but they seem to be okay to use against whalers.

Here's what I consider somewhat strange: Paul Watson considers himself a pirate then starts screaming piracy? This is the fucker who (re)invented tree spiking (which is enough to put him permanently on my shit list) and claims to have sunk three ships.

[Robb]

97. Hm. Interesting observations.

I hadn't heard about the tree spiking. I found one link about it.

I have particularly nasty thoughts about what should happen to people who do that.

[girl gone mad]

103. The article you linked to is full of sleazy, fact-free accusations..

The writer blames illegal immigrants for depleted resources, says Bush is an idiot for supporting amnesty because "Mexicans will just vote Democrat anyway" and says Greenpeace is a leftist terrorist group. Maybe not a good idea to believe all of his claims about Watson.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. 0.32 is too early in the video to matter

At that point, the Ady Gil has a fair amount of forward speed. But at about 0.50, they throttle right down, until the engine is idling, and the boat loses way. By 2.20, the Japanese ship is off the port quarter of the Ady Gil, and pointing across (bow to the right of the picture - you get a good view of the side of the ship). The Japanese ship turns to approach the Ady Gil, which has almost no speed in the water. Only at the last second does the Ady Gil accelerate - but it had to do something to get some way to be able to steer. The only altetrnative was to wait stock still and see if the Japanese ship rammed it.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

31. Brave souls

The crew of the Ady Gil are brave souls indeed. What a wonderful world it would be if more people were like them.

[Number9Dream]

36. United Nations definition of piracy

Piracy, in contradistinction, according to article 101 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is defined as:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. Any act inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/definitions/

"An act of violence, on the high seas, against another ship or against persons..."

This is wide open to interpretation.

I'm curious to see if the Australian Government might use this latest incident to finally back up their idle threats against the Japanese.

[Spoonman]

53. People in glass houses.....

The SS people are guilty of "Piracy" on dozens of documented (aired world wide) cases by this definition.

The SS group needs to spine up and take their lumps. It’s a Whale WAR, and they have to take the same as they dish out!

It’s like taking on the neighborhood bully. If you want the glory, be ready to get your ass kicked in the process.

My message to Paul Watson:
Stop crying like a fucking pussy and fight back! (Harpoon a few holes in their boats!)

[Goldstein1984]

110. "...committed for private ends ...

I think one could successfully argue that protecting whales is not done "for private ends." SSCS bases their actions in the language of the treaty banning commercial whaling, which does not limit enforcement of the treaty to nation states.

The whalers, on the other hand, sell the meat of the whales they take. Their activities, and the aggressive acts they engage in to defend their activities, could easily be argued to be "for private ends."

Thus, without private ends as a goal, and operating as enforcers of a treaty within the language of the treaty, nothing the SSCS does to the Japanese whaling fleet is piracy, but all aggressive actions taken against SSCS by the Japanese whaling fleet do meet the definition of piracy.

I'm all for what Watson and SSCS are doing. I believe they are doing more than just protecting an order of marine mammals, they are defending intelligent social animals from a barbaric and anachronistic practice.

[flvegan]

58. Good. Rightfully so.

[tammywammy]

70. Did you see the video in #62? n/t

[MoonRiver]

69. I wish I could recommend this 1,000 times!

Go Sea Sheperd, protector of the magnificent sentient innocents! :loveya:

[tekisui]

80. Good! I like the SS boldness.

[Omaha Steve]

99. The Voyage Home

I'm waiting for Admiral Kirk to take ALL the whales to a safer time and place.

OS

[Kolesar]

111. I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space

"actually"
That was a great script.