Quotehttp://Activist 'boards' Japan whaler
Pete Bethune boarded the Japanese whaling ship on Tuesday night [AFP]
Anti-whaling activists claim one of their group has boarded a Japanese whaling ship in the waters of Antarctica to attempt a citizen's arrest of crewmembers.
According to the Sea Shepherd group, New Zealander Pete Bethune, who previously captained a vessel that was sunk in clashes with Japanese whalers last month, boarded the ship under cover of darkness on Tuesday night.
A statement from the group, which has been pursuing the Japanese fleet, said Bethune had boarded the ship after jumping from a jet ski in the freezing Antarctic waters.
"This was an impossible mission," Paul Watson, a spokesman for Sea Shepherd, said in the statement.
"Captain Bethune boarded a Japanese whaling fleet security ship at high speed in total darkness, breached the spikes and anti-boarding nets and is presently onboard," he said.
In Japan, a spokesman for the fisheries agency later confirmed that an activist had boarded the ship.
"He is now in Japanese custody. It is not an arrest. Under existing laws, the captain can take measures as he considers necessary," the spokesman said.
"Nothing is really happening. The man is not being belligerent."
Ady Gill sinking
Sea Shepherd said Bethune had been planning to arrest the Shonan Maru No. 2's captain for "the destruction of the Ady Gil and attempted murder of the six Ady Gil crewmembers".
Last month, the Japanese vessel struck the Ady Gil, a high-tech speed boat run by Sea Shepherd, sinking it in Antarctic waters.
Sea Shepherd said that Bethune would also attempt to hand over a $3m bill for the destruction of the Ady Gil.
"Sea Shepherd anticipates that the Japanese will hold Captain Bethune as prisoner onboard the Shonan Maru 2," the group's statement added.
The Sea Shepherd activists claim to have saved the lives of hundreds of whales by harassing the annual hunt, which kills the animals using a loophole in an international moratorium which allows "lethal research".
Australia and New Zealand have called for restraint from both sides in their Antarctic clashes, with the activists deploying laser-like devices and stink bombs and the Japanese fleet operating military-style acoustic weapons.
:pirate :uffda:
So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?
Because they haven't actually attempted to commit piracy?
Just a guess.
What a day it has been for whale activism:
QuoteWhale activists plead not guilty
BY TAKASHI ARICHIKA AND JIN NISHIKAWA, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
AOMORI--Two Greenpeace activists pleaded not guilty Monday to stealing whale meat during an investigation by the environmental group into alleged embezzlement in Japan's whaling operations.
In the first hearing at the Aomori District Court, Junichi Sato, 33, and Toru Suzuki, 43, admitted they snatched a box of whale meat from a transport company branch office in April 2008, but said the theft was orchestrated to expose embezzlement by crew members of a research whaling ship.
They argued that their actions were not illegal as they were intended to prove wrongdoing.
The box taken from the Seino Transportation Co.'s Aomori branch contained 23.1 kilograms of whale meat that a crew member sent home as a "souvenir" from a whaling mission.
"It was a rightful action to expose problems in (Japan's) research whaling," a defense lawyer for the activists argued.
Sato and Suzuki held a news conference a month after the theft, presenting the meat as evidence of embezzlement.
They told reporters they acted on a tip-off in tracing a truck to the branch.
Greenpeace Japan filed a criminal complaint against 12 crew members of the Nisshin Maru for alleged professional embezzlement.
But after questioning the crew and others, Tokyo prosecutors dropped the case in June 2008. They said the ship's operator, which was entitled to the meat, allowed them to take some home.
Police then arrested the two Greenpeace Japan members, acting on a complaint from the transport company.
Prosecutors told the court Monday the two members' activities caused damage and harmed public trust in the company. Prosecutors did not, however, discuss the actions of the crew members, which the defendants had sought to highlight.
Defense lawyers say they will call crew members to testify at hearings in March so that the legality of the defendants' actions can be examined in connection with the actions of the crew.
The key points of contention include whether the defendants intended to keep the meat for their own use and whether their actions can escape censure because of their purpose of revealing alleged wrongdoing.
As the case highlighted problems involved in Japan's whaling activities, eight Greenpeace members from as many countries attended Monday's hearing to observe the proceedings.
Among them was Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Naidoo said beforehand that he hoped the court would try the two men fairly as they had acted to expose illegal behavior.
But Greenpeace members held no banners, nor chanted slogans Monday to avoid giving the impression they were seeking to apply pressure on the court.
They were wary of their own cause and actions being associated with the U.S.-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has had a number of clashes with Japanese whaling vessels.
"(Greenpeace) is completely different from Sea Shepherd, which resorts to violence," said a source with ties to Greenpeace in Japan. "Even though we share the anti-whaling cause, we aim at resolving problems by peaceful means."
Meanwhile, the Fisheries Agency said it received a report Monday that a Sea Shepherd member had broken into the No. 2 Shonan Maru, one of the vessels in Japan's research whaling fleet in the Antarctic, around 9 a.m.
The intruder, the skipper of the Ady Gil, a Sea Shepherd boat that collided with the Shonan Maru on Jan. 6, handed a letter to its captain.
Sea Shepherd's flagship Steve Irwin also approached the Shonan Maru, and blared out a message demanding it pay 300 million yen ($3.33 million) in collision damages to Ady Gil.
Fisheries minister Hirotaka Akamatsu said the skipper will be handed over to the Japan Coast Guard for questioning in Japan.
Vigilante justice for dead whales; it's like a Japanese Christmas Story. :)
Japan's attitude toward whaling regulation has been kind of lame. While being a whale activist is still a mark of insanity, I can sort of understand their position.
Nice touch to drag Steve Irwin in the dirt. Classy.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 11:22:08 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?
Because they haven't actually attempted to commit piracy?
Just a guess.
The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea. Had he been grabbed then and not allowed to meet the captain to present his petition, that sounds like a slam-dunk case of attempted piracy.
Moreover, I can't see how there would be a legal difference between a Somali shooting at a ship and damaging it and a member of the "Sea Shepherd" group attempting to damage a ship using acid, which has happened prior to this incident. The first guy is going to be shot dead, the second is going to be allowed to do it again and again until he does cause serious damage or seriously injures or kills someone? Why should that be? It's not as if bottles of acid can't cause serious injury the same way bullets can. Why should we live by an effective double standard just because they are "environmentalists"?
And Grumbler (with apologies for the source being Wikipedia. I was in a hurry.) -
QuoteMaritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction.
"Sea Shepherd" are committing "criminal acts of violence".
They are not a public body, so the acts are being committed for "private ends".
They should be arrested and put on trial for piracy.
Quote from: The Brain on February 16, 2010, 12:18:18 PM
Nice touch to drag Steve Irwin in the dirt. Classy.
He was planning on joining them before he died. Presumably he would have tore the harpoons out of the whales with his bare hands.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 02:15:39 PM
"Sea Shepherd" are committing "criminal acts of violence."
Agreed.
Quote
They are not a public body, so the acts are being committed for "private ends".
They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.
QuoteThey should be arrested and put on trial for piracy.
No, because they are not committing acts for private ends.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 04:43:36 PM
They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.
OK. :hmm:
This one has me beat. :huh:
They are a private group, not a public body - which government or supranational agency has empowered them to do what they are doing? You are on a hiding to nothing here if you are trying to redefine what the term "public body" means.
Macmillan Dictionary definition of public body.
"an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government department"
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 04:43:36 PM
No, because they are not committing acts for private ends.
They have not been authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency such as the UN. Therefore, they are committing acts for private, not public, ends. And are hence, pirates.
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.
I'm bored with these guys. If they're serious they should buy some rocket launchers on the black market and sink the ship. Otherwise stop wasting my time! :mad:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 06:15:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 04:43:36 PM
They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.
OK. :hmm:
This one has me beat. :huh:
They are a private group, not a public body - which government or supranational agency has empowered them to do what they are doing? You are on a hiding to nothing here if you are trying to redefine what the term "public body" means.
Okay. :hmm: Let us not debate the issue of "public bodies" because, of course, the definition you have proposed for piracy, which I won't at this point debate, doesn't use the term. It is not relevant, so we will not need to debate its meaning, and dismiss your entry of it as relevant.
Instead, let us address the actually relevant term, which is "private ends."
According to Halls' International Law,
QuoteBesides, 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.
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.
QuoteThey have not been authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency such as the UN. Therefore, they are committing acts for private, not public, ends. And are hence, pirates.
The opposite of "authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency" is not private ends, as this would make any acts of civil disobedience acts for private ends. Hence, your conclusion fails.
These people are not pirates. Fools, maybe, but not pirates.
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.
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2010, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on February 16, 2010, 06:34:29 PM
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?
I harpooned Margaret Cho.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 06:51:45 PM
According to Halls' International Law,
QuoteBesides, 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?
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 06:51:45 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 06:51:45 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 06:51:45 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 07:11:39 PM
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.
QuoteThey 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?
QuoteAdmittedly, 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).
QuoteSince 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.
QuoteSo 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.
question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?
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.
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.
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2010, 07:42:38 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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".
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PMThe 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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
Argument by assertion.
Nope. Argument by source. Your source. Provide another one to refute it rather than make lazy retorts of your own.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 07:32:24 PM
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.
:hmm:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 07:54:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 07:26:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 16, 2010, 07:07:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 07:32:24 PM
question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?
It would depend on where the attack takes place. If it's in some country's national waters, it'd depend on the national legislation. If it's in international waters, you have to refer to international treaties.
You can check UNCLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea)), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and in particular the Convention of the High Seas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_High_Seas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_High_Seas)).
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 07:32:24 PM
question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?
Of course. The problem is that only the Japanese government can act against people attacking/damaging Japanese ships (except in extremis), whereas everyone can (and, in fact, must) act against pirates. Pirates are "at war with mankind" whereas the Sea Shepherds are mere criminals.
Japan is also at war with mankind so it's kind of a wash.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 09:28:29 PM
Strawman. I suppose that I should have seen this coming: you have no case but outrage.
I am done, then. Fulminate at will.
So Grumbler quits the field, abandoning an untenable position.
To recap.
(1) He asserted they ("Sea Shepherd") were a public body and thus could not be pirates, only to back down when it was pointed out that they were not.
(2) He asserted, producing a relevant legal passage, that "Sea Shepherd" were not pirates because despite being a non-public body they were taking action for no personal gain.
The self-same passage establishes the principle that there are limits to which people can act for a public motive and avoid being called pirates, rendering his point moot.
Grumbler seems to believe that "Sea Shepherd" have not passed these limits, despite the fact that if they had carried out similar actions on land I cannot think of a jurisdiction where they would not have been arrested on the spot. He seems to believe that separate standards apply to criminal acts whether they are carried out on land or at sea, or at least that is the only implication that can be drawn from his position.
The passage also uses the phrase "personal ends" not "personal gains". Which of course would mean that personal ends can be considered to include non-monetary rewards.
The fact that the local maritime authorities are ignoring their duty for political reasons does not mean that "Sea Shepherd" are not pirates.
(3) When directly challenged to provide an alternate law under which their actions could be prosecuted, Grumbler quits the argument in a huff. After all, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps he is aware of an appropriate law that extends beyond territorial waters that allows them to be described as something other than pirates? I am only aware of the laws of Piracy, but I am always interested in learning more.
I am still interested in hearing from the lawyers on this board on this issue.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2010, 07:48:46 AM
Of course. The problem is that only the Japanese government can act against people attacking/damaging Japanese ships (except in extremis), whereas everyone can (and, in fact, must) act against pirates. Pirates are "at war with mankind" whereas the Sea Shepherds are mere criminals.
I'm looking Grumbler, but I still don't find a section of international maritime law that actually lets Japan do that if they are
not pirates. The more I look, the less adequate maritime law appears to be in regard to criminal acts.
I have found a site which gives a history of the organisation which lists a number of acts that look like piracy. Including where they have shot at ships.
http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm
QuoteA History of Extremism
The Sea Shepherd Society has a long history of extremist actions in pursuit of its stated aim of preventing fishermen around the world from hunting for whales of any kind. Since it was founded by Watson 24 years ago, it has chalked-up a string of attacks on whaling vessels around the world.
· In 1979, a Sea Shepherd vessel rammed a whaling boat called "Sierra" but didn't succeed in sinking it.
· A year later (1980) Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for the sinking of the "Sierra" using limpet mined in the harbour of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal.
· In 1981, Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for sinking another two whaling boats, the "Ibsa I" and "Ibsa II" in the Spanish port of Viga.
· In 1986, Sea Shepherd activists shot at Faroese police and tried to sink their rubber dinghies after being ordered to leave the harbour for trying to prevent or obstruct the annual Faroses Pilot Whale harvest.
· Also in 1986, Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland and for causing malicious damage to a whaling station not far from the famous Icelandic town. Captain Watson has since been declared persona non grata in Iceland.
· In 1991, an American crew member of a Mexican fishing vessel reported that a Sea Shepherd vessel rammed their vessel and caused it considerable damage after Sea Shepherd crew members boarded the fishing boat armed with rifles.
· In 1992, Sea Shepherd vessels made unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican vessels, shooting at the crew with bullets containing a red substance.
· In 1993, Sea Shepherd made an unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined Minke whaling and fishing vcessel "Nybraena" while moored in the Lofoten islands.
· Also in 1993, Captain Watson ordered the crew of the Sea Shepherd vessel "Edward Abbey" (a former US Navy vessel) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Yet another unsuccessful attempt was made to scuttle the combined Minke whaling and fishing vessel "Senet" while moored at the port of Gressvik. By the end of that year, Sea Shepherd claimed it had sunk eight ships and rammed and damaged a further six.
· In November 1998, four Sea Shepherd members were arrested after provoking an incident with the Makah Indians of Washington state who were about to resume hunting of Grey Whales at an internationally approved rate of two of those particular species of whales per year for four years. The Sea Shepherd's anti-whaling activists had anchored near the Makah Indian Reservation's harbour for over a month and moved in to engage in physical violence against the tribal fishermen on the day they were to resume a centuries-old tradition that had been halted in 1920 when that species almost became extinct.
· In September 2000, Captain Watson was found guilty by a court in the Faroe Islands for violation of immigration laws and illegal entry into Faroese waters. The Danish Government supports the right of the Faroese fishermen to fish for Pilot Whales. But like is the case in St. Lucia, Pilot Whales are not on the endangered species list protected by European and International Law.
Expelled From the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as an observer at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
In February of 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell reiterated – after Sea Shepherd claimed it was merely enforcing IWC rules – that "the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism."
Use of Weapons
Apart from Caribbean fishermen fearing for their lives, security officials are also said to be concerned about Sea Shepherd's use of weapons during its protests.
Watson admits there are arms aboard Sea Shepherd vessels.
In April 1992, he told the Los Angeles Times: "We confront dangerous people...I have prepared myself for the responsibility of defending my crew... I will use firearms, fist to intimidate and then to defend."
Like Judgment at Nuremberg but about whales:
QuoteNew Zealand hints at legal action
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
New Zealand may lodge a complaint against Tokyo with the International Court of Justice in The Hague if diplomacy fails to stop Japan's whaling, according to Monday's online edition of the New Zealand Herald.
It cited a statement by the country's foreign minister, Murray McCully, which comes after Australia voiced similar sentiments.
Prime Minister John Key told a news conference the same day that "if the diplomatic solution fails, and the only option is a court action, at that time we will consider" the matter.
However, he warned that it was too early to assume that New Zealand would join Australia in taking court action.
Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said he would propose a phasing out of Japanese research whaling to the International Whaling Commission.
Were the whaling ship captains: only following orders? :uffda:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 02:07:42 PM
The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea.
That's not what the story says.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 08:18:53 AM
I have found a site which gives a history of the organisation which lists a number of acts that look like piracy.
And yet despite the fact that law enforcement actions were taken in a number of those instances, on no occasion was the organization or any of its members charged with (much less convicted of) piracy.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 16, 2010, 06:34:29 PM
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?
I thought the question we were debating was whether this is an act of piracy (which it apparently isn't as several people have pointed out), not whether this breaks any laws.
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2010, 04:10:52 AM
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 07:32:24 PM
question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?
It would depend on where the attack takes place. If it's in some country's national waters, it'd depend on the national legislation. If it's in international waters, you have to refer to international treaties.
Actually, no. Most countries extend their jurisdictions to acts committed on board of their sea and air vessels, meaning an act committed on a ship in international waters would fall under the jurisdiction of the country of origin of the ship.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 08:18:53 AM
I'm looking Grumbler, but I still don't find a section of international maritime law that actually lets Japan do that if they are not pirates. The more I look, the less adequate maritime law appears to be in regard to criminal acts.
Because you won't. Maritime law is not there to regulate every single event that could possibly happen at sea, but to provide a common ground for some events that are in the interest of the international community to be regarded in the same way by all countries. For the most part, acts committed on board of a ship in international waters fall under the jurisdiction of the country of origin of the ship.
The purpose of submitting piracy to international law is not really about crime and punishment, but about giving countries certain rights (such as a right to continue pursuit into territorial waters of another country) that normally would not exist if this was about a crime falling under domestic jurisdictions. I suppose Japanese criminal code has laws against unlawful entry or (if this happened) damage to property. That does not mean this is piracy under international law, nor that if it isn't, you can essentially do anything you want and go unpunished.
Quote from: Martinus on February 23, 2010, 03:37:28 PM
That does not mean this is piracy under international law, nor that if it isn't, you can essentially do anything you want and go unpunished.
Actually, that's exactly what this is an example of.
Since the country of origin of Sea Shepherd or their boats are taking no notice of the criminal actions of these crews (and that the actions are criminal are about the only thing that you, me and Grumbler seem to agree upon) and Japan cannot board or do anything to stop these boats unless they are pirates (which you and Grumbler disagree with me on) then that's about as close to a "free pass to commit crime" as I've ever come across in real life or the law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 23, 2010, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 16, 2010, 02:07:42 PM
The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea.
That's not what the story says.
Actually. that's exactly what the story says.
Quote"Captain Bethune boarded a Japanese whaling fleet security ship at high speed in total darkness, breached the spikes and anti-boarding nets and is presently onboard," he said.
Even if you don't believe that from the wording used, other stories on the web make clear that he had to cut his way in through what very much sound like wire mesh. Now, one can argue whether or not that qualifies as part of a ship (since it is not essential to the actual functioning of the boat) but "damage" is still "damage".
"Breached" does not mean "commit physical damage". It just means he managed to get through in some form. You are making assumptions about how that happened, without any factual basis.
In any case, merely cutting some netting or mesh on the side of a ship does not constitute piracy, and I assume you would not argue that it does. Fisherman have been known to cut each others nets from time to time and while such actions may be chargable minor vandalism, it doesn't turn them into pirates.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 23, 2010, 04:47:36 PM
...Japan cannot board or do anything to stop these boats unless they are pirates...
And why is this, again, exactly? I assume you have some source that says Japan has no authority to stop crimes at sea other than piracy?
I keep seeing "Activist water boards Japanese Whaler" whenever I glance past this thread.
The idiot was taken to Japan and arrested.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8563568.stm
QuoteAn activist from New Zealand has been arrested by Japan's coastguard after he boarded a Japanese whaling ship in the Southern Ocean last month.
Peter Bethune said he had boarded the ship intending to make a citizen's arrest of the Japanese crew.
Instead, the Shonan Maru 2 immediately set sail for Japan with him on board.
He is a member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has been trying to disrupt the annual hunt of the Japanese whaling fleet.
Scores of camera crews and photographers waited on the quayside as the whaling ship sailed into Tokyo bay with the anti-whaling activist on board.
'Eco-terrorist'
Nationalist protestors were carrying Rising Sun flags and placards branding Peter Bethune an "eco-terrorist".
After the Shonan Maru 2 docked, Japanese coastguard officials went on board and arrested him.
He had been detained on the ship as it sailed back to Japan after he boarded it from a jet-ski in the Southern Ocean last month.
His intention was to perform a citizen's arrest on the Shonan Maru 2's captain for what he said was the attempted murder of his crew, and demand compensation.
Mr Bethune was in command of a Sea Shepherd hi-tech stealth boat when it was sliced in two in a collision with the ship as anti-whaling activists clashed with the fleet.
He could now be charged with trespassing on a vessel, and if convicted, face a fine or prison.
Well, while it was transporting him no whales were hunted, so he was partially successful.
Agelastus proven: wrong. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2010, 03:16:36 AM
Well, while it was transporting him no whales were hunted, so he was partially successful.
But now they get to tentacle rape him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 12, 2010, 03:16:36 AM
Well, while it was transporting him no whales were hunted, so he was partially successful.
I hope it was worth a a year or so of buttsecks :lol: