Sea Shepherd announces Operation Relentless

[Yamato]

The battle against poaching whales in a whale sanctuary pits Sea Shepherd the pirates of compassion against the Japanese government the pirates of profit.

I'd rather save the dying oceans than feed a tiny minority of Japanese people heavy-metal laden subsidy-meat.

[Kowalski]

Well, you don't want to hunt an animal down to extinction.

[spud the mackem]

Why don't Japanese people recognise that whales are becoming extinct,surely they aren't that thick, this also happens in the Atlantic by the people who live on the Azores Islands during the whale migration season.The Japanese also have Dolphin round ups.No one except Greenpeace seems bothered about it.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No one except Greenpeace seems bothered about it.

It's because Jay-Zee has a new album out and Angelina just had a double masecetomy - there's more important things to talk about man!

I love people, it's humanity I can't stand.

Anywho ... irrespective of their rights to hunt whales (for any reason) it's illegal to do so in a whale sanctuary. It's like hunting deer in a wildlife park.

[Kowalski]

Anywho ... irrespective of their rights to hunt whales (for any reason) it's illegal to do so in a whale sanctuary. It's like hunting deer in a wildlife park.

That's just not right, at all....

Edited May 29, 2013 by Kowalski

[psyche101]

What a bunch of morons. Year after the year, the same crap, and Japan keeps whaling. But the Whale Wars ratings go up.

When the International Whaling Commission says "You are not helping, please go away" it's time to have a second look at these tactics that are only making the deaths slow and painful.

Maybe this year throwing stinky butter might work though...................

[psyche101]

Why don't Japanese people recognise that whales are becoming extinct,surely they aren't that thick, this also happens in the Atlantic by the people who live on the Azores Islands during the whale migration season.The Japanese also have Dolphin round ups.No one except Greenpeace seems bothered about it.

They do, the argument is political. The only hope is at the negotiation table, not throwing stinky butter at whaling vessels. Japan agreed to stop whaling in 1986, when the US decided to reduce their fishing grounds they got mad and started whaling again. If the US said sorry, and allowed them to fish enough to compensate, then the problem would just go away. In the meantime, these vigilantes are taking advantage of the situation with a TV show. That's as bad as what the Japanese are doing IMHO.

[Yamato]

Appeasing Japanese government criminals so they don't "get mad" again. Brilliant tactic there.

[aquatus1]

Nowhere near as brilliant as sponsoring a bunch of idiots to crash into fuel ships in the fragile Antartic ecosystem.

Hey! Let's blow up the valley in order to save it!

[Yamato]

Nowhere near as brilliant as sponsoring a bunch of idiots to crash into fuel ships in the fragile Antartic ecosystem.

Hey! Let's blow up the valley in order to save it!

They were physically blocking the transfer of fuel just like they physically block the transfer of whales. That's their job. They're not there to protest, paint rainbows, take pictures, and then go rant on their blogs about it. This is civil action in the form of law enforcement, not a protest. Sea Shepherd didn't write the World Charter for Nature. If there's going to be limits on who can enforce laws on the high seas, then amend the Charter by specifying who that is (a very entertaining proposition for us to see governments of the world have to grovel with, incidentally). Until then, Sea Shepherd is following both the spirit and letter of the law on the high seas with its law enforcement actions.

If the law was on Japan's side they'd have already been taking Sea Shepherd to court 10 years ago. This is Sea Shepherd's 10th Antarctic season already. Japan doesn't want this to go to court that's why it's the one being dragged there now by Australia.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Yamato

[aquatus1]

They were physically blocking the transfer of fuel just like they physically block the transfer of whales.

They were also crashing into it, in seperate instances, with no ship to block.

Not that it makes a difference. After all, physically blocking the transfer of a whale doesn't run the risk of a fuel spill in the Antarctic.

That's their job.

They suck at it.

They're not there to protest, paint rainbows, take pictures, and then go rant on their blogs about it.

Nah, they're there to endanger the entire ecosystem.

This is civil action in the form of law enforcement, not a protest.

Except that they are on the wrong side of the law. And I agree, it isn't a protest. It is an assault.

Sea Shepherd didn't write the World Charter for Nature.

Good. I wouldn't trust these idiots to write a shopping list.

If there's going to be limits on who can enforce laws on the high seas, then amend the Charter by specifying who that is (a very entertaining proposition for us to see governments of the world have to grovel with, incidentally). Until then, Sea Shepherd is following both the spirit and letter of the law on the high seas with its law enforcement actions.

Why would anything have to be re-written? The limits and actions of who can do what is already pretty well defined, and the Sea Shepherd is on the loosing side of it.

If the law was on Japan's side they'd have already been taking Sea Shepherd to court 10 years ago.

Well, not everyone considers it their duty to board other ships and perform idiotic civilian arrests. Some are willing to follow the laws the world agrees on, and not descend into vigilantism.

This is Sea Shepherd's 10th Antarctic season already.

Yeah, they suck at their job.

Japan doesn't want this to go to court...

Umm...duh?

Who would?

that's why it's the one being dragged there now by Australia.

Ooh...you think Australia is pursuing action against Japan...

That's cute.

[Yamato]

On the wrong side of what law?

I know Australia is pursuing action against Japan and just started a discussion in the 'Natural World' forum about it. Maybe you'd like to deny it's happening in the discussion there.

[psyche101]

Appeasing Japanese government criminals so they don't "get mad" again. Brilliant tactic there.

What happened last time we cheesed them off?

Off that's right, they decided to find a loophole in the moratorium and went back to whaling.

Lets do that again...... hey wait........... what........

On the wrong side of what law?

I know Australia is pursuing action against Japan and just started a discussion in the 'Natural World' forum about it. Maybe you'd like to deny it's happening in the discussion there.

I sure hope he does.

[Yamato]

What happened last time we cheesed them off?

Off that's right, they decided to find a loophole in the moratorium and went back to whaling.

Lets do that again...... hey wait........... what........

I sure hope he does.

They can't think of loopholes unless they're cheesed off? Doubtful.

And they never "went back to whaling" because they've whaled every single year since the global moratorium began. I call yet another baseless claim. What evidence do you have that Japan decided to stop whaling for any length of time?

[Papagiorgio]

Maybe the Sea Shepherd and it's crew should concern themselves with the pollution that China and the United States pump into the oceans on a daily basis. We are probably responsible for more whale deaths than the whaling done by the Japanese, the Azores, and the Faroe Islands added up. I guess that doesn't make good T.V. though.

[aquatus1]

On the wrong side of what law?

The one about ramming ships over and over again, and the one about interfering with a ship in the process of refueling.

I know Australia is pursuing action against Japan and just started a discussion in the 'Natural World' forum about it. Maybe you'd like to deny it's happening in the discussion there.

I didn't say it was happening. I said (implied, whatever) that Australia wasn't "dragging" Japan to court, heck, or even "pursuing" it all that eagerly.

[Yamato]

The one about ramming ships over and over again, and the one about interfering with a ship in the process of refueling.

I didn't say it was happening. I said (implied, whatever) that Australia wasn't "dragging" Japan to court, heck, or even "pursuing" it all that eagerly.

That process of refueling was in violation of the Antarctic treaty. What law are you talking about? Is it illegal to break the speed limit? Crash into other cars? Make illegal turns? Drive on the wrong side of the road? Not in the act of law enforcement. You must be able to show me the law that Sea Shepherd doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. I can show you the law that says they do. Now if you don't like that law, complain about the law and get it amended, and until such time the law is on Sea Shepherd's side. Thanks for playing.

You didn't say it was happening, that's right. I did. You denied it was happening, and now know better.

[Yamato]

Maybe the Sea Shepherd and it's crew should concern themselves with the pollution that China and the United States pump into the oceans on a daily basis. We are probably responsible for more whale deaths than the whaling done by the Japanese, the Azores, and the Faroe Islands added up. I guess that doesn't make good T.V. though.

Maybe Sea Shepherd should have a trillion dollars so they can afford to do everything anyone can think of that they're not already doing.

Why claim that Sea Shepherd isn't concerned themselves about pollution? In a word, ignorance.

[aquatus1]

That process of refueling was in violation of the Antarctic treaty.

Oddly enough, even if this were true, which is not a given, it still does not keep ramming ships (especially fuel ships in fragile eco-systems) from being illegal. In fact, it actually highlights the utter stupidity of the action; the purpose of any law regarding fueling in any area would be presumably to prevent spillage in that area, a purpose which is utterly defeated if one insists on defending the point by ramming the vessel containing the fuel. Nor, for that matter, does it address the times that the Sea Shepherds ships rammed other vessels.

An actual, premeditated, publicly announced, maritime crime was committed against vessels that may, or may not have violated fishing treaties. One is considered a crime right up their with murder, the other merits a heavy fine.

But hey, please, feel free to quote what treaty violation was broken, and please do make sure to show how it applies. Don't do anything sneaky, like pretend that there aren't specifically defined fuel types allowed or not allowed, or anything like.

What law are you talking about?

Seriously? You are going to imply that ramming ships isn't illegal? Or that violently interfering with refueling operations is okay? That's getting a little silly, but then most of the arguments supporting the Sea Shepherd tend toward that anyway. Since you asked...

Asides from it being a tradition for several millenia that intentionally ramming a ship into the side of another is a freaking act of aggression, many nations have codified their traditional Laws of the Sea, many of which (since pretty much all of them agreed on similar points anyway, such as "don't ram your ship into the side of another one to express disagreement, son"), the UN decided to get a whole bunch of these together and create a one-stop shop known as the:

UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982

Which united the codes from several countries, including:

• Charter of the United Nations, 1945
  
• Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958
  
• Convention on the High Seas, 1958
  
• Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958
  
• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
  
• International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 1979
  
• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution form Ships, 1973 (MARPOL)
  
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
  

Unsurprisingly, all the codes have a section on crimes at sea, or as it's known in the biz, Piracy.

Article100

Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy

All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.

Article101

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;

( 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;

© any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (

Do we need to break that down any further? Do we need to define that intentionally ramming a ship into another constitutes an act of violence against the other ship?

How about the refueling thing? That can't be a real crime, right? That's a modern thing, and pirates are old-timey, Johnny Depp, yo-ho-ho, not-really real things, right?

Nope, that's a crime too. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, under rules 9, 10, 13, and 18, define how vessels are supposed to act when in collision situations. Putting aside the common sense Law of Mass Tonnage because common sense and the Sea Shepherd crew...anyways, at sea, unsurprisingly, there are actual rules of the road, rules that one has to follow when one is navigating in order to avoid collisions.

Is it illegal to break the speed limit? Crash into other cars? Make illegal turns? Drive on the wrong side of the road?

Ahh...okay, well reference the common sense thing...

Moving on, rules 9,10, 13, and 18 define the act of overtaking and crossing, such as vessels overtaking must give way to the vessel being overtaken, vessels crossing must give way to vessels on the starboard side, (Oh! and vessels must give way when their course puts other vessels in danger of collision, but that's kind of obvious...right, common sense, nevermind), but the one that is relevant here (which is not to say that the Sea Shepherd hasn't violated all the other ones repeatedly, proudly, and publicly, to the point of publishing videos of themselves commiting their crimes) is the one about interfering with vessels under restricted maneuverability, of which a vessel attempting at sea refueling most certainly qualifies. Not just qualifies actually, but tends to be weighted a bit more heavily, considering that we are actually talking about intentionally risking significant amounts of highly dangerous liquids being spilled into the ocean, something that has its own set of articles and crimes associated with it.

Not in the act of law enforcement.

Actually, yes, breaking laws that would be classified as felonies (intentionally crashing into other cars), misdemeanors (breaking the speed limit), or infractions (making illegal turns) in the attempt to enforce the law of...poaching, I guess...is illegal. Whether a jury decides to aquit (or more likely, waive or qualify) the penalties is another matter, however when we are talking about a definite felony (jail time) vs. at most a misdemeanor (forfeiture of license and fines) particularly when the defendant shows that they do actually have permits and permission from the relevant agency, the law favors the people with the proper paperwork in place over the vigilantes that put peoples lives at risk and the evironment in danger.

You must be able to show me the law that Sea Shepherd doesn't have the authority to enforce the law.

I must show you that the Sea Shepherd doesn't have the right to ram other vessels, bombard them with bottles of acid, risk a major fuel spill in a fragile ecosystem, and endanger not just a few dozen human lives, but several the thousands of wildlife in the area?

Well, okay...most people would take it as a given, but never let it be said that I am not willing to back up my claims when requested.

Article111

Right of hot pursuit

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.

4. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of its boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a mother ship is within the limits of the territorial sea, or, as the case may be, within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone or above the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.

5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

6. Where hot pursuit is effected by an aircraft:

(a) the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis;

( the aircraft giving the order to stop must itself actively pursue the ship until a ship or another aircraft of the coastal State, summoned by the aircraft, arrives to take over the pursuit, unless the aircraft is itself able to arrest the ship. It does not suffice to justify an arrest outside the territorial sea that the ship was merely sighted by the aircraft as an offender or suspected offender, if it was not both ordered to stop and pursued by the aircraft itself or other aircraft or ships which continue the pursuit without interruption.

7. The release of a ship arrested within the jurisdiction of a State and escorted to a port of that State for the purposes of an inquiry before the competent authorities may not be claimed solely on the ground that the ship, in the course of its voyage, was escorted across a portion of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, if the circumstances rendered this necessary.

8. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.

Being that no Sea Shepherd ship is a military craft or warcraft (although I can see them claiming to be one sooo easily...would literally laugh myself silly hearing that!), nor a government ship, nor clearly (or at all, for that matter) authorized to do so, and most certainly not anything even remotely classified as a "competent authority" (or competent anything), the Sea Shepherd is not authorized to enforce the law.

Nor, for that matter, would it be authorized to break laws in the pursuit of enforcing law in any case.

I can show you the law that says they do.

By all means, do so. I certainly would have, prior to demanding anyone show me a source for their claim.

Now if you don't like that law, complain about the law and get it amended, and until such time the law is on Sea Shepherd's side. Thanks for playing.

What law? Playing what? Imaginary ball?

You didn't say it was happening, that's right. I did. You denied it was happening, and now know better.

Nope, didn't do that either. Australia is neither dragging nor pursuing Japan to court with any real sincerity at all. The last thing it wants is to go to court. Their entire case hinges on an assumption that Australia has repeatedly posed to the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has nodded, rolled their eyes, and changed the subject. If Australia went to court, a final, binding decision would have to be made on that topic, and Australia knows full well where they would end up at the end of that decision.

But you have to keep the masses happy, so you engage in a bit of sleight-of-hand. Go through the motions, and then ensure nothing will happen for several years, until everyone has quieted down again. Or, alternatively, you can consider it a coincidence that it took Australia 2 years to file the paperwork, at which time New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention, which took the court more time, and which even now, three years later, they are barely at the oral hearing stage. It's up to one's individual perception, I suppose.

Incidentally, the charges have nothing to do with any laws being broken. But you know that, right? You know better? You aren't just kind of hoping no one actually read the charge?

Edited May 31, 2013 by aquatus1

[psyche101]

They can't think of loopholes unless they're cheesed off? Doubtful.

And they never "went back to whaling" because they've whaled every single year since the global moratorium began. I call yet another baseless claim. What evidence do you have that Japan decided to stop whaling for any length of time?

I have given you this information several times now.

At the end of 1984, a coalition of environmental groups initiated a lawsuit aimed at forcing Ronald Reagan's administration to invoke Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly against Japan.

But in bilateral discussions, the two governments reached an agreement. Japan would cease whaling in 1988, two years beyond the moratorium date, and withdraw its objection; in return, Ronald Reagan's administration agreed not to take action under Packwood-Magnuson or Pelly.

Again, it seemed that an end to Japanese whaling was in sight. However, the court action continued, the NGOs claiming the administration had no right to make a deal with Japan.

Eventually, in June 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the administration. The deal, apparently, was sealed; in return for keeping its fishing nets full, Japan would hang up its harpoons for good.

The next month, Japan formally withdrew its objection to the whaling moratorium.

LINK

Please bother to read the link.

Edited May 31, 2013 by psyche101

[aquatus1]

They can't think of loopholes unless they're cheesed off? Doubtful.

More that they wouldn't have been so motivated to find a loophole if they hadn't been stabbed in the back so readily.

And they never "went back to whaling" because they've whaled every single year since the global moratorium began. I call yet another baseless claim. What evidence do you have that Japan decided to stop whaling for any length of time?

True, Japan never did stop whaling completely.

Of course, this is not to say that Japan did not keep its end of the mafioso offer-you-can't-refuse from the US.

Japan whaling since 1985

When you go from over 18,000 whales in 3 years to a yearly catch between 300 and 400 for the next 6 years, that's called "Spirit of Agreement", unlike the US threat to cut off Alaskan fishing if Japan didn't withdraw its objection to the moritorium (called "Extortion"), and the subsequent cutting off of Alaskan fishing after Japan withdrew its objection later that year (called "A Dick Move").

Edited May 31, 2013 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

Maybe Sea Shepherd should have a trillion dollars so they can afford to do everything anyone can think of that they're not already doing.

They cause quite enough trouble with the millions they are getting now, thank you very much.

Why claim that Sea Shepherd isn't concerned themselves about pollution? In a word, ignorance.

The whole, "Let's scuttle our own oil/toxics-laden ship in a fragile ecosystem and blame it on someone else" thing and the "Let's ram the ship full of fuel oil; there's no way that can go wrong!" tactics didn't help much either.

[Yamato]

Oddly enough, even if this were true, which is not a given, it still does not keep ramming ships (especially fuel ships in fragile eco-systems) from being illegal. In fact, it actually highlights the utter stupidity of the action; the purpose of any law regarding fueling in any area would be presumably to prevent spillage in that area, a purpose which is utterly defeated if one insists on defending the point by ramming the vessel containing the fuel. Nor, for that matter, does it address the times that the Sea Shepherds ships rammed other vessels.

An actual, premeditated, publicly announced, maritime crime was committed against vessels that may, or may not have violated fishing treaties. One is considered a crime right up their with murder, the other merits a heavy fine.

But hey, please, feel free to quote what treaty violation was broken, and please do make sure to show how it applies. Don't do anything sneaky, like pretend that there aren't specifically defined fuel types allowed or not allowed, or anything like.

Seriously? You are going to imply that ramming ships isn't illegal? Or that violently interfering with refueling operations is okay? That's getting a little silly, but then most of the arguments supporting the Sea Shepherd tend toward that anyway. Since you asked...

Asides from it being a tradition for several millenia that intentionally ramming a ship into the side of another is a freaking act of aggression, many nations have codified their traditional Laws of the Sea, many of which (since pretty much all of them agreed on similar points anyway, such as "don't ram your ship into the side of another one to express disagreement, son"), the UN decided to get a whole bunch of these together and create a one-stop shop known as the:

UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982

Which united the codes from several countries, including:

• Charter of the United Nations, 1945
  
• Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958
  
• Convention on the High Seas, 1958
  
• Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958
  
• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
  
• International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 1979
  
• International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution form Ships, 1973 (MARPOL)
  
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
  

Unsurprisingly, all the codes have a section on crimes at sea, or as it's known in the biz, Piracy.

Do we need to break that down any further? Do we need to define that intentionally ramming a ship into another constitutes an act of violence against the other ship?

How about the refueling thing? That can't be a real crime, right? That's a modern thing, and pirates are old-timey, Johnny Depp, yo-ho-ho, not-really real things, right?

Nope, that's a crime too. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, under rules 9, 10, 13, and 18, define how vessels are supposed to act when in collision situations. Putting aside the common sense Law of Mass Tonnage because common sense and the Sea Shepherd crew...anyways, at sea, unsurprisingly, there are actual rules of the road, rules that one has to follow when one is navigating in order to avoid collisions.

Ahh...okay, well reference the common sense thing...

Moving on, rules 9,10, 13, and 18 define the act of overtaking and crossing, such as vessels overtaking must give way to the vessel being overtaken, vessels crossing must give way to vessels on the starboard side, (Oh! and vessels must give way when their course puts other vessels in danger of collision, but that's kind of obvious...right, common sense, nevermind), but the one that is relevant here (which is not to say that the Sea Shepherd hasn't violated all the other ones repeatedly, proudly, and publicly, to the point of publishing videos of themselves commiting their crimes) is the one about interfering with vessels under restricted maneuverability, of which a vessel attempting at sea refueling most certainly qualifies. Not just qualifies actually, but tends to be weighted a bit more heavily, considering that we are actually talking about intentionally risking significant amounts of highly dangerous liquids being spilled into the ocean, something that has its own set of articles and crimes associated with it.

Actually, yes, breaking laws that would be classified as felonies (intentionally crashing into other cars), misdemeanors (breaking the speed limit), or infractions (making illegal turns) in the attempt to enforce the law of...poaching, I guess...is illegal. Whether a jury decides to aquit (or more likely, waive or qualify) the penalties is another matter, however when we are talking about a definite felony (jail time) vs. at most a misdemeanor (forfeiture of license and fines) particularly when the defendant shows that they do actually have permits and permission from the relevant agency, the law favors the people with the proper paperwork in place over the vigilantes that put peoples lives at risk and the evironment in danger.

I must show you that the Sea Shepherd doesn't have the right to ram other vessels, bombard them with bottles of acid, risk a major fuel spill in a fragile ecosystem, and endanger not just a few dozen human lives, but several the thousands of wildlife in the area?

Well, okay...most people would take it as a given, but never let it be said that I am not willing to back up my claims when requested.

Being that no Sea Shepherd ship is a military craft or warcraft (although I can see them claiming to be one sooo easily...would literally laugh myself silly hearing that!), nor a government ship, nor clearly (or at all, for that matter) authorized to do so, and most certainly not anything even remotely classified as a "competent authority" (or competent anything), the Sea Shepherd is not authorized to enforce the law.

Nor, for that matter, would it be authorized to break laws in the pursuit of enforcing law in any case.

By all means, do so. I certainly would have, prior to demanding anyone show me a source for their claim.

What law? Playing what? Imaginary ball?

Nope, didn't do that either. Australia is neither dragging nor pursuing Japan to court with any real sincerity at all. The last thing it wants is to go to court. Their entire case hinges on an assumption that Australia has repeatedly posed to the rest of the world, and the rest of the world has nodded, rolled their eyes, and changed the subject. If Australia went to court, a final, binding decision would have to be made on that topic, and Australia knows full well where they would end up at the end of that decision.

But you have to keep the masses happy, so you engage in a bit of sleight-of-hand. Go through the motions, and then ensure nothing will happen for several years, until everyone has quieted down again. Or, alternatively, you can consider it a coincidence that it took Australia 2 years to file the paperwork, at which time New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention, which took the court more time, and which even now, three years later, they are barely at the oral hearing stage. It's up to one's individual perception, I suppose.

Incidentally, the charges have nothing to do with any laws being broken. But you know that, right? You know better? You aren't just kind of hoping no one actually read the charge?

Being that no Sea Shepherd ship is a military craft or warcraft (although I can see them claiming to be one sooo easily...would literally laugh myself silly hearing that!), nor a government ship, nor clearly (or at all, for that matter) authorized to do so, and most certainly not anything even remotely classified as a "competent authority" (or competent anything), the Sea Shepherd is not authorized to enforce the law.

Right, if it's shiny and grey and from the government, it's here to help, and civil action can't possibly be relied upon to change the world when government fails to take responsibility for itself or for the malfeasance of others. With that kind of attitude having to rely on military force to solve all our problems we wouldn't have evolved as a species. We'd be living in the dark ages, nobody brave enough to sit on a bus, or pee in a white toilet, or go to jail and suffer physically for the right to vote. All great social change through the ages didn't come about because some bureaucrat stood on a podium and took credit for it, it happened because people cared enough to break laws of the day to realize a greater good.

That said, what law is Sea Shepherd breaking? Your definition of piracy fails on line #1. 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. There isn't even an act of violence, much less an illegal act of violence. If Sea Shepherd is "violent" then they would have killed someone by now, much less seriously injured someone which they haven't even done that, in over 36 years of operation. If Sea Shepherd are "violent illegal terrorists", then pull that "law" out and arrest them. Why aren't they sitting in an Australian jail if you're correct and I'm not? The fact that hasn't happened in 10 years of Antarctic campaigns speaks volumes about what "laws" they're not breaking. If you start with that false pretense, then the rest of your analysis goes without saying. But that isn't established, that's just another empty claim.

By all means, do so. I certainly would have, prior to demanding anyone show me a source for their claim.

The World Charter for Nature

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,

international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common

activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and

consultations;

© Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the

conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not

cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the

areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Nope, that's a crime too. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, under rules 9, 10, 13, and 18, define how vessels are supposed to act when in collision situations. Putting aside the common sense Law of Mass Tonnage because common sense and the Sea Shepherd crew...anyways, at sea, unsurprisingly, there are actual rules of the road, rules that one has to follow when one is navigating in order to avoid collisions.

I must show you that the Sea Shepherd doesn't have the right to ram other vessels, bombard them with bottles of acid, risk a major fuel spill in a fragile ecosystem, and endanger not just a few dozen human lives, but several the thousands of wildlife in the area?

Law enforcement agencies don't have "rights", they have powers that they're authorized to use. Yes, you must show me that Sea Shepherd doesn't have the authorization to enforce the law, and the law they're enforcing is a multi-layered geographical and diplomatic ban on Japan's illegal whaling in the Southern Ocean. If ramming vessels in the act of law enforcement is "illegal" then why is ramming ships in the act of illegal fueling and illegal whaling not illegal? This pro-government hypocrisy is getting to be absurd. The conventions you're citing don't solely apply to Sea Shepherd because you don't politically agree with Sea Shepherd.

Actually, yes, breaking laws that would be classified as felonies (intentionally crashing into other cars), misdemeanors (breaking the speed limit), or infractions (making illegal turns) in the attempt to enforce the law of...poaching, I guess...is illegal. Whether a jury decides to aquit (or more likely, waive or qualify) the penalties is another matter, however when we are talking about a definite felony (jail time) vs. at most a misdemeanor (forfeiture of license and fines) particularly when the defendant shows that they do actually have permits and permission from the relevant agency, the law favors the people with the proper paperwork in place over the vigilantes that put peoples lives at risk and the evironment in danger.

Absolutely not. None of those actions are illegal in the act of law enforcement. You can't accept the premise that Sea Shepherd is enforcing the law and so you wind up with word counts like this when law enforcement does not face juries for said actions.

Asides from it being a tradition for several millenia that intentionally ramming a ship into the side of another

That bears no semblance to reality whatever. Physically blocking the illegal transfer of fuel is the intention; that is a non-violent legal method of enforcing the law on the high seas.

But you have to keep the masses happy, so you engage in a bit of sleight-of-hand. Go through the motions, and then ensure nothing will happen for several years, until everyone has quieted down again. Or, alternatively, you can consider it a coincidence that it took Australia 2 years to file the paperwork, at which time New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention, which took the court more time, and which even now, three years later, they are barely at the oral hearing stage. It's up to one's individual perception, I suppose.

It takes a long time for bureaucracy to function. You should check out death row in the US if you think that's a long time in bureau-time.

If any state wants to enforce an embargo or a blockade in international waters, and it responds with deadly violent force, nobody runs and gets these rules out and punishes them for it. Israel's deadly assault on Freedom Flotilla a few years ago is case in point. What you're citing doesn't render anyone a "terrorist" much less a "pirate". You need violence to do that, and you don't have any. What you might have, at the extreme, is the destruction of poaching equipment. You believe that civil society can't enforce the law no matter what, and so you are as government-reliant as the criminal whalers you defend. They'd never get on deck if they weren't being paid with someone else's money, taken by the government by force. Supporting whalers is supporting the destruction of our oceans, the extinction of whale species, the violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling, the violation of the spirit and letter of the World Charter for Nature, the violation of the Whale Sanctuary, the violation of the Antarctic Treaty, the Australian EEZ, the Australian Antarctic Territory. And now they're being taken to court for it as they should.

Governments enforcing their own laws by going to war on each other don't follow rules 9, 10, 13, or 18. The difference between how governments resolve their differences and Sea Shepherd is, governments kill people and Sea Shepherd does not. The entire premise of your argument is invalid. Sea Shepherd is authorized to do what they do, by the letter of the law, and doesn't have to play by a 2nd standard that you have to admit governments are immune to, even though they're not.

If you think they're in the wrong, take them to court, not Japan.

[Yamato]

They cause quite enough trouble with the millions they are getting now, thank you very much.

The whole, "Let's scuttle our own oil/toxics-laden ship in a fragile ecosystem and blame it on someone else" thing and the "Let's ram the ship full of fuel oil; there's no way that can go wrong!" tactics didn't help much either.

I can't think of any other organization that gets the rubber to the road as well as Sea Shepherd. That's why they maintain the highest possible rating on Charity Navigator, unlike less-efficient or perhaps less honest organizations like Greenpeace.

As for the whole "Let's scuttle our own ship and blame it on someone else", I don't know whose blog you're reading or where you get your information but it's nonsense. Cite your source.

[Yamato]

"Don't fire your main guns or anti-ship missiles at that other ship in disagreement, son." Oh whoops, that's a shiny grey battleship from the government, paid for with someone else's money. So it's here to help and thus receives a double standard under the law, and so doesn't have to follow any UN conventions on proper behavior on the sea? Derp!

Sea Shepherd's mission is infinitely more important than silly little war games governments who can't get along with each other incessantly play. That matters to me and so I don't put up with any of this hypocrisy in who gets to play by the 2nd set of rules.