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

Apparently, but only if it's for the whales or the bunnies or some other non-human critter. I don't see these activists over in the Sudan, trying to protect villagers from the Janjaweed militia, for example. That's because they don't give a rat's *** what happens to men, women and children; they think there's too many of them anyway.

 

well obviously Im in the minority here but there is no such thing as assaulting a criminal in mid crime

my citation is unfortunately a pay article available to me through the university, and I can only post a link but I am right on this one. It is legal for any person to attempt to interfere with a criminal act

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/deplr52&div=21&id=&page=

ps
its only a lynch mob if someone gets lynched
in this case it was the persons trying to interfere with a criminal act that were injured or suffered financial harm
the Japanese were involved in an illegal activity forbidden by international treaty and therefore fair game

I believe its called the transient rule of personal jurisdiction that makes the Japanese actions illegal in any but there own waters and even then Im not so sure

 

First of all, it's very questionable that the whalers are committing a crime, in spite of all the claims to the contrary. They're acting in accordance with the laws of their country, and under the auspices of Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research. No one has legally challenged either the Japanese government or the Institute, so it's bs to talk about the whalers being criminals as though it's an established fact...much less claim that it's therefore open season on them.

Getting back to your claim that what the SS is doing is legal, because they haven't hurt anyone and they're stopping a crime: let's say you headed downtown, and started flattening the tires, breaking out the windshields and spraying noxious stuff into the cars of people who pulled up to buy crack from the corner dealers. Do you really think the police would pat you on the head and say it was legal as long as you didn't hurt anyone, because you were attempting to stop a crime?

 

The term International Law rankles me. Every country's sovereignty should be respected. You may not like their customs but you may have some customs they don't like. Unless they try to stop your free pursuits they should be left in peace.

 

You sure nailed that one right!

 

But how then, can we stick our nose in someone else's business and tell them how to live

 

Well, hoytedow, did you support your guns blazing president charging into Iraq? There was an illegal action (technically) if ever there was one.

International law exists whether you realise there is a world beyond your shores or not. It exists because the various countries involved have signed up to it. Japan included. The IWC's loophole is in contravention of two other UN conventions (see pacificproa's posting back on p.2-3). Maybe you don't like the UN. Tough. Without it, it is the law of the jungle, the biggest/toughets/most aggressive wins, and now - that ain't the Stars & Stripes, so be careful what you wish for.

Boston is calling it right, defer to the more informed opinion.

 

Doesn't look like something offered by my university. But you can still make a summary of the important details if you correctly cite the paper in question.

What International treaty is this paper referencing to allow someone to interfere with a criminal activity? Under what branch of the legal system is the paper talking about?

 

All this Spew about "WHY" the SeaSheperds are doing what they are doing is Smoke and Mirrors... The simple FACTS of this incident, can bee seen in Their OWN published and Posted Vid. The smaller Vessel is CLEARLY at FAULT in the incident, due to Violations of a NUMBER of International Maritime Rules of the Road, for Vessel Navigation on the High Seas. These have been in force since BEFORE Moses, and are WELL Recognized by All Parties, and in International LAW. All this blather, about If the Japanese are Legally or Illegally Fishing is just that Blather, if one just READS the applicable International Conventions. Serious folks can disagree , on that issue, but it doesn't make the actions of the Skipper of the smaller vessel, as to his adherence to the Rules of the Road, Correct, or defensible in any Admiralty Court on this planet. The charges leveled by some, here, about the larger vessels failure to Render Aid to the smaller vessel, after the collision, are simply spurious. The SeaSheperds own Vids CLEARLY show that a second SeaSheperd Vessel was in close proximity to the incident, that it had previously committed Acts of Piracy (Laser Pointing, launching objects at, and hitting with those launchings) against the larger vessel, and therefor the Master of the larger vessel was well within his Rights, under International Conventions, to leave the area, and break off any further incident, for the Safety of his Ship, and Crew, since there were affiliated vessels of the smaller vessel right there, and they could, and did Render Aid, as documented by SeaSheperds own follow on Vids and Communications. All the rest is just Blather... plain and simple....

 

its illegal if done in the territorial waters of any signatory country that has not approved the whaling, and Ausies have not approved of it nor is it sanctioned by the IWC which is the ruling body if I remember. The approval is by the Japanese gov. and in direct opposition of international treaty. If I remember and its been a while since I really looked into this one but I do remember it coming up in a ethics class a long wile ago when SS first started. They have the legal high ground like it or not to interfere with illegal whaling otherwise they would have been stopped long ago

go look up the protocol for an international citizens arrest
there are about a thousand hits on it
its completely legal and as long as you dont injure anyone your good to go
it is also clearly legal under international common law to interfere with a crime in progress, there's about a thousand hits on that one as well

cheers
B

like it or not they have a legal right to interfere with a crime


oh hey
all fair questions H but I dont think I'm allowed to cut and paist a payed article
Ill try and find something else to answer your questions with but I dont want to get Jeff into any trouble
payed articles do not fall under the creative commons law which allows most things to be cut and pasted


ok Im out of here
off to a flicker and a few beers
have fun with it
B

 

And by the way: Norway openly takes about a thousand whales a year for commercial purposes; Iceland also openly hunts whales. But you don't see the SS getting anwhere near their ships in recent years, do you? Maybe that's because Norway has already convicted Watson once of attempting to sink a Norwegian ship, and he knows his *** is grass if they get their hands on him while he's attacking their ships again....

And maybe there's a racist element here? Is it maybe easier to rouse Americans, Canadians and Europeans to indignation against 'Japs,' than it is against Scandinavians?

 

Unless the way they live impacts us, it is really none of our business.

 

You two were made for each other.

 

Don't mess with the vikings, huh?

 

I certainly agree with the main thrust of Boston's comments.

"It is legal for any person to attempt to interfere with a criminal act"

Along with thwarting obvious crime I would go just a bit farther and opine that a man has a right to defend himself with deadly force if a prudent man can reasonably presume an entity in intent on placing him in grave peril.

Given the historic record of the actual behavior of the Sea Shepard Society I would suggest that the japanese erred in the use of a water hose. Something along the lines of the most efficient implements mentioned on the current ongoing thread regarding protecting maritime traffic from pirates and terrorists would be appropriate. Downsized as needed to allow use with an other than purpose built assault vessel.