OUTRAGE! Ady Gil (Earthrace) trimaran rammed and sunk by jap whalers!

Originally Posted by troy2000

Ahhhh.....no.
no matter how the rules are parsed.

There is no way parsing rules! International law at sea is a clear one.

The attempt to blind a seaman by laser light is a first case attempt towards disabling a registered ships crew. Criminal, and a first case lawsuit in any of the involved nations.
In ALL undersignign nations a attempt of murder.
The attempt to disengage the rudder or propulsion of a registered seagoing vessel is piracy! Absolutely no doubt about that.
In ALL undersignign nations a attempt of murder.
Ramming a registered vessel at sea is piracy, no matter which attempt.
In ALL undersignign nations a attempt of murder.

All written in internationally agreed contracts.

The fact, that the international community is not able to stop Japan from whaling has absolutely nothing to do with law at sea!

As much as I personally would like to avoid the idioty of hunting whales, it is a fact, that Japan has the right to do what they (unfortunately) do.

Sea shepard is looking for PR, for money. The fact that they bought such vessel is already the proof "in the pudding". Any decent boat would have done, towing ropes in whalers props. No, they need something effective!

Like Green piss. The best they ever had, was the sinking of their boat by French marines. The very best was the death of a innocent man!

Wake up, folks,

they **** you while you are standing right there.

[liki]

After watching the videos many times carefully I came to the conclusions, that:

a) AG is deliberately awaiting the approaching whaler ready to intercept it. Perhaps trying to disable it by throwing something just in front of it or just "playing chicken"

b) Whaler makes a turn to starboard, deliberately to give AG "a wash" or maybe just caused by the sea state, who knows. Aboard AG the change is not noticed - This is very easy to miss from AG's point of view.

While the whaler now approaches on close to collision course, AG suddenly accelerates and the collision is unavoidable.

[sabahcat]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Explain to me how that helps the whales?

Seems they helped the whales plenty when they sank half the spanish] and the icelandic whaling fleet

On July 16th, 1979, the Sea Shepherd found the Sierra and chased it into the port of Leixoes. Captain Watson rammed the Sierra twice in harbor, tearing the hull open to the waterline and forcing the ship into port for repairs. After a million dollars of uninsured repairs, the Sierra was sunk by Sea Shepherd operatives in Lisbon harbor in Portugal on February 6, 1980. Sea Shepherd permanently retired the pirate whaler Sierra and prevented anymore whales from being taken by her.

ouch, uninsured boat and repairs, thats gotta hurt, but the whales are happy

In April of 1980, Sea Shepherd agent Al "Jet" Johnson posts reward posters all over the waterfront of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. Sea Shepherd offers a $25,000 bounty on the outlaw whaler Astrid. The Astrid's owners are unable to trust their own crew and retire the vessel.

More happy whales

That same month, Sea Shepherd operatives sank two Spanish whalers in to the port of Vigo, Spain, (Ibsa I and Ibsa II)after Spain refused to comply with quota regulations on fin whales.

Also in 1980, working in cooperation with the government of South Africa, Sea Shepherd assisted in the seizure of the pirate whalers Susan and Theresa. The ships were taken out to sea and deliberately scuttled by the South African Navy.

more whalers out of action = more whales saved

In November of 1986, Sea Shepherd engineers Rod Coronado and David Howitt arrived in Iceland and scuttled two of the four Icelandic whaling ships at dockside. They also destroyed the whale meat processing plant in Iceland

Fantastic even more whales saved from slaughter

In January 1988, Captain Paul Watson flew to Iceland to accept responsibility for the sinking of the ships. The Icelandic government refused to lay charges because Iceland knew that a trial would expose their illegal operations.

The Sea Shepherd actions in Iceland permanently retired two of their whaling ships and cost the whaling company more money than they have been able to recover in 19 years. It was an economic defeat for the whale killers.

Whoo Hoo

Much more of their good work here

http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/se...d-history.html

If Govt. would accept responsibility and enforce the laws, these sort of actions would not be required.

They have shooters in Africa protecting the elephant by killing the poacher, at least Sea Shepherd are not taking lives......same cant be said for the whalers.

[pacificproa]

I watched this video a dozen times now.
That ship was turning hard to starboard not to port as reported.
They were clearly trying to run it down. and did!
Even the watercannons show their bad intent.

[Frosty]

Whales accidentally swim ashore and die every day every where.

But you guys for the whales are just not getting it--you don't do it this way.

[oldsailor7]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Whales accidentally swim ashore and die every day every where.

BUT NOT 900 WHALES AT A TIME

Originally Posted by Frosty

But you guys for the whales are just not getting it--you don't do it this way.

What other way is there if the Govts and Authorities wont do it because of their vested interests and other unstated agendas.

[pacificproa]

Frosty whats's your way then of stopping the illegal killing of whales?
You must know some thing no one else does.

[balsaboatmodels]

Those comments about Maru not answering distress call - this is something apparently left out of those reports : http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/anti-whaling-boat-cut-in-half-by-japanese-security-vessel-group-says/19304949?icid=main|main|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fanti-whaling-boat-cut-in-half-by-japanese-security-vessel-group-says%2F19304949

At first, Japanese ships in the area refused to respond to a mayday distress call issued by the sinking Ady Gil, according to the group. Neighboring vessels eventually acknowledged the call but offered no assistance to the sinking ship, it added.

That's interesting

Neighboring vessels eventually acknowledged the call but offered no assistance to the sinking ship, it added.

Given the grammar, the "Neighboring vessels" are not the "Japanese ships" yes? no?
Who else was down there?

[Frosty]

I don't know, I don't know how to stop children starving, I don't know how to stop volcanos or tsunamis either sorry.

I know that throwing the law out of the window will only help the Japanese.

Look what a cock up this is now, the Japs arent looking to bad anymore are they thanks to Green peace.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by apex1

Accidentially ???

Sorry, Frosty YOU do´nt get it.

What ever you say Apex what ever you say. I used to have a wife like you, black was white and white was black.

[balsaboatmodels]

I'd say SSCS's Ady Gil's actions fit the United Nations' definition of piracy like a glove:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...clos/part7.htm

Article100

Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy

All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.

Article101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Article102

Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft

whose crew has mutinied

The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.

Article103

Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.

Article104

Retention or loss of the nationality of a pirate ship or aircraft

A ship or aircraft may retain its nationality although it has become a pirate ship or aircraft. The retention or loss of nationality is determined by the law of the State from which such nationality was derived.

Article105

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Article106

Liability for seizure without adequate grounds

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.

Article107

Ships and aircraft which are entitled to seize on account of piracy

A seizure on account of piracy may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

[pacificproa]

this sounds like a joke.
everything is ok as long as you forget, the illegal killing of whales!!!

Killing of whales for a profit!!! the Japanese sell the meat!! is illegal!!!

Which part do some members of this thread not understand?

Paul Watson is merely upholding international treaties!
He and his crew are risking there lives to uphold the law.

That the only thing which works with the Japanese is hard direct action, is not his fault.

The Australian government can stop this at any time by sending a warship down there, and uphold the law, Paul has actually asked for that in the past.
At least he can go home then.

"More happy whales" - Sir, it is a whale. Sanctimony does not make it human. Anyone with leather shoes or has eaten 'roo or beef has no high ground from which to tell the Japanese what they can eat.
If the whale were a blue or beaked whale (Ziphiidae), even a bowhead (threatened), or some endangered whale I'm not thinking of now, at least you would have somewhere to stand. The whales being hunted (researched) are almost entirely minke, cattle of the ocean, a few fins, a few humpbacks. The "science" of marine mammals is dubious. There are deliberate lies about numbers being propagated by the biologists responsible for reporting health of the stocks. One example; Can't remember the year, three years ago maybe, they reported 170 humpback whales in Cook Inlet (my backyard). That year was an exceptionally large capelin bloom at Point Adams (17 year dearth because of the humbacks last time) and lo and behold! - if one could count 'em all, he'd see 500 surfacing at any one time. Now they are trying to make all shorelines of the inlet "critical habitat" to protect the beluga - even tho there are five times more now than the 400 they thought a few years ago. I conversed with authority Richard Merrick as we watched orca stalking two-year-old sea lion pups west of Unimak Pass. I asked him of the numbers taken by orca. His response - his science? "I don't know. Not even enough to include in the data." I'm telling ya', this is the way these people do business - make an hypothesis and force the data to match.
If you feel that because whales are big, or have a big brain (dedicated to echo-location, BTW - not "If I had hands, I'd save the planet", nor "9 x 7 = 63", nor even - get this, "I exist") that they should be left alone, so be it. Continue your battle to make whales off-limits as food. I think it's silly but most have set ideas on this and polarized, at that. How you feel about a whale personally, has no bearing on this incident, whatsoever.
Personally, I've always thot they were kinda cool and left them alone. I would do anything to get some of the natives that are permitted a few threatened bowheads every year to come here and take abundant humpbacks instead. A humback eats (and poops) many tons daily. I know that they leave an unhealthy veritible desert when dinner is over. A little thinning may help the stocks stay at a healthy, sustainable level rather than the boom/starvation pattern that is the best nature can manage. There is just more emotion than sense concerning these critters - with me, too!. I will now seek, and eat, whale - just because of this.

[Landlubber]

Bon appetite!

[Red Tide]

I can understand the anger. Maybe it's only a numbers game between fishing and whaling.

But I have a really hard time watching the whaling operation.