Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19854
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:"M" would not have approved.
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392713-for-sale-to-a-fore
ign-navy-the-british-warships-that-could-have-saved-hostages.do
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The funny thing is I have read this type of vessel, retrofitted a bit make first class ocean research vessels, oilfield support vessels, salvage vessels, etc
should go pretty quick if they are that utility useful
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are you utterly unable to think? Or observe?
They continued to hose down a boat that had been rammed. Is that assisting a vessel in distress?
Should this be treated as attempted murder? Since that is what the likely effect would be if there hadn't been a rescue vessel (and lucky so since this was so far from solid land).
I actually think that the Sea Shepherd Society is composed of a band of reckless people who really don't know much of anything about biology.
But they are vastly preferable to hoseheads like you who defend the most represensible practices.
Have you any decency at all? I don't think so.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I completely agree that prosecutors do pretty much whatever they want. It's absolutely appalling. But they get away with it all the time, because our fellow citizens actually trust these hoseheads.......
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So do tasers, would you be okay with a police officer tasering a dude he just beat over the head with his nightstick?
Originally posted by Hero:
noting that the water cannons have a very short range
Yes, I believe you would be, if you could spin it well enough for the court.
You should be hosed in that weather to see what you're talkin' about. That would seem right to me.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, and you'll notice he has no counter argument but to whine about my entirely justified hostility, the most recent provocation of which came from being ON the prosecutors side of the courtroom.
I had nailed a trio of burglars red-handed, goods in hand, full descriptions, vehicle plate number, the whole bloody works, in triplicate - complete with following their vehicle on foot and giving it's position and direction, immediately after which they ran em to ground and rounded em up, no question of the crime since they had the goods ON them when they was busted, and my "testimony" amounted to more or less a recitation of the official report put down during and immediately after the incident cause human memory is more fallible over time - by the book, chapter and verse.
And then having the fucking prosecutor snickering to me while revealing privileged info she could have only gotten from either bugging the public defenders office, or having him roll his clients to her, something that was just grossly unnecessary given how solid the case was - sure they *did* it, but to not even offer them a pretense of a fair trial offended me extremely.
Worse was listening to the bullshit dealmaking by slipping into the courtroom unnoticed and unrecognized before they "opened for business" and knowing full and well that shit is all decided before they even let the peons in there - it's all a pretty little show, a nice little song and dance for the masses to convince them of the faery tale bullshit our so-called "justice" system supposedly rests upon.
I found it offensive in the days it was aimed at me, but goddamn, I found it MORE offensive when I did everything by the frikkin book, and they're laughing up their sleeves with a nudge and wink like I am some willing participant in their outlaw conspiracy - were it not for their legal authority to compel me to testify I woulda told em to go to hell and walked out.
That said...
As I pointed out, once the folks in the pretty boat visibly displayed the Jolly Roger, they were in the wrong to the degree where the other ships had every right to sink them on the spot and not even rescue survivors - not that I have any particular disagreement with their concept, but the execution left them pretty clearly in the wrong, alas.
To which, being in any kind of agreement with this prick, makes me kinda queasy, don't ya know...
Your Approval Fills Me With Shame
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourApprovalFillsMeWithSham
e
-Frem
There always has to be a price.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Are you and the liberals on this board advocating we eliminate the Courts in all situations or just the ones involving folks and practices you don't approve of?
That's a weak argument, even by your standards, "Hero". I can just as easily ask if you and all the conservatives on this board are advocating we eliminate the courts in all situations involving folks (specifically, "Arabs" as you refer to them, or Muslims) and practices you don't approve of.
YOU have advocated torture for people who are darker skinned and pray to a different deity.
YOU have played cheerleader when a doctor who had committed no crime (never charged, never convicted) was murdered in cold blood while attending his church.
YOU advocate "pre-emptive war" at every opportunity, preferring to invade someone just because you think they MAY become a threat someday in the future.
So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I note for the record that Hero is not avoiding this thread, he's simply working up the mock-resentment needed to confront these allegations without benefit of moral high ground.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Should this be treated as attempted murder? Since that is what the likely effect would be if there hadn't been a rescue vessel (and lucky so since this was so far from solid land).
I actually think that the Sea Shepherd Society is composed of a band of reckless people who really don't know much of anything about biology.
If the reckless behaivor led to the death of someone, then yes, the Sea Shepherd Society might have been guilty of Manslaughter.
The video clearly shows a pattern of close passes beside and in front of whalers, they are a nimble little speedboat, the whaler a clunky and slow ship. The collision was the protestors fault. They should have to pay for the new paint job at least.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You should be hosed in that weather to see what you're talkin' about. That would seem right to me.
I'm smart enough to see the guy shooting the hose and stay far enough away not to get wet. The hosing started before the collision, even before they came into range (which is also standard anti-piracy practice).
Clearly they wanted to be hosed. Otherwise, why get so close?
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
To which, being in any kind of agreement with this prick, makes me kinda queasy, don't ya know...
An open mind...
The truth makes you sick? Kinda tells us where your coming from...
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
YOU have advocated torture for people who are darker skinned and pray to a different deity.
I don't care who they pray to or what there skin color is. I advocate aggressive interrogation of terrorists without regard to race, creed, color, God, or favorite TV show.
Quote:
YOU have played cheerleader when a doctor who had committed no crime (never charged, never convicted) was murdered in cold blood while attending his church.
Your confusing me with someone else. I'll cheer his execution, like I would any murder. I'm pro life, doesn't mean I wouldn't hang any John Brown's out there.
Quote:
YOU advocate "pre-emptive war" at every opportunity, preferring to invade someone just because you think they MAY become a threat someday in the future.
That is not the Bush doctrine. I support a pre-emptive war doctrine. Attacking someone who is going to attack you makes sense in some circumstances. Its a fair fight if both sides draw, but if I'm faster and get my shot off first...
Quote:
So it's obviously YOU who have no interest in the rule of law, and no faith in the court system you work for.
Like Mr. Adams said, I am for the law and there is no other side. Just this morning I berated another prosecutor for charging someone with a crime that he knew had an alibi (he was in court with another Prosecutor). Last week I sent a man to jail after a Jury trial, and I asked for a longer sentence because he wasted our time. It was wrong and I told them so.
My job is to represent the State, if I don't honostly believe a person is guilty, that case will NOT go to trial because the State is best served when the innocent go free and the guilty go to jail, it is also well served when a person who may be guilty goes free because there is not enough evidence (this is the presumption of innocence folks around here don't seem to believe in). I see my own judgement as the first check in that process (followed by the Judge and Jury).
In this case the law says they can go hunt whales. The law says the protestors can tag along and yell at them. The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The law used to say you could rape your slaves too. In a former life you prosecuted a young white man for beating the shit out of a massa for behaving legally, remember?
Originally posted by Hero:
In this case the law says they can go hunt whales. The law says the protestors can tag along and yell at them. The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers.
Go be Elliot Ness when it comes to speeding tickets, but when peeps hose an already disabled & possibly sinking boat in freezing waters, that's attempted MURDER in my book. Even in existing law, you can't KILL someone for merely being an asshole.
Or do I misunderstand here? Can you pre-emptively kill someone you BELIEVE will be an asshole, MORE than he already is, and will possibly at some later date pose a threat to your property?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, don't you realize by now that "Hero" works for the Pre-Crime Prevention Unit? He knows what people are going to do before they do it, just like Bush knew that Iraq was an "imminent threat" even though they had no WMD, didn't consort with terrorists, and had no plans to attack America or Americans.
And of course, just like Giuliani, "Hero" knows that we were never attacked while Bush was in office. ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Hero, are you out of your depth, or making arguments for the fun of stirring people up? Because those you offer are so far "out there" that it's hard to even make SENSE of them!Quote:
To begin with, what has that got to do with ANYTHING in this thread? Given most people here have agreed that both parties were in the wrong, and that if there were laws and courts regarding the open oceans, there would be reason to bring BOTH up on charges.
Are you and the liberals on this board advocating we eliminate the Courts in all situations or just the ones involving folks and practices you don't approve of?
And where the hell did the "liberal" come from? Are you one of "those" who happily lumps people into two categories, and then runs with it? That's pathetic. Also doesn't address, again, that anyone wants to eliminate courts; what's been said was just the opposite.Quote:
That's just sad, and typical of the pro-life crowd. And yes, I'll lump them because of their behavior--not to mention you admitted being one yourself. The feeling obviously by you anti-choicers is that life is sacred, until it comes out of the womb. I find that reprehensible, and completely devoid of logic.
I'll cheer his execution, like I would any murder. I'm pro life, doesn't mean I wouldn't hang any John Brown's out there.Quote:
No, you're obviously not. Anyone who "cheers" murder, however it's done, can say that.
I am for the law and there is no other sideQuote:
I must have that wrong, then. I thought a prosecutor's job was to represent the VICTIMS of crimes...so I guess from what you say, those don't come into it at all.
My job is to represent the StateQuote:
Please provide maritime law cites so we can determine this accurately. Because I don't believe you're right, I think there IS no specific law not allowing attempts to damage or delay the whalers. If there were such laws, the whalers AND the protesters would be brought up on charges.
The law does not allow dangerous approaches and attempts to damage or delay the whalers
I, along with virtually everyone here, feel that both sides are in the wrong, period. That you advocate one side only shows your bias.
It's pretty clear from your "signature" that you feel inferior and need to grasp at anyone's approval you can to shore up your self-image. That pretty much says it all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A couple of times I tried to celebrate his (temporary) letting go of the Dark Side, and he never lets me forget it.
Originally posted by Niki2:
It's pretty clear from your "signature" that you feel inferior and need to grasp at anyone's approval you can to shore up your self-image. That pretty much says it all.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The law used to say you could rape your slaves too. In a former life you prosecuted a young white man for beating the shit out of a massa for behaving legally, remember?
I was born in the anti-slavery part of West Virginia and I live and work in NorthEast Ohio, I sincerely doubt any past life involved American slavery. I note for the record that I have my Great (Great) Grandfather's Discharge Medal from a West Virginia Union Cavalry regiment.
Quote:
Go be Elliot Ness when it comes to speeding tickets, but when peeps hose an already disabled & possibly sinking boat in freezing waters, that's attempted MURDER in my book.Or do I misunderstand here?
Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group. Its the Felony Murder Rule, if a person dies during the commission of a Felony, then the suspect can be tried for murder.
You make it sound like they rammed the boat, turned around passed it again to spray more water on the boat. The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on. The boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers as they pass by, the boat is struck, the aft sprayers hit it as the ship continues on, this is all over the course of seconds, not minutes. AND the boat had already been sprayed during other close approaches. Those water cannons don't shoot far...its extremely close range.
As for the sinking boat, its was sinking so fast another video shows the boat still afloat and under observation by the whaler long after the crew had been rescued by Bob Barker and they had already cleared the area.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I must have that wrong, then. I thought a prosecutor's job was to represent the VICTIMS of crimes...so I guess from what you say, those don't come into it at all.
You are wrong on both accounts. I represent the State of Ohio and the people of my City. The victim AND the Defendant are my responsibility, not to mention society at large.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Reincarnation has less to do with place than time, doofus. Your facts are not applicable to my anecdote.
Originally posted by Hero:
I was born in the anti-slavery part of West Virginia and I live and work in NorthEast Ohio, I sincerely doubt any past life involved American slavery.
Quote:To use your own argument, the protest group did nothing illegal until a Judge & jury says they did.
Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group.
Quote:Nice automatic sprayers... pretty hi-tech, they're able to accurately target a boat while moving.
The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on.
Or, are they MANNED, you idiot? Busted again, say anything to support your position, no matter if it's true or not.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So with no law enforcement anywhere nearby
who is the body that would investigate this?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The video clearly shows a pattern of close passes beside and in front of whalers, they are a nimble little speedboat, the whaler a clunky and slow ship. The collision was the protestors fault. They should have to pay for the new paint job at least."
THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.
Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So with no law enforcement anywhere nearby
who is the body that would investigate this?
Law of the Sea is a legal specialty area.
UNCLOS is one governing legal authority. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.
Piracy is defined as acts of violence, detention, or deprivation against a ship and committed for private ends on the high seas (ie outside territorial waters). Legally all states have the right to seize and prosecute persons who commit piracy on the high seas. International Law does not cover pirate acts within coastal waters (the 12 mile limit) which makes Indonesian piracy a troubling issue.
Pirates are hostis humani generis or 'an enemy of all mankind' thus jurisdiction is universal. Terrorism is viewed in much the same way, thus providing legal reasoning in international law for a country like the US to enter a country like...Afganistan to hunt for terrorists absent a formal declaration of war or the invitation of the Afgan government (such that existed in 2001). Other examples (both good and bad) are Isreal entering Lebanon, Russia entering Georgia, India and Pakistan, China in Mongolia, the US Marines in Algeria, etc.
More fitting to the whaling incident is the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Navigation (“the SUA Convention”). This makes it illegal to seize or exercise control over a ship by threat or use of force thereof or any other form of intimidation. This was updated in 2005 to include acts of Political Piracy such as the ones being committed by the protest boats.
It is important to note that New Zealand, the closest state, has declined to take action in this case. They have indicated that they are not responsible for the safeguarding the protest boats when they are engaged in dangerous and illegal activities.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.
Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.
I linked to a number of videos.
In court the main question would be 'how did this happen'? How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler as to suffer the collision? The speedboat was not disabled, it was faster and more manueverable then the clunky ship. The crew was not oblivious or incapacitated. So what brought the two so close together that collision was the result?
The answer is that the boat was engaged in its routine practice of close passes, attempted boardings, and crossing the whaler's bow towing cables in an attempt to damage or disable the ship's rudder. The videos I linked to make that very clear.
I'd take a case like this to a jury and win a conviction against the protest-pirate (or win a defense of the whalers). I note for the record I would not take the case to defend the whalers, neither would I authorize charges against them, but I would prosecute the protesters.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."
The whaler turned INTO the boat - violating the FIRST duty of any captain.
And OF COURSE you wouldn't show that. Violating the oath to 'the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth'.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.
Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.
That give me the right to run them down.
Right 'Hero' ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Think I'm backing out of this one. I feel like both sides have spoken their piece and this has become Hero v. Everyone Else. Waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HEY - I've been off line for many days now ! It's not like I'm part of a pack. I'm just expressing my POV.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki: It usually is. Hero is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to his profession, and he can be a useful reference to call upon for insights, but he doesn't mince words about what he does. Hero's lawyer-think combination of "is it legal" and "can I prove it" and "if yes then good" can be somewhat disturbing for us less "letter of the law" and even "no law" type people. Especially when we also tend to see the law as a source of abuse, or as the basis for some seriously crazy policy.
I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"can I prove it"
Not so much "can I prove it", but "can I get a jury to agree with me, by any means necessary". If it involves manipulation, logical fallacies, hiding parts of the story, mis-stating things here and there - oops - oh, well. They (or we) should'a been smarter.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."
The whaler turned INTO the boat
Perhaps. The video does not reflect this, but assuming its true, the whaler is slow, ponderous when compared to the speedboat. In order to turn into the speedboat and strike it the speedboat would have to be extremely close. They could have and should been able to avoid any direct action by the whaler.
Again, the video does not reflect what you are saying. The videos show numerous close passes by the much faster speedboat and attempts to disable the whaler by passing in front of it at close range. Other videos show deliberate ramming by other protest ships and there are also records of successful and unseccessful attempts to close with and board the whalers.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.
Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.
That give me the right to run them down.
Right 'Hero' ?
Your example does not reflect what happened. I note for the record that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers.
If several youths were seeking to interfere with traffic by running across the road in front of car stringing wire in hopes of stopping, damaging, or delaying them...perhaps seeking to leap onto moving vehicles, using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars, then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct.
In both examples the driver could use the defense that they were in legal use of the roadway as a defense. In the case of deliberate action your example describes, the Defense would hopefully fail, in the more accurate example I provided, there would be no need because the youths would be the only ones on trial.
My advice for the future would be for the whaling fleet to have a military escort to warn off the protest ships and seize them if necessary. In fact this would be a reasonable solution since the military (especially from a neutral power)could provide an unbiased account of what happens (including an account of whaling activities). Its clear things have gotten out of hand, some nation needs to step up and sort this business out. Piracy, even for a good cause, is still piracy.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.
I dunno, I've always taken him for Lawful Stupid.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid
With a side order of Knight Templar.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
The latter being kind of ironic since it was actually being more TOLERANT of other faiths and less hardcore pricks than the rest of the church that landed the Knights Templar in trouble in the first place, but I digress...
To me, it's even simpler though - you know that Philip Pullman quote I am so fond of, and how I point out which side I am on ?
Well, I am a captain of one side - and Hero is a captain of the other.
It's not personal, but it *IS* due to the very diametric opposition of our viewpoints that anything less than antagonism is unthinkable.
Which is why even being in the slightest agreement with him on this makes me nauseous..
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Your example does not reflect what happened."
It doesn't ? In my example I had people interfering with activity, breaking minor laws (jaywalking), getting in the way of cars, and acting in a way that could POTENTIALLY cause damage though no ACTUAL damage was in evidence.
And I had people being run down as a result.
It seems quite equivalent to me.
"I note for the record ..."
Something you are CLAIMING as fact, which may not actually be one.
"... that your example would likely result in the arrest and prosecution of the 'youths' since a passing motorist would stop and call the police, an option not available to the whalers."
And if the motorist decided to run down the youths, would that not also be a crime leading to arrest and prosecution ? Which one of those crimes do YOU think would result in a greater sentence ? Which one of those crimes would YOU focus on for persecution ? I mean prosecution ?
"... using their own vehicles to ram the passing cars ..."
And if their vehicles were, comparatively a skateboard or bicycle ? And they were 'ramming' Hummers ?
"... then running alongside the moving cars placing themselves in the roadway so as to partially obstruct the road resulting in a collision, then your example would be more correct."
Only if you are correct - which you are not.
AND - we have to get back to the intentional ramming and sinking of a small boat by a far larger - and visibly undamaged - whaler.
It STILL comes down to small v large infractions - something you need to be focusing on.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I like that Pullman Quote, because those books are freaking amazing. It's a shame that The Golden Compass underperformed so much at the box office, while Narnia gets to go on and have numerous sequels. All because of a campaign those exact same representatives of the authority put together to turn popular opinion against it. But I guess what it comes down to is which message the public thinks is more important, ANOTHER allegory of the Bible in a fantasy setting, or being told to think for themselves.
We were talking about Hero though. Hero is kind of your anti-Frem. I'm pretty sure you're neutral chaotic. I want to put you in chaotic good, because everything you're doing, you doing because it helps people on both the individual and large scale levels, and you've sacrificed a lot to do it. That suggests a good alignment, but it's pretty blurry, and you like it that way, because it gives you more room to maneuver and do some kind of iffy stuff. Anyway.
The thing is, I think you're also actually a lot more neutral on the sliding scale of chaotic versus lawful than you think you are, because you know those arguments you have with other anarchists? Where they're so anti-authority bias that they don't care if there's suffering or death afterwards, they just want to bring down whatever structure they can see (rather than gradually dismantle)? You're not like that. Which is another indication that you might actually fall on the good side of the line, though damn if you don't make it hard to tell.
The reason I didn't score Hero low is because, I mean, think of YOUR lawyer, the man you describe as The Devil Incarnate? It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water. Hero thinks he's doing the right thing, and he thinks his country is doing the right thing, because it's all legal. Also, I don't see that Hero has ever really used any of the people he's gone up against, jailed them, sure, punished them, sure, and yeah, it all pads his reputation as a prosecutor, but I've never seen him say that's his motive. He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.
Also, a lot of what Hero posts about him messing with people/suspects/opposition I think is him actually trying to get a rise out of the people on the board he sees as "soft-hearted liberals, boo-hooing over the poor criminals."
I think his style of thinking, beliefs, and actions have consequences and that they represent something about our society, but I don't think he's evil. He's just very, very different ideologically speaking than most of the rest of us here. You don't see too many lawful alignments who like Firefly. He's a right wing authoritarian, but clearly he's a human too, and apparently he's got good taste.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...
As noted earlier, the sprayers are extremely short ranged, the video is very good at demonstrating this. They are commonly used aboard cargo ships for pirate defense (since cargo ships can't carry weapons).
So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray, which would seem to be very similar (extremely short range, non lethal, not always effective against a determined or prepared individual).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A better analogy would be something POTENTIALLY lethal, like a bunch of compressed air for cleaning computers at short range.
Originally posted by Hero:
So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray,
And WTF can't you shoot someone for punching you???
"Any of you primates... even TOUCHES me..."
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It doesn't seem to me like Hero does what he does just because he sees a profit or smells blood in the water.
I like to get paid. I'm a professional. Plus its a living, a job. I've got loans to pay like everybody else. The money is good, but lets face it, its govt work. I could make more working in private practice. Heck, my City is in a budget crisis, that means no raise this year, mandatory furlough days, a 2% pay cut.
Quote:
He gives very simple terms to describe his motives, like justice and the law, and in such a way that I think those actually ARE his motives.
I love my job. My biggest perk is the part where I address a Jury and say "I represent the State of Ohio". That means I'm the only person in the room speaking for everyone in the room, including the Defendant. Don't tell anybody...but I'd do it for free if I could figure out how I'd get by.
Adams is my hero, John not Sam (unless I'm drinking). When he says "I am for the law"...I get that. I'd be there to represent the British accused in the Boston Massacre, I'd be there arguing for independence from Britain.
In many ways Sam and John are two sides of our own argument. Sam the radical revolutionary, John the conservative. Sam demands the change, but found himself left behind when John makes the legal argument for independence and builds the new world Sam dreamed of. Sam the rebel, John the revolutionary...liberal and conservative, two sides of the same coin. You can see it repeated over and over again in American history.
In this case...its people like these protestors that fight whaling...its people like me that eliminate whaling. Its when you get folks like me on your side that the change happens...you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nicely put Hero, but extralegal measures are a recognized & approved method dating back to, oh, the founding of our nation-? Don't forget the backing of the Contras-? The invasion of Iraq-? The "enhanced interrogation" of detainees at Gitmo, & the TORTURE of same out of country (we can call it that if it's not US doing it)-?
Originally posted by Hero:
you liberals are fighting the wrong battle and forgetting we are on the same side.
I believe in law, but it must apply to EVERYONE, or it means nothing, do you understand!?
*whoah, a near "Kirk" rant there...*
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For what it's worth, Byte - the Archbishop of Canterbury thought Pullmans work a fine tale, full of vital lessons about the dangers of unquestioned dogma no matter who's it is... alas this was not the reaction of less reasonable elements, which in my opinion just proves Pullman all that much more correct about those dangers.
As for the rest, it's actually simpler than that...
Just remove the good/evil equation and look at it straight across.
We're diametrically opposed melodramatic overlord types, Law and Chaos, as a cause, and thus utterly unable NOT to stick pins in each other every bloody chance we get - and this is where I mention his 'hero' (pun intended) John Adams was also responsible for our first stab a "Patriot Act", the Feudo-Fascist-Federalist bastard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
But I digress, it's not so much personal so much as we are utterly opposed to all the other represents, is all.
Although for mine own, I am very well aware of the dichotomy there, without chaos there is no creation, only deterioration, but without order there is no lasting improvement or structure to be improved - to tip the balance too far to either side beckons disaster.
Our primary disagreement is WHICH side it's leaning too far towards, as we shove it towards the other with all our might.
And it's not like we don't both cheat, neither, leastways I happen to be honest enough to friggin admit it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And Hero, what about those "automatic" sprayers? No reckless endangerment there?
Last time I checked, I couldn't shoot someone in the leg for punching me in the arm...
As noted earlier, the sprayers are extremely short ranged, the video is very good at demonstrating this. They are commonly used aboard cargo ships for pirate defense (since cargo ships can't carry weapons).
So while you can't shoot someone for punching you, you probably could spray them with a squirt gun, or use pepper spray, which would seem to be very similar (extremely short range, non lethal, not always effective against a determined or prepared individual).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
I've missed the last part of this debate because I have a job and a small child, but I have to weigh in on "Hero's" stupidity and hypocrisy. Gorram it "Hero" did you learn no processes of logic in law school? I know from several friends that they actually do teach such things in law school, but you seem to have completely managed to evade them (much like Jayne - if he'd wanted schooling, he'd have gone to school).
What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.
I ask again: Have you no decency sir? No decency whatsoever?
As best I can tell, the answer is NO. Well, better put, it's HELL NO.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
damn double post! sorry......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Since the Protest boat was breaking the law and endangering both craft, any death's would have been on the protest boat Captain and crew and possibly the head of the protest group. Its the Felony Murder Rule, if a person dies during the commission of a Felony, then the suspect can be tried for murder.
You make it sound like they rammed the boat, turned around passed it again to spray more water on the boat. The video shows the boat approaching the ship, the ship had its automatic sprayers on. The boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers as they pass by, the boat is struck, the aft sprayers hit it as the ship continues on, this is all over the course of seconds, not minutes. AND the boat had already been sprayed during other close approaches. Those water cannons don't shoot far...its extremely close range.
I really try to avoid ad hominem, but you make it imposslibe at times. YOU EFFING IDIOT!! Are you really so stupid as to not notice the size disparity between the vessels? Or that the whalers were physically attacking a vessel that had only approached them? (And yes, I do recognize that they were trying to interfere, and I even disagree with them - that doesn't allow the whalers to attack them). Does your obviously limited education and vocabulary not understand that such attacks are internationally recognized as piracy? And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range. And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans). I thank the gods my students are so much more capable of thinking than you are. It gives me some hope for the future. You certainly do not...............
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.
There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
and this is where I mention his 'hero' (pun intended) John Adams was also responsible for our first stab a "Patriot Act", the Feudo-Fascist-Federalist bastard.
Yeah, I know, that's a wincing point for me too, and I don't really believe the HBO whitewashing of it that the other Federalists were pushing him. But it's probably just a belief in the legend of the founding fathers that we Americans have built up. If trying to change minds, it's probably about as useful to call out the human failings and mistakes of the founding fathers as it is to argue that the Biblical God is an entirely human creation. To anyone who believes, merely questioning such sanctified figures immediately destroys any credibility you might have.
That's not to say you can't discuss things from another angle, where they might be more receptive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can concur. The difference I see is, SOME of us are avoiding certain facts ENTIRELY.
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
...and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.
There seems to be plenty of that on both sides of this issue, if we're being brutally honest.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
What is wrong with you that you can't recognize that the whaling ship continued to FIRE ON a clearly disabled ship on the high seas (note that I am using capital letters in case you have literacy issues, which appears to be the case). This was a life-threatening situation in an extremely dangerous, cold-water environment, and you defend criminal behavior because it fits your personal views.
One, it was not "fire on" it was spray. Non-lethal seawater commonly used by ships to repel pirates who come extremely close.
Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by. This is all a matter of seconds, not minutes. There is no turn, no second pass, just a continuation of the first pass. Given the speed of the events and the disparity in the size of the two ships it is likely the whaler, or at least the Captain, could be certain the ship struck the boat or if it did strike there was no way to no the extent of the damage. Again, even if the knowledge was there, then the order to turn off the sprayers would have to be given and the sprayers turned off (likely some kind of big wheel, not merely pressing a button). This would also take time, something the video shows they clearly do not have.
There is also nothing wrong with continuing to spray a pirate ship until you are certain the threat has abated. While these pirates may not have been armed with weapons, they were seeking to disable the whaler and perhaps board her for whatever reason (like they had done or attempt on other occaisons).
And some people have asked about the failure to render aid. The ship has a lot of momentum, so stopping on a dime is not going to happed. The video reflects that they turned and stood by ready to lend aid, but the boat was not sinking fast and Bob Barker was right there to help them out.
You should all watch a Discover channel show about a Mersk cargo ship's journey from Asia to Spain. That's how I learned about sprayers and navigational problems with large ships vs. small ones. Plus, its just damned interesting.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
And apparently you think it would be OK for me to shoot you with a .22 pistol - after all, it doesn't have much range.
If I commit an illegal act such as trying to impede you, seize you, or run into you...then a water pistol would likely be ok, even in cold weather.
Quote:
And if you think that's different than spraying zero-degree seawater on a human body, then you are even more ignorant than I already think (and to clarify for your ignorance, I'm using Celsius temperature, like everyone but ignorant Americans).
Perhaps if we look at the video...yep, they were already sprayed (when the approached the ship prior to the collision). If you look close you'll notice the cold weather gear all the boat's crew is wearing. You'll also see them all standing outside to get sprayed rather then taking cover.
You claim the whaler was attacking them. They had a fracking speed boat...all they had to do was move away. Whalers are slow, ponderous to turn. Speed boats are fast...especially one the set a fracking speed record. If they got run down...its because they let it happen or the made it happen. It'd be different if they didn't see the ship coming or they could not move out of the way. That is not the case here.
The whalers turn the sprayers on when the boat gets too close. Why? I wonder what could possibly happen when two ships get close to one another? And why would they assume a boat is hostile just because of a few prior attempts to board, disable, or ram them?
This was political piracy and should be prosecuted as such.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, the video speaks, but you will not hear. Let's say the sprayers WEREN'T manned (tho it looks like the aiming changed at certain points)- the Japanese ship is CLEARLY not traveling in a straight line.
Originally posted by Hero:
Second, the video speaks for itself. The ship is in the process of passing the boat, the sprayers are on, the boat is sprayed by the bow sprayers, hit by the ship and then catches the aft aft sprayers as the ship passes by.
Is THAT something that escapes your poor vision or something?? The little boat was drifting forward (or powering forward) SLOWLY, and the big ship veers INTO its path. A veer in the opposite direction would have avoided collision. Ah, but they WANTED to teach the whale-huggers a lesson, eh?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
the Japanese ship is CLEARLY not traveling in a straight line.
The video does not reflect that. I think your confusing the turn of the camera as it pans to follow the boat with the turning of the ship. If the ship turned, it would be reflected in it wake. Also the ship cannot veer so nimbly as you describe.
You admit it yourself, the boat was drifting foreward, toward the oncoming ship. Likely they were hoping for another close pass, perhaps to deploy their cable to disable the ship, use their laser, or attempt to board the ship and likely misjudged their approach resulting.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris,IsAll
Why would you possibly believe your lying eyes over the word of our 'Hero' ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You stupid piece of deluded go-se, it DOES!
Originally posted by Hero:
The video does not reflect that.
Quote:No, I am a visual expert, I allowed for that, numbnuts.
I think your confusing the turn of the camera as it pans to follow the boat with the turning of the ship.
Quote:It wasn't visible to observe, you idjit.
If the ship turned, it would be reflected in it wake.
Quote:I described no "nimbleness," you fool!! It was an easy turn, as easy as it would be to turn the other direction.
Also the ship cannot veer so nimbly as you describe.
Quote:OBVIOUSLY, stupid. They were jerks, the Japs were jerks AND attempted murders.
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.
You suck, ya know? NEVER admit error. Never.
Dickwad.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahhh, I'm tired of his perfection (in his own eyes). You can have him Rue.
Originally posted by rue:
Chris,IsAll
Why would you possibly believe your lying eyes over the word of our 'Hero' ?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't disagree, buttwipe.
Originally posted by Hero:
Why take it all so personal? People can agree to disagree without resorting to namecalling.
Quote:After twisting/altering/disregarding the facts.
In court I'd be content to make my best argument to the Jury and be satisfied with leaving the decision to them.
Douche.
The fed-up-with-blind-a-holes Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How about if we just harass whalers that kill PREGNANT whales? That satisfy both sides?
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, we all have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.
The snark-filled Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero & friend:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
or go to war with the Japanese whaling fleets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooops, hey ho, the whalers ARE acting illegally:Quote:
So oops, turns out the whalers ARE breaking the law according to Australia and the UN. So I guess that changes the argument, eh?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:
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.
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...
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:
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:
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.Quote:
AND acting against
Commercial activities exploiting wildlife are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty.Quote:
So they're essentially breaking three "laws", one by the UN.
United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982.
Not only that, but by Australian LAW, the Sea Shepherd is acting WITH THEIR APPROVAL:Quote:
and is pursuing
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is legally authorized to interveneQuote:
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?
criminals in the territorial waters of Australia
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:
Doesn't that just about cover it all, and answer any questions?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 stateQuote:
which is just about as meaningful as the Japanese saying their whaling efforts are for research.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Woa there, Hero. You're talking as if everything I put up didn't exist.Quote:
No, it's not. It's ILLEGAL--even if you dismiss the IWC, U.N. and Arctic Treaty, it's illegal WITHIN AUSTRALIAN WATERS.
Its legal whale murderQuote:
Not international, but Australian, it's in their waters, they have prosecuted the whalers IN COURT.
There is no governing international authority Quote:
That is precisely what they HAVE DONE, in Australia's territorial waters.
they take whales in somebody'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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Emperor has not driven it from you fully!!!
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 laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/food/2009/11/20/2009-11-20_are_yo
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.
u_eating_an_endangered_species_bluefin_tuna_found_in_sushi_at_many_new_yor.html?r=lifestyle/food Quote:
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
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.Quote:
http://www.sciencesays.net/2008/09/nobu-and-de-niro-label-their-own-su
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.”
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
weather can be really rough in the southern oceans
bunch of fishing trawlers go out
none come back
that might just put both an economic and psychological end to whaling in the Antartic
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/20081106.aspx
November 6, 2008: Shopping for a unique holiday gift? How about a submarine. There are several Whiskey Class Soviet subs available. Decommissioned in 1991, and built in the 1950s, these boats have sound hulls and are insurable. The price is right; $497,000 (delivery extra)
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Damn, beaten to the punch I shoulda thrown several days ago - well done, M'lady, extra props for suggesting Studio Ghibli, which does do some very nice animation and immersive stories.
And to quote Hicks "if you liked that, you're gonna LOVE this..."
http://www.funimation.com/lastexile/
One thing that bugs me about the whole Jolly Roger thing given recent additional information - why the hell didn't they raise the Australian flag instead, especially if they WERE acting as de-facto privateers and could claim some (albiet minimal) protection under the Australian legal system in that case ?
Prolly cause they didn't think it through, but damn they should have.
Byte has the right of it though, strike the root, not the branches.
-Frem
There always has to be a price.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME