Japanese Whalers..... by Calhoun

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The video does not reflect that.

You stupid piece of deluded go-se, it DOES!

Quote:
I think your confusing the turn of the camera as it pans to follow the boat with the turning of the ship.

No, I am a visual expert, I allowed for that, numbnuts.

Quote:
If the ship turned, it would be reflected in it wake.

It wasn't visible to observe, you idjit.

Quote:
Also the ship cannot veer so nimbly as you describe.

I described no "nimbleness," you fool!! It was an easy turn, as easy as it would be to turn the other direction.

Quote:

You admit it yourself, the boat was drifting foreward, toward the oncoming ship. Likely they were hoping for another close pass, and likely misjudged their approach resulting.

OBVIOUSLY, stupid. They were jerks, the Japs were jerks AND attempted murders.
You suck, ya know? NEVER admit error. Never.
Dickwad.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Chris,IsAll

Why would you possibly believe your lying eyes over the word of our 'Hero' ?

Ahhh, I'm tired of his perfection (in his own eyes). You can have him Rue.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:38 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You suck, ya know? NEVER admit error. Never.
Dickwad.

Why take it all so personal? People can agree to disagree without resorting to namecalling.

In court I'd be content to make my best argument to the Jury and be satisfied with leaving the decision to them.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:40 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I just went back and watched the videos over and over--each from a different perspective. I noted that there was virtually no wake from the Adi Gil, and that the Japanes whaler turned INTO the path of the Adi Gil, then veered AWAY right after hitting them.

It also seems to me that the water cannons were not moved as suggested, but were stationary as the Adi Gil went past them. They hit the trimaran as they approached and as they passed after hitting it, but I didn't see any deliberate "aiming".

I'm ignoring all the various "legal" arguments, I just wanted to be sure I'd seen what I had and my eyes weren't deceiving me. I realize this won't change anyone's mind, certainly not those who are convinced otherwise, I just wanted to be sure what I saw was what I initially interpreted. I feel it was, and that the whalers are getting deliberately more reckless and violent.

I think arguing legalities is fruitless...the whalers are hunting "legally" only because there's a convenient loophole for them to claim they're taking whales for "research", which they're not, and because the IWC has no teeth. The Sea Shepherd Society is behaving recklessly in harrassing the whalers, but there have always been protesters agains wrongs, and I'm on their side. NOT for the violence they may have perpetrated in the past or in the future, but because simply what the whalers are doing is WRONG, and there is no other method available to try and stop them.

Someone asked what they do with the whales by way of research. Here's a comprehensive answer, as far as I'm concerned. It's written with regard to Iceland's continued whaling (whales which they then sell to the Japanes), but covers the whole thing fairly well:

Quote:
The Japanese invented the concept of 'scientific' whaling in 1987 as a way round the moratorium on commercial whaling instituted by the the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Their research is not really research. It is an excuse for supplying whale meat on the Japanese market, though that market is dying.
The science they perform consists of DNA sampling, physical measurements such as earbone size, age ID, and most importantly, the contents in the digestive tract.

The data on what the whales eat is then perverted to help their propaganda campaign, which argues that whales eat too much commercially important fish, and that we should cull the population to save our fisheries. They selectively release data on certain species, while ignoring data on others, especially baleen species.

Iceland is just following Japan's example of taking advantage of IWC loopholes, as an excuse to resume commercial hunts.

Australia and many other countries use non-lethal data collection techniques, such as "knicking" the skin of a whale for biopsy samples to determine DNA and toxin levels. Analysis of faeces is the most accurate way of determining the animals' diet.

Also, tagging whales with data sensors and tracking their movements tell us much more about their behavior and life patterns than any forensic data could provide.

Killing 38 Minke whales this year is the thin edge of the wedge. Iceland intends to catch 500 whales over the next two years (200 Minke whales, 200 Fin whales and 100 Sei whales).Clearly there can be no 'scientific' justification for this level of whaling - the Government of Iceland is once again trying to resume commercial whaling via the back door, with an eye on the lucrative Japanese export market.

Don't be fooled by the terminology. It is not research, it is commercial whaling. Nobody needs 500 whales, most from the same species (minke), and from the same feeding ground, to "research" anything of importance.

IWC rejects Iceland's scientific programme

In a strongly worded resolution at this year's IWC, the Commission fired a shot across the bows of Iceland's whaling industry which plans to commence a scientific hunt for export to Japan possibly as early as this summer.

During the debate, members of the Commission restated the concerns of Scientific Committee members who had reviewed Iceland's research proposal, and scientific whaling in general. Thirty nine of the Scientific Committee's national delegates from many different nations had concluded that, not only was Iceland's research proposal poorly contrived and unlikely to yield relevant results, but that it was 'deficient in almost every respect'. Below is a summary of some of their reasons:

1 IWC scientists have already unanimously agreed on the scientific aspect of a management system. The system does not require any of the data provided by Iceland's "research" programmes.

2 Articles 65 and 120 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establish that all countries must "cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organisations for their conservation, management and study

3 The management plan agreed by IWC scientists requires only information that can be obtained without killing whales.

4 UNCED said that because of their special status under international law as highly migratory animals and as marine mammals, the management of cetaceans can be more strict than that of other marine species, including a prohibition on their catching. There was no "list of resources open to sustainable use and development" approved at UNCED and there was no "explicit rejection" of whales from this purported list.

5 The Scientific Committee Working Group has also agreed that the data produced by killing whales is "not required for management".

6 Of the 5000 minke whales stomachs so far 'sampled' by Japanese whalers in the Antarctic, every one has contained krill and only krill, a fact that was known long before the 'research' began.

Per legalities, I'll just ask this: Given it is direcly in opposition to Articles 65 and 120 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should it still be considered "legal"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:48 PM

" there is no other method available to try and stop them "

I think is the key,

Hard to make arguments about legality, when nobody is willing to step in and enforce said laws.

Until the Sea Shepard's put a black market TOW missile into one of the whalers no body ( government body ) will take them seriously

and then Japan would likely send a frigate out with the whalers

Mind you, sending the warship might make whaling too expensive and solve the problem too

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:43 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
" there is no other method available to try and stop them "

I think is the key,

Hard to make arguments about legality, when nobody is willing to step in and enforce said laws.

Until the Sea Shepard's put a black market TOW missile into one of the whalers no body ( government body ) will take them seriously

and then Japan would likely send a frigate out with the whalers

Mind you, sending the warship might make whaling too expensive and solve the problem too

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Yes, the fact that nobody seems much interested in enforcing the existing laws IS the key. And while there's strong support for even stronger laws and agreements, once again (as you've pointed out), without enforcement, what's the point? What good will they do?

And Niki,

Quote:

I think arguing legalities is fruitless...the whalers are hunting "legally" only because there's a convenient loophole for them to claim they're taking whales for "research", which they're not, and because the IWC has no teeth. The Sea Shepherd Society is behaving recklessly in harrassing the whalers, but there have always been protesters agains wrongs, and I'm on their side. NOT for the violence they may have perpetrated in the past or in the future, but because simply what the whalers are doing is WRONG, and there is no other method available to try and stop them.

I agree completely, but that's not to say I *agree* with the Sea Shepherds or their methods. I *understand* where they're coming from, but I disagree with how they're trying to get there. And I feel your frustration, and share it.

But the thing is, I'm pro-choice, and I know you're pro-choice, but the exact same argument you just made in support of the Sea Shepherds can be used by the anti-choice crowd: while they don't exactly *support* Scott Roeder's murdering of George Tiller, they feel that what he and other abortion providers are doing is WRONG, even though it remains LEGAL (through a mere loophole, in their view), and they feel that murder is the only form of protest left to them, and the only means by which to stop what they feel is behavior that is utterly wrong.

In other words, we all have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Why take it all so personal? People can agree to disagree without resorting to namecalling.

I don't disagree, buttwipe.

Quote:

In court I'd be content to make my best argument to the Jury and be satisfied with leaving the decision to them.

After twisting/altering/disregarding the facts.
Douche.

The fed-up-with-blind-a-holes Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

In other words, we all have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.

How about if we just harass whalers that kill PREGNANT whales? That satisfy both sides?

The snark-filled Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:24 PM

Quote:
How about if we just harass whalers that kill PREGNANT whales? That satisfy both sides?

Part of me likes to think there's a very special place in a very special hell reserved just for them. And people who talk in the theatre.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:30 PM

Hero & friend:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I agree completely ..."

How very ... logical. Though the two are not completely equivalent. In both cases an action has been reviewed by a body which represents the authority of societies to regulate themselves. In both cases an action is deemed acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. In the case of abortions those conditions ARE being met. In the case of whale hunting they are not. If the whalers were generating genuine, unique scientific data, I suspect there would be no support (or very little) for the Sea Shepherd Society.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
" there is no other method available to try and stop them "

I think is the key,

Hard to make arguments about legality, when nobody is willing to step in and enforce said laws.

Until the Sea Shepard's put a black market TOW missile into one of the whalers no body ( government body ) will take them seriously

and then Japan would likely send a frigate out with the whalers

Mind you, sending the warship might make whaling too expensive and solve the problem too

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Yes, the fact that nobody seems much interested in enforcing the existing laws IS the key. And while there's strong support for even stronger laws and agreements, once again (as you've pointed out), without enforcement, what's the point? What good will they do?

And Niki,

Quote:

I think arguing legalities is fruitless...the whalers are hunting "legally" only because there's a convenient loophole for them to claim they're taking whales for "research", which they're not, and because the IWC has no teeth. The Sea Shepherd Society is behaving recklessly in harrassing the whalers, but there have always been protesters agains wrongs, and I'm on their side. NOT for the violence they may have perpetrated in the past or in the future, but because simply what the whalers are doing is WRONG, and there is no other method available to try and stop them.

I agree completely, but that's not to say I *agree* with the Sea Shepherds or their methods. I *understand* where they're coming from, but I disagree with how they're trying to get there. And I feel your frustration, and share it.

But the thing is, I'm pro-choice, and I know you're pro-choice, but the exact same argument you just made in support of the Sea Shepherds can be used by the anti-choice crowd: while they don't exactly *support* Scott Roeder's murdering of George Tiller, they feel that what he and other abortion providers are doing is WRONG, even though it remains LEGAL (through a mere loophole, in their view), and they feel that murder is the only form of protest left to them, and the only means by which to stop what they feel is behavior that is utterly wrong.

In other words, we all have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

I would disagree Mike, abortion is the law in the US... and what laws and regulations exist are enforced and debated through the system that created them. Further, a mechanism exists to change that law if enough support is mustered. While in the Southern Oceans, nobody cares what the laws are because no enforcement...

Apples and Grapefruits

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:16 PM

In Captain-Dummy talk, a bunch of rowdy do-gooders got sloppy & were nailed while harassing peeps conducting arguably legal whale non-murder.

Does that sum it up, Hero?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I agree completely ..."

How very ... logical. Though the two are not completely equivalent. In both cases an action has been reviewed by a body which represents the authority of societies to regulate themselves. In both cases an action is deemed acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. In the case of abortions those conditions ARE being met. In the case of whale hunting they are not. If the whalers were generating genuine, unique scientific data, I suspect there would be no support (or very little) for the Sea Shepherd Society.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

A valid point. The two AREN'T completely equivalent, but the broad strokes are remarkably similar, if looked at in the right way.

Anti-choice activists will claim that the conditions are NOT being met, because in their minds there ARE no "valid" conditions that would allow abortion, ever, in any case.

And the whaling companies will argue that what they are doing IS legal, under the specific letter of the law, while deep down, where they live and when they go to bed at night, they know that while it might slip under the letter of the law, it's nowhere even NEAR the SPIRIT of the law.

Quote:
Posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I would disagree Mike, abortion is the law in the US... and what laws and regulations exist are enforced and debated through the system that created them. Further, a mechanism exists to change that law if enough support is mustered. While in the Southern Oceans, nobody cares what the laws are because no enforcement...

Gino, I think you are missing the point of what I'm trying to illustrate: While abortion may indeed BE legal, there are groups who feel that it violates a "higher law" - what they call "God's Law". They can't be reasoned with on this, because it doesn't matter to them if you don't believe in their god or not. They insist that THEIR actions not be dictated by YOUR beliefs, but they howl like a cat on a lathe if you should ever have the temerity to imagine that YOUR actions likewise shouldn't be dictated by THEIR beliefs.

The whalers have found a tiny legal loophole, apparently, and they're going to exploit it as much as they can. And no matter what, there are going to be those who say that it's unconscionable and unacceptable under ANY circumstances, and there can be no reasoning or negotiating with them.

And in both cases, "the law" is only as good as the enforcement of it. I can't remember the exact figures, but I read a report that prosecutions for abortion protesters decreased by something like 75% while Bush was in office, leaving the distinct impression among reproductive rights providers that Bush had no interest in protecting their safety, and every interest in protecting protesters, even when they committed criminal acts in the course of their protests.

Step ONE is to make sure we actually HAVE adequate laws in place. Step TWO is to see to it that those laws are adequately enforced. Without the one, the other is rather useless.

For anyone who's been following this thread from the beginning, you'll see that my sympathies seem to have changed sides a bit. That's not the case, though. I've admired the GOALS of the protesters from the outset; where we digress, and somewhat sharply, is in the methods used in pursuit of those goals.

Having said that, and being quite firmly against terrorism on the high seas (and in quite clear agreement with Frem in that once you strap on the terrorist or pirate garb, you are indeed fair game for pretty much whatever comes your way), I'm not against protesting these ships, their crews, and their contractors who hire them, WHILE THEY ARE IN PORT, AT ANCHOR.

In fact, if one was to use the methods of certain governments (I'm looking at YOU, France, Francois Mitterrand, and the DGSE arm of your secret service), one may even be able to argue for the sinking of whaling ships while at anchor and unmanned (or SUPPOSEDLY unmanned, as in the case of the Rainbow Warrior, where one of the crew was still aboard and was killed).

Wanna sink the ships at anchor? I won't condone it, but it would at least give the crews a fighting chance to reach safety.

By show of hands, how many here think the Ady Gil would have circled back to pick up survivors had the Shonen Maru somehow been sunk instead? Anyone?

Maybe it's just me - maybe I've seen Jaws too many times and heard the story of the USS Indianapolis too many times, but there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...

For all that has been said on both sides of this debate, I see a win for the Sea Shepherds in all this. They've gotten publicity, and they'll no doubt gain enough support and new donors to replace their pretty little toy in no time. My biggest fear in this is that it will further embolden them to try ever more stupid tactics, until they, or the crew of another ship, are finally killed in action.

If they could take the good that comes with this latest escapade, and leave the bad behind and change their behavior, they COULD very well have a major impact on getting laws changed and pressure put on the remaining whaling groups to join the rest of us in the 21st century, and (hopefully) leave the 19th century far, far behind.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In Captain-Dummy talk, a bunch of rowdy do-gooders got sloppy & were nailed while harassing peeps conducting arguably legal whale non-murder.

Does that sum it up, Hero?

The laughing Chrisisall

I'm no Hero, but that sounds like the shape of it.

Is there a way to go before the U.N. and propose that anyone knowingly hunting and killing endangered species be charged with some form of genocide? After all, if extincting an entire species isn't genocide, what is it? And if the animals in question are already known to be endangered, and are already on the protected list, to go on hunting them must be seen as attempted extinction, right?

We look into this, then go after the crews of the ships, and pressure them to give up whoever gave them the orders. As always, follow the money.

This - whaling - is a crisis. But in every crisis, is opportunity.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...

I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!

The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:07 PM

But on the other hand, if the laws are going to be changed...

Pressure would need to be brought to bear on whatever international authority's who may or may not have it in their mandate to do anything about this...

I do not see protests effecting the actions of the WTO

I look at the recent climate change conference and shake my head

I see your point about abortion, but the god wackadoodles, even if they are acting within their beliefs are still breaking the law...

That is my point... there is a reasonable mechanism in that issue, the reason it is the way it is... there is a majority of folk who want it that way.

Whaling... who do you complain to ?

I suppose the thing to do is create a cartoon show with a pod ( is that right ? ) of cute whales... then about episode 5 throw in graphic scenes of them getting harpooned and cut up.

Make sure Obamas daughters get a copy, and the kids of all the world leaders...

Be the only way to have someone effectively on their asses until they do something about it.

or go to war with the Japanese whaling fleets

then the world leaders can deal with the problem tommorow that they brushed aside today

like the Somali pirates, just as an example

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:34 PM

Quote:

I suppose the thing to do is create a cartoon show with a pod ( is that right ? ) of cute whales... then about episode 5 throw in graphic scenes of them getting harpooned and cut up.

Make sure Obamas daughters get a copy, and the kids of all the world leaders...

Be the only way to have someone effectively on their asses until they do something about it.

Not a bad idea at all!

Also, you mention going to war with the whaling fleets, and I think it was "Hero" who mentioned the idea of Japan sending out military ships to escort the fleets. If I recall corrrectly, Japan is specifically forbidden in their constitution from doing anything of the sort.

So if you're going to war against them, they likely won't be overly protected, unless and until the US Navy gets involved. 'Course, once that happens, the fleets will have all the whales they can grab after the navy's sonar cripples the whales. :(

As for laws and enforcing them, that's what I was pointing out. We have a golden opportunity here to get the laws CHANGED to be more protective of whales. The problem lies with getting those laws ENFORCED, when even existing laws on the matter seem to be viewed by most as mere "suggestions" or "advice", not as actual LAW.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...

I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!

The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall

Two good points, but I still don't like the precedent of attacking ships at sea. As with the Somali pirates, I can understand WHY they're doing it, but I don't feel much sympathy for 'em when a team of SEALs pops holes through their heads. Go out with piracy in mind, and you may sleep with the fishes.

On the other hand, give me a boat like the Ady Gil (aka EarthRacer), and those whalers would never even get CLOSE to me as a spun circles around them!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

or go to war with the Japanese whaling fleets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...

I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!

The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall

Two good points, but I still don't like the precedent of attacking ships at sea. As with the Somali pirates, I can understand WHY they're doing it, but I don't feel much sympathy for 'em when a team of SEALs pops holes through their heads. Go out with piracy in mind, and you may sleep with the fishes.

On the other hand, give me a boat like the Ady Gil (aka EarthRacer), and those whalers would never even get CLOSE to me as a spun circles around them!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

But the Somalis did try it your way to start with Mike...

They presented evidence at the UN, asked the world to do something to stop the dumping of toxic and nuclear waste off their coast... To stop foreign fishing fleets from running down their boats sinking them.

The UNEP did go to the European courts and forced some over the table contracts to be canceled, but this likely only drove the criminals underground

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.h
tml

But... until they began the piracy, and ramped up the issue

Nothing was done to intercept or arrest the dumpers despite the UN having physical evidence... barrels complete with labels to go on.

If the law fails, what do you do...

roll over and die?

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...

I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!

The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall

Two good points, but I still don't like the precedent of attacking ships at sea. As with the Somali pirates, I can understand WHY they're doing it, but I don't feel much sympathy for 'em when a team of SEALs pops holes through their heads. Go out with piracy in mind, and you may sleep with the fishes.

On the other hand, give me a boat like the Ady Gil (aka EarthRacer), and those whalers would never even get CLOSE to me as a spun circles around them!

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

But the Somalis did try it your way to start with Mike...

They presented evidence at the UN, asked the world to do something to stop the dumping of toxic and nuclear waste off their coast... To stop foreign fishing fleets from running down their boats sinking them.

The UNEP did go to the European courts and forced some over the table contracts to be canceled, but this likely only drove the criminals underground

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.h
tml

But... until they began the piracy, and ramped up the issue

Nothing was done to intercept or arrest the dumpers despite the UN having physical evidence... barrels complete with labels to go on.

If the law fails, what do you do...

roll over and die?

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Gino, I don't have an easy answer. But life has taught me that when you don't have an answer, murder probably isn't the right one either.

Education, publicity, and dare I say SHAME are our allies in this, not violence and murder. Use the opportunity to TEACH people about the plight of the whales and the disinterest in protecting them from the people who should be acting as their stewards and shepherds. Use the publicity to further elucidate and illuminate the matter. Spread the word far and wide, "by whatever means necessary". The internet can be our greatest ally, with near-instantaneous message dispersal and content focus.

And lastly, SHAME those who are partaking of this behavior, and further shame those who are profiting from it, and FURTHER shame those who turn a blind eye to it. Make them societal pariahs. Hit them in their pocketbooks and in their consciouses, and they'll likely change their tune. (This is where your idea about a cartoon about whales comes in handy - get the kids and families against these people, and watch how quickly they crumble.)

I don't want to murder these whalers and their families; I want to educate them, to convince them of the error of their ways. After all, there's no zealot like a reformed zealot, and if you could have a whaling captain join your side, imagine the image THAT would convey, compared to having him "martyred" by your side.

Just something to ponder...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA

From what I understand via one of two-stars conversations with these well-meaning nitwits, their intent is to take the money out of it by driving up the insurance premiums for those who participate in this activity to where it's no longer profitable.

Again, good idea, terrible execution.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And the whaling companies will argue that what they are doing IS legal, under the specific letter of the law, while deep down, where they live and when they go to bed at night, they know that while it might slip under the letter of the law, it's nowhere even NEAR the SPIRIT of the law."

But they are not even meeting the letter of the agreement. They MUST publish their results, once a year, in a publication of the IWC's choosing.

If the IWC chooses a genuine scientific publication the whaler's 'research' results would be rejected out of hand. And the whalers know that - which is why they publish in dummy publications - or not at all.

That's the point I'm making.

IF their catch generated genuine unique research results there would be FAR fewer objections to the practice. But they've forgone even the pretense of the fig leaf to cover their - at this point - blatant commercial hunt.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 7:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ends and means... Let's get real. The anti-whalers are not Somali pirates.

I don't see anything wrong with the "means" of the anti-whaling ships. They drive the whales away from the "research" vessels if possible. They put themselves at risk by physically interpsoing themselves between the "research" vessels and the whales, kinda like lying down in front of a tank. Their stink bombs (butyric acid) simply make the whale meat unpalatable for consumption, not unsuitable for research. They make a POINT of not physically endagering the other boats or crew. Murder???? Not on their agenda!

So, WTF? I got no problems with what they're doing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ooops, hey ho, the whalers ARE acting illegally:

Quote:
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Steve Irwin is presently pursuing criminals in the territorial waters of Australia along the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

The Japanese fleet is in clear violation of an Australian Federal Court order prohibiting whaling operations inside the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.

The Court order was issued on January 15, 2008 by the Federal Court of Australia. The Court found that the Japanese whaling fleet killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary contravenes the Environment Protection and Bio-Diversity Conservation Act of 1999 of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Commercial activities exploiting wildlife are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty. Refueling of ships at sea is a violation of the Antarctic Treaty.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is legally authorized to intervene in accordance with the United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982.

Section 21 of the World Charter for Nature states:

States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, 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 conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Additionally, 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.

So oops, turns out the whalers ARE breaking the law according to Australia and the UN. So I guess that changes the argument, eh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:35 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I wrote this first, actually, before I knew there was a "law" which the whalers were breaking. So I'll post it anyway, in response to posts here:

Mike, I've already said a couple of times that I have NO tolerance for some of the things the Sea Shepherd has done. On the other hand, your argument doesn't hold water, in that the anti-choice crowd have HARMED those they don't agree with, to the point of KILLING them. None of the things the Sea Shepherd has done equates. Unless and until they actually harm some person, they can't be looked at as martyrs whose violence is condoned in the name of the end. Thus far, all they have done is comparable to anti-choice protesters holding up signs, making entrance to clinics difficult, haranguing people trying to get in, and damaging some clinics. But they've gone beyond that, far beyond it, so the corollary doesn't hold, in my opinion.

It doesn't hold water from another angle, either, which Gino elucidated:

Quote:
abortion is the law in the US... and what laws and regulations exist are enforced and debated through the system that created them. Further, a mechanism exists to change that law if enough support is mustered. While in the Southern Oceans, nobody cares what the laws are because no enforcement...

While MOST of the things the SSCS does against the whalers isn't against any law, I believe (tho' some is), anti-abortionists are quite literally breaking the law. Ego, neither SSCS (for the most part) nor whalers are doing anything against any "laws", the whalers are breaking an agreement, a pact, as close to breaking the "law" as the situation allows.

For me, you'd have to turn on your head to see the two as equivalent, or even similar. Given the number of whales being slaughtered, I'd call it mass murder, myself.

Rue, I doubt the SSCS would stop even if the whalers WERE doing real research; just like the abortionists, they'd continue "protesting". On the other hand, if Japan and Iceland and Norway took only a proper number of whales for research, I think the SSCS' actions would be FAR less aggressive. True, what research is done can be done without killing the whales, but they'd still feel it was wrong...how far they'd go in that case we can never know, unless those three countries change their actions.

Chris, you summed it up nicely for me, except I WOULD call it "murder", and so do they.

Mike, I disagree. I think the only way the Japanese could abide by their word would be for them not to kill whales at all...there are perfectly adequate methods of doing research without killing them. Second, because even if they took a "legitimate" number of whales, because of the above, I think the SSCS would still hassle them...albeit maybe less agressively.

Note that the SSCS has no argument with the subsistance whaling done by indigenous people; if there is good reason to kill whales and it doesn't upset the balance, I'm guessing they'd have no complaint...problem is, even whaling for research isn't necesary, so if the Japanese took ANY, the SSCS would protest.

As to the Ady Gil swinging around, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that not only would they have swung around to pick up survivors, but the Bob Barker would have rushed in as well. There is no desire on the part of CCSC to kill anyone or anything, only make whaling for commercial use unprofitable. I would say "note the whalers didn't turn around to pick up the survivors of the Ady Gil", but given the Bob Barker was right there to do so, we can't know if they would have. Personally, I have very strong doubts they would swing around to pick up survivors.

You brought up another point tho; back when Greenpeace was still involved, pro-whalers DID sink the Rainbow Warrior, and caused someone to be killed. So nobody is in the "right" with respect to violent actions.

My wording was wrong, I see; according to Miriam Webster, "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"--it doesn't say specifically "human", while murder does.

Education, publicity and shame won't work, Mike. All three have been used as best they can already. You will have no luck tring to educate the Japanese, they know exactly what they're doing already, and it's the corporations who profit from commercial whaling; the whalers themselves are just "doing their job".

Quote:
their intent is to take the money out of it by driving up the insurance premiums for those who participate in this activity to where it's no longer profitable

Yes.

Rue,

Quote:
IF their catch generated genuine unique research results there would be FAR fewer objections to the practice

That's not possible. All research so far deemed to be of value can be obtained without killing the object of the research: whales.

Sig, in my heart I agree with you (thanks for the info about the stink bombs, I didn't know that), but I still have trouble with aggressive acts. I don't have an answer, given they're already acting beyond the law and not being stopped.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:54 AM

Quote:
I don't have an answer, given they're already acting beyond the law and not being stopped.

Agreement at last. That may very well apply to BOTH sides in this instance.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That's not possible. All research so far deemed to be of value can be obtained without killing the object of the research: whales."

Exactly my point. REAL research doesn't involve killing whales. That's why they could never publish in a genuine scientific journal. That's why they can't meet the requirements. That's makes what they are doing of necessity a commercial activity.

If they were forced to try and publish as a requirement of their hunt, it would cease to be.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What happened to Hero, and his argument on the "legal" side? I've just quoted the proof that what the whalers are doing IS illegal, not only by Australian law, but by UN charter:

Quote:
The Japanese fleet is in clear violation of an Australian Federal Court order....[which] found that the Japanese whaling fleet killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary contravenes the Environment Protection and Bio-Diversity Conservation Act of 1999 of the Commonwealth of Australia.

So they have been found to be acting illegally IN COURT...wasn't that one of the arguments? Not only are their actions illegal, they're breaking a treaty:

Quote:
Commercial activities exploiting wildlife are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty.

AND acting against

Quote:
United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982.

So they're essentially breaking three "laws", one by the UN.

Not only that, but by Australian LAW, the Sea Shepherd is acting WITH THEIR APPROVAL:

Quote:
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is legally authorized to intervene

and is pursuing

Quote:
criminals in the territorial waters of Australia

So where does everyone stand now? It appears that what's ACTUALLY happening is that the Sea Shepherd is LEGALLY pursuing CRIMINAL Japaneses whalers...so if they're attacked by the whalers, doesn't that make the WHALERS the pirates?

Where's Hero...doesn't he have anything to say about this? Not only have I proven that they are acting legally and the whalers acting illegally, but also that the SSCS is doing so under the auspices of the Australian government and the U.N.

Doesn't this turn the whole thing upside down? I still abhor violence, don't get me wrong, but it appears that the TRUE violence has been on the part of the "criminal" whalers, who, in abiding by the law, should have stopped their activities and/or allowed the Adi to board and cite them?

It all becomes a moot point, given the above, because even if you take the IWC out of it, within Australian waters whaling is prohibited BY LAW.

As the title of the article I posted (at http://www.sea-shepherd.com/news-and-media/news-080221-1.html ) says, "A Warrant to Intervene: Sea Shepherd Intends to Enforce the Australian Federal Court Order", the Sea Shepherd is ENFORCING A LEGAL WARRANT.

Beyond that, quoting from the article:

Quote:
Therefore the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regards the boarding of, damage to and interference of the operations of such ships as being appropriate tactics for opposing said criminal operations.....Therefore the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regards the boarding of, damage to and interference of the operations of such ships as being appropriate tactics for opposing said criminal operations....This warrant hereby authorizes the crew of the Steve Irwin to board if required, to disable equipment if necessary, to destroy harpoons if possible and to intercept, blockade and harass all illegal whaling and poaching activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Doesn't that just about cover it all, and answer any questions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:45 AM

I think it makes one of them privateers and one of them pirates, and neither one rational.

Or possibly ninjas versus pirates, and in this case the Japanese aren't the ninjas.

EDIT:

Eco-ninja. I think I just broke the analogy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

If the Sea Shepherd wishes to take upon itself enforcing a law the rest of the world is ignoring, and they're willing to put their lives on the line to do so because of their beliefs, I don't find anything irrational about it. Essentially, by acting in accordance with an Australian law within Australian waters, the SSCS is attempting to enforce Australian law, and the whalers to avoid same.

There's about as much "cute" going on by the Sea Shepherd as by the whalers, in reality. They state

Quote:
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet to protest whaling nor to document and witness whaling operations. Sea Shepherd crewmembers are pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet for the purpose of intervention against crimes against Australian law and against international law.

which is just about as meaningful as the Japanese saying their whaling efforts are for research.

I think from here on, I'm on the side of the SSCS. Given they are acting legally in enforcing several laws the whalers are blatantly breaking, and are the only ones willing to do so (I don't doubt the Australian government would LIKE to, but taking the Japanese on wouldn't be prudent), I'm with them, as long as they don't do anything to injure any person. Damaging ships and harrassing them is, in my view from what I found, perfectly acceptable. That's just where I stand. If nobody's willing to stand up to wrongs, despite them being proven illegal, I think it takes guts and dedication to be the ones who DO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:07 PM

They're not being rational because they're not hitting the source of the problem, which is trying to talk to the Japanese and change minds about eating whale meat.

They're attacking the errand boys instead of the policy makers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:12 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm no Hero, but that sounds like the shape of it.

Mostly. Its legal whale murder...you forgot, I'm against whaling. I think it should be outlawed even if some scientist thinks boiled whale tails will cure cancer.

I also prefer my tuna dolphin-free.

Quote:

Is there a way to go before the U.N. and propose that anyone knowingly hunting and killing endangered species be charged with some form of genocide?

No. There is no governing international authority and if there was, you'd all be against it because international courts are a dangerous road to go down. Today they are saving whales on the high seas, tomorrow they're saying you can't run your farm, eat meat, or use local freshwater supplies.

The remedy is in Japan, unless they take whales in somebody's territorial waters.

Also, just because most folks agree to a treaty, does not mean Japan has to agree to it.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:13 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They're not being rational because they're not hitting the source of the problem, which is trying to talk to the Japanese and change minds about eating whale meat.

They're attacking the errand boys instead of the policy makers.

Japan needs beef.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:26 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Woa there, Hero. You're talking as if everything I put up didn't exist.

Quote:
Its legal whale murder

No, it's not. It's ILLEGAL--even if you dismiss the IWC, U.N. and Arctic Treaty, it's illegal WITHIN AUSTRALIAN WATERS.

Quote:
There is no governing international authority

Not international, but Australian, it's in their waters, they have prosecuted the whalers IN COURT.

Quote:
they take whales in somebody's territorial waters

That is precisely what they HAVE DONE, in Australia's territorial waters.

Obviously going to the U.N. with "genocide" won't work; they've already made it illegal, they won't act further. And talking to the Japanese would be a waste--they're firmly set on their path. They've already been pushed by numerous organizations to stop, they have no intention of doing so. The U.N. HAS addressed the issue, they just go on doing what they want. The only way to affect it now is to make whaling commercially unprofitable, which is what the SSCS is trying to DO.

I don't get why all along your posts have been about the laws, but now you're ignoring the legal aspects completely. According to every argument you've made, the whalers are acting illegally...I invited you to address the question under the new information I posted, yet you ignore it like it didn't exist. Where does that put you???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Mostly. Its legal whale murder...you forgot, I'm against whaling. I think it should be outlawed even if some scientist thinks boiled whale tails will cure cancer.

I also prefer my tuna dolphin-free.

The Emperor has not driven it from you fully!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:33 PM

The Japanese actually have some cultural interests in being eco-friendly (See: Kyoto Treaty, Shintoism, lots of anime).

If you could convince them that it damages the environment and is cruel, it would probably go a long way. The whalers would probably just become commercial fishers, which is potentially another problem, but at least you'd solve this one.

My suggestion is hire Studio Ghibli to make a movie that pretty much combines Princess Mononoke and their short The Whale Hunt, with a protagonist who actually rides around in the ocean confronting the activity of whaling ships on a dolphin or a whale. I have a feeling it would be pretty influential.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:01 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/food/2009/11/20/2009-11-20_are_yo
u_eating_an_endangered_species_bluefin_tuna_found_in_sushi_at_many_new_yor.html?r=lifestyle/food

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, your movie idea, or something like it, might well help. It would educate those who know nothing about the issue, or who feel the Sea Shepherd is acting illegally, and international pressure might be increased.

Thing is, there's already enormous international pressure on the Japanese to stop, and they refuse to. Okay, so they snuk through the IWC, they can claim they're not doing anything wrong there. But the UN, Arctic Treaty, and especially taking whales in Australian waters where it has been determined by a COURT that it's illegal have all done nothing. Believe me, the international pressure has been there for a long, long time...it's just that most people around the world don't know the facts. If they did, put in a swallowable context, it might make a big difference.

Japanese are responsible for many, many species being endangered because of their eating habits, and more.

Quote:
Are you eating an endangered species? Bluefin tuna found in sushi at New York restaurants. All three species of bluefin (northern, southern and Pacific) are a lucrative catch - fishermen can sell a single fish for tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, over-fishing has reduced the world's bluefin population to 10% of what it was, according to Livescience.com.

Quote:
Japanese fisherman, faced with depleted fisheries due to over-exploitation, frequently cite wild dolphins as the cause of low fish catches, and herd the dolphins with prods and nets into shallow bays for a painful and slow execution. The slaughters are also seen as a way to eliminate non-human competition for the plummeting fish stocks.

This was a case where SSCS protesters were arrested for filming the slaughter, even tho' doing so isn't illegal. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-10-2003-46351.asp

Quote:
Nobu and De Niro label their own sushi “endangered”....Seriously - they announced they’re serving an endangered species of fish.

You may remember the scandal last week when it was discovered that Robert De Niro and Nobu Matsuhisa were serving bluefin tuna at their London sushi restaurants, supposedly without their customers knowing that it is considered by many to be an endangered species. "We are going to describe what’s on our menu but I’m also going to put an asterisk next to [bluefin] and next to that we are going to say that it is environmentally endangered.”

http://www.sciencesays.net/2008/09/nobu-and-de-niro-label-their-own-su
shi-endangered/

The Chinese, of course, are responsible for far more, but when you have something that's endangered, it becomes much more of a "desired" thing, so more expensive, so more profit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:08 PM

Yep, I know about the problems with tuna, sashimi and shark fins. That's why I said the whalers becoming commercial fishermen might actually be a problem too.

We could also add in fish to the anime movie. If you're going to put in fantasy elements like talking whale gods, you might as well show the impact on fish and maybe coral reefs as well. I think Studio Ghibli would love illustrating underwater scenes and making them seem as otherworldly as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:46 PM

Quote:
Posted by Niki:

It all becomes a moot point, given the above, because even if you take the IWC out of it, within Australian waters whaling is prohibited BY LAW.

There's an issue in that, simply because of what constitutes "Australian waters". Were they within 12 miles of the coastline of Australia? If not, international law doesn't recognize it as "Australian waters", from what I gather. AUSTRALIA might consider it their territory, but the U.S. and the international community don't. Anyone remember Libya declaring all of the Gulf of Sidra to be its very own, and vowed to shoot down any planes and sink any ships violating their territory? We didn't recognize their boundaries, and some aircraft were shot down as a result.

Point being, Australia might not have the legal standing to say whether the protesters were acting legally or not.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:48 PM

Of course the Japanese are not alone

http://www.rense.com/general54/doplh.htm

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/tell-denmark-to-end-whale-dolphin-sla
ughter-in-their-waters

http://puertogaleradive.com/blog/index.php?title=a_barbaric_whale_and_
dolphin_killing_in_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Niki:

It all becomes a moot point, given the above, because even if you take the IWC out of it, within Australian waters whaling is prohibited BY LAW.

There's an issue in that, simply because of what constitutes "Australian waters". Were they within 12 miles of the coastline of Australia? If not, international law doesn't recognize it as "Australian waters", from what I gather. AUSTRALIA might consider it their territory, but the U.S. and the international community don't. Anyone remember Libya declaring all of the Gulf of Sidra to be its very own, and vowed to shoot down any planes and sink any ships violating their territory? We didn't recognize their boundaries, and some aircraft were shot down as a result.

Point being, Australia might not have the legal standing to say whether the protesters were acting legally or not.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Antarctic_territories

Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:57 PM

Quote:

I think from here on, I'm on the side of the SSCS. Given they are acting legally in enforcing several laws the whalers are blatantly breaking, and are the only ones willing to do so (I don't doubt the Australian government would LIKE to, but taking the Japanese on wouldn't be prudent), I'm with them, as long as they don't do anything to injure any person. Damaging ships and harrassing them is, in my view from what I found, perfectly acceptable. That's just where I stand. If nobody's willing to stand up to wrongs, despite them being proven illegal, I think it takes guts and dedication to be the ones who DO.

Now *IF* all that is accurate and true, that changes the landscape a mite, and definitely WOULD impact my thinking on the matter. You'll pardon me if I don't just take the Sea Shepherds' word on it, though, right? That would be like accepting that the Japanese are doing whaling research because they say they are. ;)

Now, as to "taking on the Japanese", I still don't get the hubbub on that front. Why would anyone be afraid of "taking on the Japanese" in their own waters, if that's indeed where this is taking place?

I think many of you still have this WWII-era image of Japan's big bad Pearl Harbor-annihilating navy, and it just simply doesn't exist. They DO have a self-defense force, and as such they have some Aegis-equipped destroyers, supplied by the U.S., but those are large DEFENSIVE radar systems, and they tend to rely on the U.S. Pacific Fleet for any offensive or attack roles and capabilities. Besides that, I'm not sure if the Japan Self-Defense Force is even ALLOWED under their constitution to escort commercial - er, I mean *scientific research* - ships.

If anyone (Australia included) has any REAL problem with telling off the Japanese whalers, they should merely have but to ask the U.S.; we tend to still have a lot of pull with them in military matters.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Why would anyone be afraid of "taking on the Japanese" in their own waters, if that's indeed where this is taking place?"

Upsetting trade relations.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Antarctic_territories

I understand that Australia claims the largest portion of the Antarctic continent as its territory, but that still doesn't answer the question of territorial waters. What we need to look at is WHERE WERE THESE SHIPS WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED? If they were more than 12 miles from the nearest land, then technically, there should be deemed to be within international waters. I'm sorry, and that sucks, but that's what we recognize, and what we've repeatedly argued and enforced to the rest of the world.

Ealier "Hero" mentioned that many nations can sign a treaty, and Japan can still ignore it. I'd submit that that holds true for nuclear weapons as well. Did Iran sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation paperwork? Do they recognize its legitimacy? If not, they're doing nothing illegal, are they? ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why would anyone be afraid of "taking on the Japanese" in their own waters, if that's indeed where this is taking place?"

Upsetting trade relations.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Thanks for clarifying - I was getting the distinct impression that there was still this fear of the Imperial Japanese Navy, which no longer exists.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:10 PM