Greenpeace Draws The Line...Finally!

[Socratesabroad]

Hooray for straw men!

Christ, what is it with you and 'straw man,' 'straw man'? Is that the only debate term you know?

As for a rational debate, such debates are unfortunately usually disregarded in the cause of profit. In such cases, theatrics may be the only way that attention will be captured.

Ah, so you then admit that you, or the side you support, has and given up on logic and rationality in favor of emotion.

The above is merely a logical deduction - if you feel that theatrics may be "the only way" to get desired attention, then you have, by definition of the word 'only,' precluded the possibility of other avenues, i.e. rational debate. Or do I need to explain this to you in simpler terms?

Oh, BTW, Crichton specialises in fiction.

Umm, he actually specializes in science fiction since he has a background in the sciences.

Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969]

And now let's take a look at PR Watch, which is the only site you used to attempt to impugn my sources. Well, who runs it? John Stauber, is one of the two:

Then there's John Stauber, the author of Mad Cow U.S.A. Stauber was so eager to demonize U.S. beef producers that he appeared on CNN just moments after the USDA's first mad-cow announcement, claiming this was just "the tip of a very large iceberg." Nonsense. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis now says that the risk to consumers is "as close to zero as you can get."

But Stauber's a scientist and objective, right?

A life of activism

Stauber, 50, is a Marshfield native raised in a family of Republicans, whose own politics have leaned to the left since he was a teenager. He did not go to college.
Over the years, he's fought against Agent Orange, the defoliant used during the Vietnam War. He's directed the Stop Project ELF, which opposed the Navy's communications system that sends messages to nuclear submarines. Critics contend that the communications transmitter causes environmental harm, increases the likelihood of a nuclear war and is outdated.

Oh, and the other guy, Sheldon Rampton, who runs it? Well, he studied writing at Princeton before becoming a peace activist and he's not objective either

Sheldon Rampton
Latter-day Saint. Born 4 August 1957 in Long Beach, California. Served a full-time mission in Japan from 1976 to 1978.

As clearly evident by the book they co-wrote:

Banana Republicans
by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber
How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State

But when it comes to trusting PR Watch's info on Crichton, Moore, or anyone else for that matter, let's just say that I take any source with a huge grain of salt when I can edit the entries myself.

And what is the "true civil disobedience"?

Here, I'll spell it out again since you seem to have a short attention span - that "used by individuals whose lives truly were at stake over the direct and visible evils they sought to oppose."

[DJEB]

I see you've added the old right-wing debate favourite. If at first you don't succeed, try insults. On that note, I'm leaving this thread. I'm not interested in wasting my time on your kind anymore.

As for a rational debate, such debates are unfortunately usually disregarded in the cause of profit. In such cases, theatrics may be the only way that attention will be captured.

Ah, so you then admit that you, the side you support, has and given up on logic and rationality in favor of emotion.

The above is merely a logical deduction - if you feel that theatrics may be "the only way" to get desired attention, then you have, by definition of the word 'only,' precluded the possibility of other avenues, i.e. rational debate. Or do I need to explain this to you in simpler terms?

All the simple terms in the world are not going to change the fact that I put the word "may" in there.

Oh, BTW, Crichton specialises in fiction.

Umm, he actually specializes in science fiction since he has a background in the sciences.

I have a background in science as well. This does not make we a quotable authority on all things science, though.

And now let's take a look at PR Watch, which is the only site you used to attempt to impugn my sources.

I used it because it is a convenient site to get information on the PR industry. I could use O'Dwyers if I had a subscription.

And as for Stauber's science background? He is a reporter who reports on the PR industry. He neither has nor needs a science background to do that. Same goes for Rampton.

But when it comes to trusting PR Watch's info on Crichton, Moore, or anyone else for that matter, let's just say that I take any source with a huge grain of salt when I can edit the entries myself.

You will notice that a lot of the links I posted were to the PR Watch Newsletter which is not part of Source Watch. But, yes, source Watch is like Wikipedia.

And what is the "true civil disobedience"?

Here, I'll spell it out again since you seem to have a short attention span - that "used by individuals whose lives truly were at stake over the direct and visible evils they sought to oppose."

Literally their life? Well, lets leave aside the issue of nuclear weapons or others like the shipbreaking industries of India and Bangladesh that actually are a threat to lives. The southern blacks were not in too much danger if they would have just tried to appease the whites there. And the Indian's could have put up with colonial rule, for that matter. If you don't literally mean their lives, then there are cases like San Ignacio that Greenpeace helped with.

Now, all that said, I have tried to engage you respectfully, but it seems you are intent on being a snarky ass, so I'll let you have all the fun quoting every industry PR source you can find without interference. Knock yourself out.

[emperor]

So we're in agreement? Whales are good & without them starships will have to travel back in time to stop probes destroying earth.

[Socratesabroad]

I see you've added the old right-wing debate favourite. If at first you don't succeed, try insults.

Talk about straw men.... christ, that's rich.

On that note, I'm leaving this thread. I'm not interested in wasting my time on your kind anymore.
[snip]
Now, all that said, I have tried to engage you respectfully, but it seems you are intent on being a snarky ass...

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh, and let's be perfectly clear here: 'engaging [me] respectfully' extended to little quips like:

Hooray for straw men!

You don't know much about the PR industry, it seems.

If you're going to throw low rhetorical blows, don't feign surprise when your opponent hits back...harder.

All the simple terms in the world are not going to change the fact that I put the word "may" in there.

I guess I will have to use simple terms since you failed to understand the first time: I was questioning how you reached the point in believing that 'theatrics may be the only way that attention will be captured.' 'Where was the rational discourse that was supposed to have preceded this recourse to theatrics?' was my point.

And now let's take a look at PR Watch, which is the only site you used to attempt to impugn my sources.

I used it because it is a convenient site to get information on the PR industry.

And as for Stauber's science background? He is a reporter who reports on the PR industry. He neither has nor needs a science background to do that. Same goes for Rampton.

But as I've taken pains to show, both Stauber and Rampton have questionable credibility as sources in an environmental debate since
1) their 'credentials' are solely as activists, in comparison to Patrick Moore (Ph.D. in Ecology, Honours B.Sc. in Forest Biology) and Michael Crichton (Lecturer in Anthropology, Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, Harvard Medical School M.D. post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences)
2) Only Rampton has had some limited experience in actual journalism
3) they clearly have axes to grind and are clearly partisan (as evidence by the Banana Repubs book)

So when it comes to credibility, I'll side not with self-proclaimed activists and their Wikipedia of the PR industry but with more reputable sources.

And what is the "true civil disobedience"?

that "used by individuals whose lives truly were at stake over the direct and visible evils they sought to oppose."

Literally their life? Well, lets leave aside the issue of nuclear weapons or others like the shipbreaking industries of India and Bangladesh that actually are a threat to lives. The southern blacks were not in too much danger if they would have just tried to appease the whites there. And the Indian's could have put up with colonial rule, for that matter.

'Not in too much danger'? 'Could have put up with colonial rule'?
Bombing of black churches, dogs and firehoses, lynchings, and second-class status and segregation in the South...
Severe limits on movement, press, and freedom, arbitrary justice, systemic corruption, imprisonment for 5 to 10 years, and armed crackdowns in China...
Racial segregation, mass arrests, the Amritsar massacre, and thousands killed in the three major independence campaigns between 1918 and independence in 1947 in India.

DJEB, those who adopted civil disobedience to end such injustice and oppression deserve better than to have you misrepresent or belittle their achievements.

[Mulboyne]

Cyber Diver News Network: Japan a bully nation of criminal ecoterrorists
(The headline is from CDNN's website, the whole text taken from NZ Herald)
ABOARD FARLEY MOWAT, SOUTHERN OCEAN - Yesterday, Hiroshi Hatanaka, the Director General of the Institute for [Commerce posing as] Cetacean Research, sent an open letter to Greenpeace Japan. In the letter he accused Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society of piracy and made hysterical accusations of eco-terrorism. Of course it is now routine for every ecologically destructive industry in the world to label their critics as eco-terrorists so that comment is easily dismissed. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never been convicted of any felony crime and from what I understand eco-terrorism is a felony. Hatanaka may have his opinions but his opinions have no basis in fact. If I am an eco-terrorist then why was I not arrested for such in New Zealand, Australia, the United States or Canada? Why is my ship flying the flag of Canada? Why am I travelling freely on my Canadian passport as a resident of the United States? Mr Hatanaka should investigate the facts before he makes accusations that he cannot substantiate.

Mr Hatanaka threatens us with piracy charges yet there has been no attempt to board and loot any Japanese whaling vessel that I am aware of. Ecoterrorism is terrorism against the environment. This is exactly what Japan is doing. The Japanese whale extermination plan labelled Jarpa 2 will slaughter 17,000 Piked [minke] whales, 800 Fin whales and 800 Humpback whales over the next few years. This is eco-terrorism. Japan is a bully nation that takes what it wants and threatens any who oppose it. This is what they are doing now. It is Japan that is violating international conservation law. Specifically this can be summarised as:

1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission's global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognise this bogus "research" that the Japanese are using as an excuse.

2. The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Whale Sanctuary.

3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

4. The Japanese are targeting Fin whales this year and Humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of Cites, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna.

5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19(a). The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock:

19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10.

Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.

6. In addition, the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides:

(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.

What law has Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd broken?

On Christmas day, the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru attempted to ram the Sea Shepherd vessel Farley Mowat. The video clearly shows the factory vessel bearing down with the Farley Mowat on its starboard side. It is the Farley Mowat that had the right of way according to the maritime rules of the road. I ordered my crew to openly throw a mooring line from the stern in plain sight of the Japanese captain. In fear of fouling his prop he turned away and aborted his collision course. I bet the Japanese do not have a video showing a different perspective because that was the only perspective they could have documented. It is our video evidence against their word. Hatanaka accuses us of breaking international law yet he does not state what these laws are that we are allegedly breaking.

It is not illegal to interfere on the high seas against their illegal whaling activities. In fact we are legally authorised to do so in accordance with the UN World Charter for Nature. The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:

States and. To the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organisations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , 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 conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

And finally Section 24 states:

Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.

This is what we are doing in the waters of the Southern Ocean. We are acting as individuals and non-governmental organisations to uphold international conservation law for the purpose of protecting the environment. In so doing we are challenging a rogue pirate nation intent upon arrogantly violating international conservation law. The crime here is the illegal slaughter of thousands of whales. There is no such thing as research whaling and even if there was, it is still not legal. Australia is obligated to enforce international conservation and Australian law against Japan in the Australian Antarctic Territory but so far they have irresponsibly refused to do so because of economic conflicts of interest with the nation that is trespassing in their territory.

To Mr Hatanaka, I say charge us with these supposed crimes you are accusing us of and let's take this circus to court, even to the Japanese courts if need be. Let's expose this charlatan business for what it is – greed, profit, and illegal exploitation. There is violence down here on these waters, it is the horrific rupture and gaping wounds of screaming whales dying in slow convulsions as their hot blood is spilt into the frigid waters. It is the callous disregard for human life by the butchers on the Japanese ships who view interference with their illicit profits as justification for assault. No Mr Hatanaka, we will not cease and desist and although I cannot speak any longer for Greenpeace, the organisation I helped to found, I can assure you that neither Sea Shepherd nor Greenpeace will back down to your demands to cease to protect the whales from your illegal slaughter.

We are down here to shut this bloody illegal slaughter down and we will not retreat – ever!

[Greji]

[kamome]

I thought an eco-terrorist would be someone who vandalizes or destroys property in the name of an environmental cause. Does anyone remember the group (don't know the name) that set a bunch of SUV's on fire at a car dealership because they were gas guzzlers? I think that would qualify as eco-terrorism. But running a boat alongside the Niishin Maru and interfering with whale hunting wouldn't qualify, since they weren't damaging anything and they were interfering with activity that itself is considered illegal under international law.

[Socratesabroad]

[Socratesabroad]

But running a boat alongside the Niishin Maru and interfering with whale hunting wouldn't qualify

But that's not what Watson was doing.

I ordered my crew to openly throw a mooring line from the stern in plain sight of the Japanese captain. In fear of fouling his prop he turned away and aborted his collision course.

Although I'm not a lawyer and know nothing about maritime law, I'd imagine this would fall under or be similar to endangerment.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

The 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention adds a new Article 3bis which states that a person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
·]when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from any act:[/b]
- uses against or on a ship or discharging from a ship any explosive, radioactive material or BCN (biological, chemical, nuclear) weapon in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
- discharges, from a ship, oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substance, in such quantity or concentration that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
- uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage;

If charged, this would not be Watson's first time:
Memorial Uni. Lib.

July 28, 1993 Paul Watson, Head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is charged with mischief and reckless endangerment of a Cuban fishing vessel. He was protesting foreign overfishing outside the 200 mile limit.

[Socratesabroad]

I thought an eco-terrorist would be someone who vandalizes or destroys property in the name of an environmental cause.

Well, that would fit when it comes to Sea Shepherd
SignOnSanDiego
January 10, 2004

Paul Watson is as close as you can get to a 21st-century pirate of the high seas.
As the self-proclaimed "captain" and founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, he has rammed ships, sunk them and been jailed by foreign nations, all in the name of saving the lives of marine animals.
[snip]
He makes no apologies. He claims that the 10 ships his group sank between 1979 and 1998 were illegally hunting for whales.

In a speech two years ago, then-FBI domestic terrorism chief James Jarboe said that the group's cutting of drift nets set out by commercial fishing operations marked the beginning of the rise of eco-terrorism.

[snip]

After the group sank half of Iceland's whaling fleet in the Reykjavik harbor in 1986, the group was banned from attending International Whaling Commission meetings.

So much so that Greenpeace doesn't even want to be associated with Sea Shepherd:
CNSNews.comInternational Editor
December 28, 2005

Several days earlier, Watson issued a statement accusing his former Greenpeace associates of obstructing Sea Shepherd's efforts by not telling his group the location of the Japanese fleet, which Greenpeace had managed to locate first.

The release touched on longstanding differences over approaches used by the two groups.
[snip]
Greenpeace was, indeed, trying to distance itself from Sea Shepherd, especially in light of a letter released Tuesday by the head of the Japanese whaling body, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICT).

ICT Director-General Hiroshi Hatanaka accused Greenpeace of piracy and breaches of maritime law. He warned that its activities were endangering the lives of those aboard the Japanese ships and the activists alike, and threatened legal action against Japanese citizens among the Greenpeace crew.

Hatanaka further charged that Greenpeace was colluding with a group with a history of "criminal and violent activity."

"Sea Shepherd is a terrorist organization]Greenpeace New Zealand campaigner Pia Mancia said Tuesday the group had no links to Sea Shepherd.[/b]

"We are two separate organizations," she said. "We wish them well, but we do not work with them."

Greenpeace Australia chief Steve Shallhorn said in a statement that the group would "welcome any investigations into the conduct of our skippers and our ships at sea because we are confident that any breaches of maritime law were not made by our ships."

[GuyJean]

He was protesting foreign overfishing outside the 200 mile limit.

If they were fishing outside their limit, wouldn't that mean they were breaking the international law before the Sea Shephards broke the international law? Or, does international law only apply to environmentalists?

GJ

[Mulboyne]

SMH: Threats to whalers criticised
The fighting language used by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which indicates it is prepared to damage Japanese ships, has been condemned by the Government. Statements by the society's founder, Paul Watson, have also been criticised by Greenpeace, which has distanced itself from the group....The Minister for the Environment, Ian Campbell, said Mr Watson's language would do nothing to help the anti-whaling effort, and he has referred the email to the Minister for Justice, Chris Ellison. "The word deranged came to mind when I read it," Senator Campbell said. "I couldn't not do something about it"...Sea Shepherd has also said Japan may be sending a warship to the Southern Ocean to protect its whaling fleet from interference.

[dingosatemybaby]

Despite any criticism of Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace by Aussie bureaucrats, the majority of Australians and NZealanders seem to be firmly opposed to Japanese whaling in their neighboor.

Japan seems to be hell-bent on alienating every country west of the Int'l Date Line. And doing a good job of it.

[kamome]

But running a boat alongside the Niishin Maru and interfering with whale hunting wouldn't qualify

But that's not what Watson was doing.

I ordered my crew to openly throw a mooring line from the stern in plain sight of the Japanese captain. In fear of fouling his prop he turned away and aborted his collision course.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

The 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention adds a new Article 3bis which states that a person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
·]when the purpose of the act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from any act:[/b]
- uses against or on a ship or discharging from a ship any explosive, radioactive material or BCN (biological, chemical, nuclear) weapon in a manner that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
- discharges, from a ship, oil, liquefied natural gas, or other hazardous or noxious substance, in such quantity or concentration that causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury or damage;
- uses a ship in a manner that causes death or serious injury or damage;

None of his actions in this case fit within the law you cited above:

1. Neither a population, a government, nor an international organization were the target of Watson's actions here.

2. He didn't discharge a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon or any other hazardous material.

3. He never caused death or serious injury or damage.

His actions interfered with a commercial operation in a non-lethal way. Point taken about his past transgressions which seem to have been good examples of eco-terrorism, but his actions in this case don't rise to that level.

[Socratesabroad]

He was protesting foreign overfishing outside the 200 mile limit.

If they were fishing outside their limit, wouldn't that mean they were breaking the international law before the Sea Shephards broke the international law? Or, does international law only apply to environmentalists?

That sort of goes back to the old saw about two wrongs not making a right or the speeding ticket defense "but everyone else was speeding, too."

If an organization breaks whaling law, the first course would be to go to the International Whaling Commission. Unfortunately, Sea Shephered's actions have resulted in it having been ejected from the body (as mentioned in one of the posts I just made).

Opposition is one thing, but vigilanteeism at best, or endangerment (or even piracy [the latter suggested by the Japanese]) of others by a non-profit NGO could have far more devastating consequences for other NGOs.

[Socratesabroad]

None of his actions in this case fit within the law you cited above:

1. Neither a population, a government, nor an international organization were the target of Watson's actions here.

3. He never caused death or serious injury or damage.

His actions interfered with a commercial operation in a non-lethal way. Point taken about his past transgressions which seem to have been good examples of eco-terrorism, but his actions in this case don't rise to that level.

Again, I'm not even vaguely familiar with the case law involved here, so I'm only making a logical assumption about specific laws.

The logic being:
1) The Institute of Cetacean Research is "a nonprofit research organization" "authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan" and might be deemed an international organization.
I imagine countries would extend some recognition to gov't-approved research bodies of other nations lest their own research groups be targeted.

2) Japan claims it has a legal basis to conduct its whaling [cough] research [cough].
Whether this claim is bollocks is not up to us to decide.

3) Sea Shepherd could be charged with some offense because of its actions. That offense might be piracy, if the ICR has its way, but it's more likely to be endangerment or interference with maritime traffic/navigation.

Sea Shepherd's actions in the past - destruction of private property, endagerment, and interference with maritime traffic/navigation - are sufficient to warrant the organization the dubious title of 'eco-terrorist' (which is why Greenpeace has been so adamant about distancing itself from the group). Given their record, the Japanese in the current dispute could claim fear of being the target of a[n] [eco]terrorist attack.

Granted, while Sea Shepherd's current behavior surely won't merit a charge of piracy, it will give governments cause to keep a closer eye on other NGOs (the J-gov't already said it would look closer at the members of the Gpeace and SS crews) and will probably bring greater scrutiny upon legitimate NGOs.

Was it worth it?

In my mind, no.

[homesweethome]

3) Sea Shepherd could be charged with some offense because of its actions. That offense might be piracy, if the ICR has its way, but it's more likely to be endangerment or interference with maritime traffic/navigation.

Sea Shepherd's actions in the past - destruction of private property, endagerment, and interference with maritime traffic/navigation - are sufficient to warrant the organization the dubious title of 'eco-terrorist' (which is why Greenpeace has been so adamant about distancing itself from the group). Given their record, the Japanese in the current dispute could claim fear of being the target of a[n] [eco]terrorist attack.

Granted, while Sea Shepherd's current behavior surely won't merit a charge of piracy, it will give governments cause to keep a closer eye on other NGOs (the J-gov't already said it would look closer at the members of the Gpeace and SS crews) and will probably bring greater scrutiny upon legitimate NGOs.

Was it worth it?

In my mind, no.

I understand Socrates in your mind, you are regretfully mistaken.

The SS behavior will no doubt bring greater scrutiny on NGO's but by definition NGO is not a governmental arm that they would readily or ever could recognize. To put it simply:no government will ever recognize anything other than itself as the legitimate power. That is why SS will make a statement and has that no government will or can recognize.

Why do you make such simple things so difficult?

[Taro Toporific]

Whalers Give Greenpeace the Slip2005-12-29 8:11:03 CRIENGLISH.com - Beijing, China
Japanese harpooners slipped away from Greenpeace anti-whaling activists under cover of a storm in the Southern Ocean, the environmental group's team leader said.
But in a game of high-seas chess, Greenpeace vessels stuck with the Japanese whaling fleet's mother ship in the icy waters off Antarctica, despite 10-metre (30-foot) waves and 120 kilometer (75 mile) per hour winds, he said.
"The hunting vessels have disappeared for the past 48 hours," Shane Rattenbury told AFP by satellite telephone from the Arctic Sunrise, one of two Greenpeace ships harassing the Japanese fleet.
"But they can't do much whaling without the mother ship. If they catch a whale they have to bring it straight back to the factory ship."
The International Whaling Commission imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986 but Japan says its whale hunts are carried out for scientific research -- a claim critics reject.
Greenpeace had taken a tactical decision to stick with the mother ship when three "catcher" boats, which carry the harpoons, disappeared along with two spotter vessels, Rattenbury said.
Stormy weather had prevented the activists from using a helicopter to search for the five ships, and they were not visible on radar, he said, admitting to some puzzlement over the Japanese tactics.
"The behaviour of the fleet has been uncharacteristic. The mother ship has sailed in circles... It's very odd.
"We're a bit confused by their tactics. And I think they're confused that we can keep up with them." ...more...

[Taro Toporific]

The good pirates of the Southern Ocean - Opinion - theage.com.au, Dec 3, 2005
.....It is a little difficult to cast Sea Shepherd unpaid volunteers selflessly and legally trying to save the lives of whales as ruthless pirates. On the other hand, the Japanese whalers are illegally stealing and killing whales from a sanctuary for whales and from the territory that is supposed to be under the authority of Australia....
<snip>
....But piracy has a long list of renowned and admirable practitioners. It was the pirate John Paul Jones who founded both the navies of the United States and Russia. It was the pirate Jean LaFitte who stood with General Andrew Jackson in defence of New Orleans. It was the pirate Francis Drake who was knighted by Elizabeth I.
So I stand in honourable company as a modern pirate. I've not shot anyone, burned any ships, looted any cargo or kidnapped anyone, nor do I drink rum or carry a parrot on my shoulder.
What I do is defend the whales from the illegal slaughter by ruthless and merciless killers of whales. If people want to call me a pirate for that, then blow me down, buckos, I'm proud to be a damn pirate. Yo ho!

[Socratesabroad]

[kamome]

Socrates, I don't think an NGO sponsored solely by the government of a single nation could qualify as an "international organization". I think you're torturing logic to try to prove that what happened to the Nisshin Maru is anything other than a non-lethal interference with an illegal commercial operation.

[Socratesabroad]

...what happened to the Nisshin Maru is ... a non-lethal interference with an illegal commercial operation.

I think the more apt term would be "decidedly illegal non-lethal interference with a pseudoscientific commercial operation."

[Greji]

...what happened to the Nisshin Maru is ... a non-lethal interference with an illegal commercial operation.

I think the more apt term would be "decidedly illegal non-lethal interference with a pseudoscientific commercial operation."

The term "decidedly illegal" is a mis-use at best. Has a legitimate court labeled the Japanese action a violation of any international law? Even if a court has so-ruled, this would not allow one to take enforcement into his own hands as Sea Sheppard has in the past and apparently is continuing to do. The ranting and raving of pro-whale groups and their friends in the opposite camp do not give either of them any more of a ligitimate right to violate the laws of the open sea. They are going to continue until they kill someone, point the finger at each other and swim off to so other pro or against cause, leaving the bones of the dead to bleach.

This will continue till they try it in the wrong area and with countries who have Naval forces that will react with force, and they may find themselves getting blown out of the water where no favorable press or media can help them.

Just my two sen worth

[kamome]

...what happened to the Nisshin Maru is ... a non-lethal interference with an illegal commercial operation.

I think the more apt term would be "decidedly illegal non-lethal interference with a pseudoscientific commercial operation."

Decided by who? That's still a completely open question. As I pointed out above, Sea Shepard's actions don't fall under any of the conditions outlined in the law you cited. So how do you justify calling it illegal?

And the the very fact that the Nisshin Maru engaged in a commercial operation is proof enough that it was operating illegally, whether or not you modify it with the word "pseudoscientific".

As I said, you are torturing logic to prove an unprovable point.

[homesweethome]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be unfamiliar with NGOs in general.

No actually, I am very familiar with NGO's in general.

They beg for financial assistance from governments and powers that be, and when they get it they think they have 'arrived.' The real NOG's of the world (or at least accomplish something worthwhile) are the ones that dedicate themselves to the goal to which they have set themselves for, and are hell bent on achieving it, no matter what the cost. Sea Shepard is one of these, and there are thousands of others that operate hand-to-mouth, day-by-day, and actually do the things they set out to do. Yes, this may even include some so called 'terrorist' organizations that Governmental powers that be are so loathe to condemn.

I grant you many NGO's under whatever government powers that be have done things that have benefited real people, but the minus has been just as great if you look at the cost/benefit to the real people it was intended for to improve their lives.

Government recognition is a plus sometimes, more often a minus, to the purpose of what they are trying to do, in my humble real life experience. What is yours?

You might actually try working with one sometime, real life can be an eye opener.

[Socratesabroad]

The term "decidedly illegal" is a mis-use at best. Has a legitimate court labeled the Japanese action a violation of any international law?

Actually, if you take another look you'll find I'm agreeing with you completely - interference by Sea Shepherd was, in my mind, "decidedly illegal."

At the same time, though, ICR's actions are questionable scientifically (at least according to the Aussies/Kiwis) so thus I did labeled their work pseudoscientific.

[ichigo partygirl]

Free Pick Up Only From New Zeland

49 whales, dead less than 24 hours.
Suitable for "scientific research"

Please contact the local Maori to arrange collection

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10362112

[Socratesabroad]

[Socratesabroad]

They beg for financial assistance from governments and powers that be
[snip]
Yes, this may even include some so called 'terrorist' organizations that Governmental powers that be are so loathe to condemn.

Who are these "powers that be"? I've been taken to task for not offering specifics, so I'll return the favor. Without details or evidence to support your views, you sound just like anyone else railing against "the Man."

The real NOG's of the world (or at least accomplish something worthwhile) are the ones that dedicate themselves to the goal to which they have set themselves for, and are hell bent on achieving it, no matter what the cost. Sea Shepard is one of these...

Your idea of what constitutes a "real NGO" differs from mine. Though I will grant that Sea Shepherd seems "hell bent" on pursuing its goals, regardless of the means used and danger to others involved.

Government recognition is a plus sometimes, more often a minus, to the purpose of what they are trying to do, in my humble real life experience. What is yours?
You might actually try working with one sometime, real life can be an eye opener.

And you might try to reign in that condescending attitude since you know nothing about my life or my experience.
Oh, and incidentally, after becoming an Eagle Scout and later serving as an adult assistant, I worked with this NGO:


Unfortunately, being in China now severely limits my participation.

[homesweethome]

They are going to continue until they kill someone, point the finger at each other and swim off to so other pro or against cause, leaving the bones of the dead to bleach.

This will continue till they try it in the wrong area and with countries who have Naval forces that will react with force, and they may find themselves getting blown out of the water where no favorable press or media can help them.

Just my two sen worth

The debate about semantics is all very interesting but what you said yesterday is in the news today:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17713520%255E29277,00.html

Earlier, the Sea Shepherd group told the media they had received a tip-off that a Japanese naval ship had been sent to the Southern Ocean to protect the whalers.

Farley Mowat captain Paul Watson has already called on the Australian Government to send a warship to the area to keep the peace.

The Japanese plan to take 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales, ostensibly for scientific research, this southern summer.

Japan's Fisheries Agency, which conducts the whaling, said the claim was a tactic by Sea Shepherd to try to raise the stakes for extra publicity.

"This is why the environmentalists' campaign in the Antarctic is a PR stunt: every time they get some media coverage there's always some member not too far away asking the public for money," an agency spokesman said in a statement.

"Only this time, it completely backfired and now people will question what these groups say."

Greenpeace said its ships, the Esperanza and the Arctic Sunrise, remained on the heels of the whaling fleet, having continued the tracking through sometimes intense weather.

"The whaling fleet has covered more than 3000km in the last five days, mostly travelling at high speed," expedition leader Shane Rattenbury said.

"The whaling fleet have now left the whaling grounds.

"They are north of the area designated as the 'killing zone' under their so-called scientific plan (JARPA II)."

Mr Rattenbury said this pattern of behaviour was unprecedented.

"Greenpeace has made seven previous expeditions to Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the last 15 years and the fleet has never run like this before," he said.

"It is also the first time we have had a vessel fast enough to keep up with them - the Esperanza.

"The fleet is clearly embarrassed by having their actions exposed to the world, since the spotlight on their activities shows what it really is - commercial whaling with a very thin disguise."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17710190%255E31477,00.html

A STANDOFF between Japanese whalers and environmentalists has escalated, with a conservation group claiming the Japanese Government has sent a warship to Antarctic waters to protect its fleet.

The Washington-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said it had received a tip-off that a Japanese naval ship had been sent to the region to defend its whalers from protesters.

The group said it was concerned the warship would try to seize its vessel and those of the two Greenpeace crews shadowing the whaling fleet through the Southern Ocean.

"The Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research has made an open accusation of piracy and eco-terrorism against the Greenpeace Foundation and Sea Shepherd," it said.

"If Japan adopts the false accusations that acts of piracy have been committed against their ships, they can use the accusations as an excuse under international law to attack and seize the ships they accuse."

So who knows, I just hope they get it all on tape which I am sure they will.