Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 3 votes

Sea Shepherd announces Operation Relentless


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#16    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:11 PM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.


#17    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:17 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 30 May 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

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.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#18    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostPapagiorgio, on 30 May 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

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.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#19    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:37 AM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.


Quote

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.



Quote

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

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.


Quote

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;
( B) 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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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 by aquatus1, 31 May 2013 - 02:54 AM.


#20    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,545 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:39 AM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.
Posted Image
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 by psyche101, 31 May 2013 - 03:24 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#21    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:54 AM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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 by aquatus1, 31 May 2013 - 02:55 AM.


#22    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 04:06 AM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.


#23    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 04:57 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 31 May 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

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.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#24    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:05 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 31 May 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

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.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#25    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:10 AM

"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.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#26    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,545 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:18 AM

View PostYamato, on 31 May 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

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.


It is more important to you so that you can keep your TV show. It is not important to Whaling, it is not wanted by the IRC, and we Aussies don't want Watson around either. Watson relies on a layman's view, and that is the secret of his success.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#27    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:47 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 31 May 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

It is more important to you so that you can keep your TV show. It is not important to Whaling, it is not wanted by the IRC, and we Aussies don't want Watson around either. Watson relies on a layman's view, and that is the secret of his success.
After all of this discourse and I don't even talk about the TV show.   My support does not depend on a TV show.  I already know about Sea Shepherd.  It's the people who don't who the TV show reaches.  That's a powerful weapon in this war against illegal Japanese whalers and probably why you're ranting about it in every reply.  

What evidence do you have for what "we Aussies" want?   A UMR poll of Australians showed that 94% of Australians oppose Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.  You aren't one of those people and your prior comments prove it.   And now your country is taking Japan to court, but I can't even get you to rub two words together in a complete sentence in agreement with that either.   It's a bitter pill living in the 6%, isn't it.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#28    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,425 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:19 AM

Just as an FYI, to make posts a little more manageable:

How to Quote

Ignore the "*" in the following commands (they are just there to keep the command form activating):

[*quote]This is in Quotes.[/*quote]

Everything between the start command [*quote] and the end command [/*quote] will be in a quotation box (again, omit the asterisk when typing this out).  Note that the end command has a "/" preceeding the command.

So, the above, typed without the asterisks, would result in this:

Quote

This is in Quotes.

When you reply, the server will automatically place the entire post you are quoting in quote marks.  If you are going to split it up, you just have to make sure every section you isolate begins and ends with the proper command.  This makes it much easier to reply to individual points within a single post.

Incidentally, this works with the commands "b" for bold, "i" for italics, and "u" for underline.  In the tool bar in the Reply box, you will see the options available as well; all you have to do is highlight something you want to affect and click on the right button, and the computer will automatically bookend the highlighted section with the command you have chosen.


#29    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:39 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 31 May 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Just as an FYI, to make posts a little more manageable:

How to Quote

Ignore the "*" in the following commands (they are just there to keep the command form activating):

[*quote]This is in Quotes.[/*quote]

Everything between the start command [*quote] and the end command [/*quote] will be in a quotation box (again, omit the asterisk when typing this out).  Note that the end command has a "/" preceeding the command.

So, the above, typed without the asterisks, would result in this:



When you reply, the server will automatically place the entire post you are quoting in quote marks.  If you are going to split it up, you just have to make sure every section you isolate begins and ends with the proper command.  This makes it much easier to reply to individual points within a single post.

Incidentally, this works with the commands "b" for bold, "i" for italics, and "u" for underline.  In the tool bar in the Reply box, you will see the options available as well; all you have to do is highlight something you want to affect and click on the right button, and the computer will automatically bookend the highlighted section with the command you have chosen.
It's easier for me to do it the way I did it due to your lengthy word counts.   It's easier for you to do it the way you're explaining above.

Right now I've got to go with what's easier for me, sorry about that.  ;)

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#30    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,545 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 31 May 2013 - 07:13 AM

View PostYamato, on 31 May 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

After all of this discourse and I don't even talk about the TV show.   My support does not depend on a TV show.  I already know about Sea Shepherd.  It's the people who don't who the TV show reaches.  That's a powerful weapon in this war against illegal Japanese whalers and probably why you're ranting about it in every reply.  

What's the thread title Yam?

What are all your other whale threads about Yam? It's not a powerful weapon it's a PITA.

You are wrong about the boundaries, you are wrong about the laws, you refuse to accept the the US holds responsibility for the situation. BTW Yam, that is who should be apologising to Japan, and what would end this. The Sea Shepherd wont.

View PostYamato, on 31 May 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

What evidence do you have for what "we Aussies" want?   A UMR poll of Australians showed that 94% of Australians oppose Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.  You aren't one of those people and your prior comments prove it.   And now your country is taking Japan to court, but I can't even get you to rub two words together in a complete sentence in agreement with that either.   It's a bitter pill living in the 6%, isn't it.

Me, I am an Aussie, are you? I oppose whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary too Yam, that's the bit you keep missing. I do not support terrorism or piracy and never will. That is where we part ways. Aquatus1 explained the court situation to you in better terms than I did. How can you still not understand it? 31st May today Yam. Hows that case going?

What you have shown is that you do not understand a single thing I have said. But being blinded by Watson's rhetoric will do that.

Edited by psyche101, 31 May 2013 - 07:14 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users