Activist Boards Japanese Whaler

[Razgovory]

So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?

The local authorities in Iceland and Norway will, if they get the chance.

Which makes sense since they all descended from pirates themselves.

[Agelastus]

There is a body of case law according to which you do not need to be acting on behalf of a state in order to act "not for private ends", Agelastus. In general, any political goal that is not associated with personal interest or enrichment has been considered not to constitute piracy. This is similar to a concept of "public interest", which applies to private individuals as well (e.g. journalists acting out of public interest can do more when it comes to violating privacy laws).

Furthermore, based on general rules of legal interpretation, it would be fallacious, imo, to consider "private ends" to encompass anything that is not "done on a public authority". The law on piracy is part of the criminal law, and one of the fundamental rules of criminal law is that it must be interpreted narrowly - any grey areas and ambiguities must be interpreted in favour of the potential perpetrator. So rather than proving the activist was not acting for "public ends", you will have to prove that he was acting for "private ends" - something that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, imo.

If you protest at sea, that is fine. If you place your ship between a whaler and a whale, that is fine. After all, that is no different to a freedom of speech march or a picketing of Huntingdon Life Sciences or Greenham Common.

Hiding acts that endanger human life behind a facade of "preventing cruelty to animals" (which is how I assume they get the NGO tax exemptions in the USA which allows Grumbler to state they are a "public body" against the meaning of the term) is legitimate, then, in your eyes? Violation of privacy laws by a legitimate journalist does not exactly equate to tossing acid on to the deck of a manned ship. Martinus, I strongly believe you need a better perspective here.

Other than piracy laws, how should their violent and destructive actions be punished, then? Are their any other laws that can be applied to these acts when committed outside international boundaries?

Fact. The Japanese whalers are not breaking the law.

Fact. "Sea Shepherd" is breaking the law, in a particularly dangerous fashion; they will manage to get someone killed if they continue their actions.

They publically claim to have sunk 10 whalers, destruction of property on a scale that would get them jailed if, for example, they were attacking land based institutions such as Huntingdon Life Sciences. You get a free pass to commit criminal damage at sea? No, you don't, which is why their is a law of piracy.

Canadian intelligence calls them eco-terrorists, and they are not a whaling nation. Would you be OK then if I called for them to be arrested under anti-terrorist laws, rather than the law of piracy?

[Ed Anger]

I harpooned Margaret Cho.

[Agelastus]

According to Halls' International Law,

Besides, though the absence of competent authority is the test of piracy, its essence consists in the pursuit of private, as contrasted with public,
ends. Primarily the pirate in a man who satisfies his personal greed or his personal vengeance by robbery or murder in places beyond the
jurisdiction of a state. The man who acts with a public object may do like acts to a certain extent, but his moral attitude is different, and the acts
themselves will be kept within well-marked bounds. He is not only not the enemy of the human race, but he is the enemy solely of a particular
state.

Perhaps you might wish to consider the implication of the line I have bolded. It clearly shows that there is a limit to what can be got away with by a man who acts with a public object. Once you exceed that, you are a pirate. So I guess it depends what level of criminal activity we are willing to tolerate before we can call a man a pirate whatever his goals. I think "Sea Shepherd" have crossed this line to such an extent that they couldn't even see it behind them. You seem to disagree with me. What level of destruction and violence do you believe they should be allowed to carry out before they are arrested?

In fact, the McMillan dictionary (your own preferred source) defines piracy as "the crime of stealing things from ships while they are sailing."  Since nothing is being stolen, the actions of these people does not fall into the definition of piracy according to your chosen source.

Not my preferred source, just the only one of the first few dozen results that wasn't either Wikipedia or a discussion of British quangos. But never mind about that...

They admit to have destroyed 10 whalers. Unless they sank them all by putting holes in them in a harbour, then at some point they must have appropriated these from their legitimate owners. Hijacking, in other words, or more simply, theft.

Admittedly, I don't know if this is so, but I suspect the odds favour it.

These people are not pirates.  Fools, maybe, but not pirates.

Since your own source above sets up the condition that there are limits to what can be done legitimately without being a pirate, regardless of purpose, you are wrong.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between the motives of the Sea Shepherds and Somali pirates, this says much about your ability to distinguish motives and nothing about the motives of the Sea Shepherds.

So motive is a be all and end all term to allow "Sea Shepherd" to get away with any criminal act, then? You will, of course, be OK then if they manage to kill somebody out there?

In Italy it used to be possible for a murder to be described as a "crime of passion", with correspondingly lesser sentence. Does this mean that murder had not been committed? Motivation for an action only takes you so far in defending these people. Even you have admitted they have committed criminal actions that jurisdictions seem to be ignoring. Are you saying then that the laws concerning criminal acts committed at sea are inadequate then? If so, I agree with you since you seem to be so determined to convince me that they cannot be called pirates. What laws would you charge them under then?


Edit: Dammit, got the quotes wrong. Arguing with Grumbler takes a lot of formatting.

[CountDeMoney]

"Sea Shepherd" are committing "criminal acts of violence."

Agreed.

DISAGREE

[grumbler]

Perhaps you might wish to consider the implication of the line I have bolded. It clearly shows that there is a limit to what can be got away with by a man who acts with a public object. Once you exceed that, you are a pirate. So I guess it depends what level of criminal activity we are willing to tolerate before we can call a man a pirate whatever his goals. I think "Sea Shepherd" have crossed this line to such an extent that they couldn't even see it behind them. You seem to disagree with me. What level of destruction and violence do you believe they should be allowed to carry out before they are arrested?

Perhaps you may wish to consider the implications of your argument that these people are "pirates."  The utility of the point at which "we can call a man a pirate" seems to me to be nil in this case.  What you think is not very relevant to me, because you want to call 'pirate" when the law clearly (IMO, as a person who has dealt with actual pirates) doesn't support you - but does support calling for action against mere criminals.

Piracy is a crime against humanity. All civilized states are at war against pirates.  I despise those who use the term loosely.

They admit to have destroyed 10 whalers. Unless they sank them all by putting holes in them in a harbour, then at some point they must have appropriated these from their legitimate owners. Hijacking, in other words, or more simply, theft.

The mincing of words is the recourse of those who haven't thought out their position.  What makes them "pirates?"  Given that you are not now seeming to argue that they are acting for private gain.

What are they gaining, as private individuals?

Admittedly, I don't know if this is so, but I suspect the odds favour it.

Your suspecting that the odds favor it does not constitute piracy on their part.  You have to establish private gain (in a way that does not make all civil disobedience an act of private gain).

Since your own source above sets up the condition that there are limits to what can be done legitimately without being a pirate, regardless of purpose, you are wrong.

Argument by assertion.

So motive is a be all and end all term to allow "Sea Shepherd" to get away with any criminal act, then? You will, of course, be OK then if they manage to kill somebody out there?

Strawman.

[Maximus]

question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?

[Neil]

Hopefully when the LDP gets back in in the next election, they start sending the MSDF with the whaling fleet.  Nothing would make me happier than seeing a Sea Shepherd ship get hit with a Harpoon or a 5" shell.

[Neil]

Hopefully when the LDP gets back in in the next election, they start sending the MSDF with the whaling fleet.  Nothing would make me happier than seeing a Sea Shepherd ship get hit with a Harpoon or a 5" shell.

[jimmy olsen]

Hopefully when the LDP gets back in in the next election, they start sending the MSDF with the whaling fleet.  Nothing would make me happier than seeing a Sea Shepherd ship get hit with a Harpoon or a 5" shell.

Lol, the boat would just disintegrate if got hit by a harpoon.

[Agelastus]

Perhaps you may wish to consider the implications of your argument that these people are "pirates."  The utility of the point at which "we can call a man a pirate" seems to me to be nil in this case.  What you think is not very relevant to me, because you want to call 'pirate" when the law clearly (IMO, as a person who has dealt with actual pirates) doesn't support you - but does support calling for action against mere criminals.

Most legal jurisdictions would consider the deliberate endangering of human life a crime. The method is immaterial. If I throw acid at a person in a car on land, I would be charged under the local criminal law to the limit of the damage I had done, whether property or personal. You yourself are advancing the fallacious argument that one portion of a legal definition overrules a separate section of a legal definition. You are giving them the same free pass that Australia is for their actions simply because of their motives.

Piracy is a crime against humanity. All civilized states are at war against pirates.  I despise those who use the term loosely.

I am not using it loosely; I am not aware that there is another suitable term to describe the crimes "Sea Shepherd" are committing. On land there are hundreds of possibilities. For crimes at the interface of land and sea I can think of several terms. At sea we are more limited; I can only think of piracy.

And if you think that "Sea Shepherd" have not crossed the "well marked bounds" your own source calls for, then I do not know you at all. In fact, since you have confirmed that you believe their actions to be criminal, then you yourself have admitted they have crossed these "well marked bounds".

The mincing of words is the recourse of those who haven't thought out their position.  What makes them "pirates?"  Given that you are not now seeming to argue that they are acting for private gain.

You are the one who resorted to a definition that used the specific term "theft" rather than one including destruction of property (since a pirate can sink a ship without stealing anything.) If you disagree with what you have forced me to resort to by your own actions, then let us strike the piracy definition you produced from the record.

What are they gaining, as private individuals?

At the least, self-satisfaction. Individual fame and notoriety. On a more pragmatic level, they are attracting funding by their actions in order to continue these actions and support themselves.

Sounds very similar to pimps living off the immoral earnings of prostitutes, doesn't it? Supporting crime with the proceeds of crime.

And no, Grumbler, that is not an argument that would very easily stand up in court. However, you are missing the point. Your own source allows for well meaning individuals to become pirates if they transgress "well known bounds". Which means private gain is NOT the be-all and end-all of the definition you have produced.

Your suspecting that the odds favor it does not constitute piracy on their part.  You have to establish private gain (in a way that does not make all civil disobedience an act of private gain).

How much civil disobedience actually occurs at sea, Grumbler? There is, after all, a law of the sea. Civil disobedience in the sense you seem to mean would almost certainly be mutiny under that code, even if, given sufficient provocation, a jury might later find them not culpable. You are erecting a strawman of your own here by trying to establish a standard that does not exist.

Argument by assertion.

Nope. Argument by source. Your source. Provide another one to refute it rather than make lazy retorts of your own.

Strawman.

A strawman introduced by Martinus and supported by you, that motivation is always more important than action or consequence. Taken to its extreme, that would act as an OK for the men and women of Sea Shepherd to kill the crews of these whalers. That position is blatantly false.

I am asking you, personally, what limits you would set? You have already agreed they have committed criminal actions. You have not, however, asserted what alternative laws to the law of Piracy these people could be successfully tried under. That is, after all, all you need to do to prove your point that they are not pirates and prove me wrong.

Instead you produce a source that backs my position, and then attack me when I am forced to respond to terms that you yourself have introduced into the argument.

[Agelastus]

question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?

A question I have asked Martinus, and have now specifically requested of Grumbler as well.

I wish Barrister would add a reply here. He ought to know himself, I think, despite where he lives.

[Jaron]

 

[grumbler]

Perhaps you may wish to consider the implications of your argument that these people are "pirates."  The utility of the point at which "we can call a man a pirate" seems to me to be nil in this case.  What you think is not very relevant to me, because you want to call 'pirate" when the law clearly (IMO, as a person who has dealt with actual pirates) doesn't support you - but does support calling for action against mere criminals.

Most legal jurisdictions would consider the deliberate endangering of human life a crime. The method is immaterial. If I throw acid at a person in a car on land, I would be charged under the local criminal law to the limit of the damage I had done, whether property or personal. You yourself are advancing the fallacious argument that one portion of a legal definition overrules a separate section of a legal definition. You are giving them the same free pass that Australia is for their actions simply because of their motives.

Strawman.  I suppose that I should have seen this coming: you have no case but outrage.

I am done, then.  Fulminate at will.

[Razgovory]

I harpooned Margaret Cho.

THANK YOU.  I sat threw a movie she made (really it was just her stand up performance) on a date once.  I would have preferred to simply have my head slammed in a car door for two and half hours.