U.S. court calls Sea Shepherd modern-day pirates

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 27

    OssanAmerica

    "Watson and his lawyers contend U.S. courts don’t have jurisdiction in that whaling region. "

    They're still spouting nonsense. Watson in personam and SSCS, based in Washington State accepted the Court's jurisdiction last December. And if that statement is true, why was SSCS trying to appeal the injunction? Another legally foolish act that blew up in their faces. Courts of Law aren't internet forums where lies and nonsense are thrown about as "facts" simply by repeating them. Sea Shepherd days are numbered.

  • 17

    Heda_Madness

    "You don't need a peg leg or an eye patch," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

    "When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.''

    Others on this board will no doubt disagree.

  • 21

    A Realist

    If the Sea Shepard Societ does not obey the court order, their members should be arrested and jailed and their ships seized and sold or junked or scuttled. And if the US court does not have jurisdiction, neither does does the Sea Shepard Society have protection; the Japanese would be perfectly justified in sinking them. The court has it right; those criminals are modern day pirates. They could have added that they are terrorists as well.

  • -16

    sfjp330

    A RealistFeb. 27, 2013 - 07:47AM JST If the Sea Shepard Societ does not obey the court order, their members should be arrested and jailed and their ships seized and sold or junked or scuttled. And if the US court does not have jurisdiction, neither does does the Sea Shepard Society have protection; the Japanese would be perfectly justified in sinking them. The court has it right; those criminals are modern day pirates. They could have added that they are terrorists as well.

    What is U.S. court? The U.S. court has already ignored the fact that the Japanese whalers are in contempt of a court order by the Australian Federal Court and the whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. How ridiculous of U.S. court issuing an injunction against Dutch and Australian vessels carrying an international crew, operating out of Australia and New Zealand in international waters and the waters of the Australian Antarctic Economic Zone.

  • -19

    Tony Ew

    @OssanAmericaFeb. 27, 2013 - 07:29AM JST

    "Watson and his lawyers contend U.S. courts don’t have jurisdiction in that whaling region. "

    They're still spouting nonsense. Watson in personam and SSCS, based in Washington State accepted the Court's jurisdiction last December. And if that statement is true, why was SSCS trying to appeal the injunction? Another legally foolish act that blew up in their faces. Courts of Law aren't internet forums where lies and nonsense are thrown about as "facts" simply by repeating them. Sea Shepherd days are numbered.

    This is getting pretty laughable. Can somebody explain 'jurisdiction' clearly? The clashes occured OUTSIDE US territorial waters, what business does the US Courts have except to be an extension of JP government? Maybe somebody in US jurisprudence should consult UN how the law of the seas works! Granted SSCS may be erred in seeking US court to help but the fact is 'jurisdiction' is the basis of all legal deliberations. Funny the US Court cannot clearly see she should just BUTT OUT because this is international water, OUT of her jurisdiction!

    Sea Shepherd is not an eco terrorist, not a pirate group, beautiful words her opponents would like to tarnish her noble mission. The right word is "vigilante group" ! "A 2008 academic paper by researchers at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria concluded that the group "may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they say they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states' and the international community's inabilities or unwillingness to do so."[13]"

  • -22

    John Kaiju Andresen

    Meanwhile, the Sea Shepherds continue to be successful in their campaign. Go Sea Shepherds.

  • 19

    semperfi

    Judge Alex Kozinski is RIGHT ON!

  • -15

    SauloJpn

    Well calling for the sinking of the Sea Shepard just bring to mind one thing: it would have a very grave consequence! It would probably be the grain of sand to mobilize the rest of the world to act and stop the real pirates that kill the whales of the southern seas!

  • 14

    Heda_Madness

    > the Japanese whalers are in contempt of a court order by the Australian Federal Court and the whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary

    And the reason that the Australian court hasn't followed this up is because Australia could very easily lose their claim that those waters are Australian. The judgement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

  • 15

    Heda_Madness

    Can somebody explain 'jurisdiction' clearly? The clashes occured OUTSIDE US territorial waters, what business does the US Courts have except to be an extension of JP government?

    Their international HQ is based in the US. A large part of their fundraising is carried out in the US. And it's listed as a charity in the US.

    It's a US organisation. Why the confusion?

  • 11

    hokkaidoguy

    The full decision can be found here: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ , click on INST OF CETACEAN RESEARCH V. SEA SHEPHERD CONSV OPINION.

    Worth a read, as it addresses a lot of the more circular arguments that go on here.

  • 9

    EngrHassanSabi

    I guess things are starting to get bad for the Sea Shepherd and its crew. If Watson is now a fugitive then he'll be hard to catch since he has a ship and all. But hopefully whoever is to blame for all this ruckus should be behind bars before anyone gets seriously hurt.

  • -17

    buggerlugs

    Wrong analogy. Pirates take. Sea shepherd protect although I'm still on the fence about their methods.

  • 14

    Yubaru

    Pirates they are, and they should be treated as such....a short drop and a quick stop!

  • 14

    Jamiesue

    The US court is upholding international laws and treaty's, something Australia has failed to do.

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266.pdf

    The USA has jurisdiction over a US org and a US citizen, the shell game they are trying to play will not amuse the court and is likely to backfire.

    If the sscs truly believed the US did not have jurisdiction why would they go to the Supreme Court and ask the injunction be lifted? it seems they only like the US court when it goes their way, they never argued jurisdiction before the injunction they praised the original trial judge at the time but now suddenly whine whine whine. <>

  • -21

    Tony Ew

    @A RealistFeb. 27, 2013 - 07:47AM JST

    If the Sea Shepard Societ does not obey the court order, their members should be arrested and jailed and their ships seized and sold or junked or scuttled. And if the US court does not have jurisdiction, neither does does the Sea Shepard Society have protection; the Japanese would be perfectly justified in sinking them. The court has it right; those criminals are modern day pirates. They could have added that they are terrorists as well.

    No Sir! As I explained above , a most suitable adjective to describe the noble acts of the Sea Shepherd is a Vigilante (of the treasures of the oceans), not a modern day pirate, ( a wild imagination of the US Court) , nor an eco terrorist ( an eco terrorist is one who PLUNDER the ocean 's wealth under the guise of scientific research)

    Definitely no government, US, Japan or Australia have jurisdiction to clashes in international water, so US Court should just butt out and stop disgracing herself for being a puppy of JP.

    If Japan wants to terrorize the Sea Shepherd's much smaller ships and sink them, BRING IT ON! Let it be known what the world think of Japanese government and her people for electing them! Perhaps an international boycott of Japan will break her back!

  • -3

    cleo

    If Japan wants to terrorize the Sea Shepherd's much smaller ships and sink them, BRING IT ON!

    Whoa there. I don't even wish that on the whalers. There are people on those ships.

    If the whale killers will just give up and sail back north, SS can also go home, job done.

  • 15

    Martin007

    I feel embarrassed about how the Australian Government seems to condone this eco-terrorists. Thank god there is some sanity coming out of the US Federal Court: they are indeed pirates who don't care about the safety of workers.

  • -10

    itazuke1

    ****US Corts have no juristion we don't control the world or should ( we are not the world police( losers)) as this causes hatred amongst outher countrys towards us

  • 0

    overchan

    Whe catching doesnt hurt people.

  • 2

    AKBfan

    Sounds about right.

  • -13

    Tony Ew

    @Heda_MadnessFeb. 27, 2013 - 08:24AM JST

    Can somebody explain 'jurisdiction' clearly? The clashes occured OUTSIDE US territorial waters, what business does the US Courts have except to be an extension of JP government?

    Their international HQ is based in the US. A large part of their fundraising is carried out in the US. And it's listed as a charity in the US.

    It's a US organisation. Why the confusion? - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/u-s-court-calls-sea-shepherd-modern-day-pirates#sthash.wsxcvRdO.dpuf

    No matter. US law does not cover the whole planet! Just like if there is no extradition treaty with another country, US cannot force her citizen to be shipped back to US to be legally processed eg Robert Vesco.

    What you have here is international waters, a no man's 'land' which should be out of reach of the US laws. US court therefore should use the example above as guidance to butt out!

  • 10

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - Definitely no government, US, Japan or Australia have jurisdiction to clashes in international water, so US Court should just butt out and stop disgracing herself for being a puppy of JP.

    If Japan wants to terrorize the Sea Shepherd's much smaller ships and sink them, BRING IT ON! Let it be known what the world think of Japanese government and her people for electing them! Perhaps an international boycott of Japan will break her back!

    Wrong. A ship's national registry decides which countries have jurisdiction over incidents in international water. Departure and destination countries can also have jurisdiction.

    The 9th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over the U.S.A. eco-terrorist SS organization. Watson doesn't have to obey the U.S. court ruling but the judge can fine the eco-terrorist SS organization's headquarters. He could also request that eco-terrorist SS assets in the U.S. be seized to pay for any damage the eco-terrorist SS cause, or to pay any penalties the court assess.

    The vast majority of the "world" doesn't really care about whales, whaling, whalers, or Watson's blathering. You can demand an international boycott but you're not going to get any nation to follow your lead.

  • 13

    Heda_Madness

    US law covers US companies. The SS is a US company.

  • -15

    YuriOtani

    American law once again is superior to all others. What about Australian law?

  • 10

    Heda_Madness

    Oh and if it wasn't covered by the US why have the SS wasted money on appeals to the Supreme Court and current appeals now?

  • -12

    wtfjapan

    wont make any difference SS will just open a new company in a country that is more friendly to there cause, the publicity like this just makes me want to donate more cash to them, bring on the fight SS the supporters are growing by the day LOL

  • 1

    Eduardo Gonzalez

    What if the Japanese Marine self defensive forces launched a torpedo at them? It makes sense to me

  • 7

    OssanAmerica

    Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Headquartered in Washington State accepted US Court Jurisdiction when the case began. So did Paul Watson as an individual. SSCS have been trying to get the injunction prohibiting them from approaching within 500 yards of the whalers, a costly task totally unnecessary if Sea Shepherd actually believed that the US Court "had no jurisdiction" in international waters. So lets stop with the silly "no jurisdiction" arguments. Contempt of court actions will follow.

    "US law does not cover the whole planet" US law covers US citizens (Watson has dual Canadian/US) and US organizations and corporate entities. NO matter where on the planet they may be. You are confusing "jurisdiction" and "enforcement".

  • 5

    arrestpaul

    YuriOtani - American law once again is superior to all others. What about Australian law?

    What does Australian law say about the U.S. eco-terrorist SS organization being under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts? Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction over U.S. based organizations and companies?

  • 13

    OssanAmerica

    cleoFeb. 27, 2013 - 08:51AM JST If the whale killers will just give up and sail back north, SS can also go home, job done.

    Can't wait to see them come home. And be greeted by US Marshalls holding Arrest Warrants for Contempt of Court.

  • -5

    flpat1

    People go a long way to preserve their Right to Eat certain other intelligent species at this planet. And how the media is portraying this issue as if Japan's national interest is at stake... Instigating fights and arousing the anti foreigner feelings. Folks. Do not support people and businesses that sell whale flesh if you do not eat it.

  • -6

    dmsjin

    The vast majority of the "world" doesn't really care about whales, whaling, whalers, or Watson's blathering. You can demand an international boycott but you're not going to get any nation to follow your lead. -

    arrestpaul ... perhaps the vast majority of 'your world' doesn't really care about whales, but the vast majority of the 'rest of the world' arguably does. otherwise there wouldn't be all this 'blathering'.

  • -3

    marcelito

    Maybe the SS should take a leaf out of the corporate and high flying business "pirates" book and go register their HQ to some miniscule Carribean island wher the US laws don,t seem to matter one bit and the real pirates are laughing all the way...

    @ Eduardo - Well, the Japanese navy does seem to have a presence there already - this is from yahoo.au news - Yesterday, a 12,000-tonne vessel, the Shirase, had arrived to help whalers refuel. The ship is from the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says Japan denies a link between the icebreaker and the whaling fleet, but he wants to know if the ship is supporting or transferring Japanese personnel to the fuel tanker. Dr Brown says one of the icebreaker's three helicopters was helping a Korean tanker gain access to the Nisshin Maru. He added that he feared an escalation of violence between whalers and activists.

  • 5

    basroil

    U.S. District Judge Richard Jones ... determined the protesters’ tactics were nonviolent because they targeted equipment and ships rather than people.

    This guy needs to be removed from the courts... That's like saying that the terrorists that attacked the twin towers were non-violent because they attacked a building rather than the people inside it. It is stupid and completely unprofessional to state such nonsense.

  • -3

    Tony Ew

    @arrestpaulFeb. 27, 2013 - 09:30AM JST

    Tony Ew - Definitely no government, US, Japan or Australia have jurisdiction to clashes in international water, so US Court should just butt out and stop disgracing herself for being a puppy of JP.

    If Japan wants to terrorize the Sea Shepherd's much smaller ships and sink them, BRING IT ON! Let it be known what the world think of Japanese government and her people for electing them! Perhaps an international boycott of Japan will break her back!

    Wrong. A ship's national registry decides which countries have jurisdiction over incidents in international water. Departure and destination countries can also have jurisdiction.

    The 9th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over the U.S.A. eco-terrorist SS organization. Watson doesn't have to obey the U.S. court ruling but the judge can fine the eco-terrorist SS organization's headquarters. He could also request that eco-terrorist SS assets in the U.S. be seized to pay for any damage the eco-terrorist SS cause, or to pay any penalties the court assess.

    The vast majority of the "world" doesn't really care about whales, whaling, whalers, or Watson's blathering. You can demand an international boycott but you're not going to get any nation to follow your lead. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/u-s-court-calls-sea-shepherd-modern-day-pirates#sthash.uoauHHT7.dpuf

    I agree US court can do things to cause financial pain to SSCS since she is US registered but no matter. US is not the only country to register and raise money. It's easy to raise money through the internet and SS can just move out of US anytime. I think SSCS is really really disappointed by US court who I suspect 'kow tow' to Japan for political reasons.

    Again SS is not an eco terrorist or a modern day pirate. Just like an organization in the US chooses an agenda to be a Hudson River Keeper, a Sierra Club or a Walden Pond society etc, if somebody do really bad things to this property and no government helps, then a Vigilante group fills the vacuum. This is exactly what SS do: as a Vigilante group trying to obstruct the 'plunderer' whalers of the ocean treasures SS is trying to protect! We should be saluting their bravery instead of demonizing and criminalizing them!

    Nobody demand an international boycott of Japan here. When more people become aware of Japan's aggressive behaviors they will just get fed up and let Japan feel the pain.

  • 4

    edbardoe

    Animal Planet is the enabler, without the TV show there is no money for the violence. Hope that Judge in Seattle won't mind when some one trashes his house since it is only directed at "things"

  • 4

    Tizalleyman

    @Tony Ew

    What you have here is international waters, a no man's 'land' which should be out of reach of the US laws. US court therefore should use the example above as guidance to butt out!

    So are you trying to imply that there is no law in international waters? If I take my boat into international waters, I can rob, kill, etc. without worrying about any fear of reprisal? This argument of jurisdiction and international waters is moot. You can argue your personal feelings about it all you want, but the law is what it is. Sea Shepherd is a US organization and is in violation of a US court order no matter where they are operating. Unless there are any lawyers out there that want to site official rulings or precedence, please refrain from further arguments of ignorance...

  • -5

    xandirules

    Oh really??

    GO PIRATES GO !!!

  • 2

    Seiryuu_Dan

    GREAT! But they are saying what we know for years! Since SS is a US-based organization, maybe the US courts can actually do something here. maybe the FBI or other govt agency should raid SS HQ and shut down their organization, place the members on the international wanted list, like Paul Watson there.

    Their latest antics, blocking the refueling of the Nisshin Maru by the Sun Laurel, should be consider an act of terrorism. any accidents and damages, injuries and possible loss of lives, as well as leaking fuel into the waters, should all be on SS's head.

    Whether they observed the 500 yds rule or not, that is a dangerous maneuver. And it's not like they were hunting whales. it was the act of refueling a ship.

    there are no reason why SS should use such antics when all Nisshin Maru did was refueling. This is definite proof that they have no concern for the lives and safety of those aboard the two ships.

    Also, if any fuel does leak into the water, It is SS fault and they should be charged for their actions that led to pollution of the waters. Nisshin Maru, the ICR or the Sun Laurel are not at fault if such incident were to occur.

  • -2

    darknuts

    Don't pirates , by definition, loot?

  • 6

    Yubaru

    Definitely no government, US, Japan or Australia have jurisdiction to clashes in international water, so US Court should just butt out and stop disgracing herself for being a puppy of JP.

    In all the years I have been living in Japan this is the absolutely FIRST time I have ever heard, seen, or read, anything from anyone calling the US a lapdog of Japan. Typically it has ALWAYS been the other way around. Amazing.

    If your supposition is presumed to be true, then the Japanese whalers have the God given right to protect themselves from the actions of SS, which would include asking the JSDF to supply warships to them for protection and to blast the SS ships out of the water.

    The SS ships are dangerously impeding the right of way on international waters. If any of us did the same in our boats we would be run over without much of a second thought.

  • 5

    arrestpaul

    darknuts - Don't pirates , by definition, loot?

    The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) defines defines “piracy” as “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 and directed on the high seas, against another ship or against persons or property on board such ship.”

    The repeated acts of violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS crews mean that the eco-terrorist scows are considered "private ships" and the eco-terrorist SS goal of ending whaling is considered to be "private ends".

    The history of piracy law defines piracy as acts taken for private ends (such as the forced ending of whaling) as those not taken on behalf of a state. The eco-terrorist SS have no legal authority from any state to sink ships, ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares, use hooks and point high-powered lasers at other ships.

  • 2

    Probie

    Whoa there. I don't even wish that on the whalers. There are people on those ships. If the whale killers will just give up and sail back north, SS can also go home, job done.

    Well done Cleo, once again completely ignoring the fact the the SS are the ones at fault here.

    Did you miss this:

    the United States’ largest federal court labeled them pirates.

    Killing whales isn't illegal, attacking people is.

  • -1

    zenkan

    You don't need a powdered wig, a gown and a gavel. When you blatantly misconstrue dictionary definitions of words such as pirate and terrorist, and overthrow the decision made by your peers based on these fallacious conclusions with the help of your toadying cronies, you are, without doubt, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, no matter how feeble-minded you may be...

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - Again SS is not an eco terrorist or a modern day pirate.

    Again, the FBI consider the eco-terrorist SS to be an eco-terrorist group and the court considers the eco-terrorist SS to be pirates as described by UNCLOS.

  • 3

    Kevin Goody

    i say the whalers should hire blackwater usa to provide security

  • 2

    davejenks

    @dmsjin

    arrestpaul ... perhaps the vast majority of 'your world' doesn't really care about whales, but the vast majority of the 'rest of the world' arguably does. otherwise there wouldn't be all this 'blathering'. All the blathering isn't over whales. It is over a bunch of radical, hooligan goons who are not content in keeping their high minded ideals to themselves.

  • -1

    davejenks

    Sorry, that is to say: @dmsjin

    arrestpaul ... perhaps the vast majority of 'your world' doesn't really care about whales, but the vast majority of the 'rest of the world' arguably does. otherwise there wouldn't be all this 'blathering'. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/u-s-court-calls-sea-shepherd-modern-day-pirates#sthash.o5GqdEZw.dpuf

    All the blathering isn't over whales. It is over a bunch of radical, hooligan goons who are not content in keeping their high minded ideals to themselves. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/u-s-court-calls-sea-shepherd-modern-day-pirates#sthash.o5GqdEZw.dpuf

  • 4

    combinibento

    Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is one of the most brilliant legal minds on the bench today. His opinions are always fun to read.

  • 3

    arrestpaul

    dmsjin - perhaps the vast majority of 'your world' doesn't really care about whales, but the vast majority of the 'rest of the world' arguably does. otherwise there wouldn't be all this 'blathering'.

    The pro-violence, anti-whalers are a small vocal minority who would like to believe that they represent a majority of something. Most of the world is more worried about earning a living, feeding their families, having families, rasing kids, paying taxes, getting an education, and stopping violence.

  • -1

    Outta here

    Probie,

    Did you miss this: the United States’ largest federal court labeled them pirates. Killing whales isn't illegal, attacking people is.

    And l guess you missed the bit where Australia's highest court said that the Japanese actions (whaling in the southern ocean) where illegal. So which is more important an American ruling or an Australian one? Seems the Japanese are more than happy to ignore the australian ruling because it goes against them but scream murder at SS is ignoring the US ruling. Mind you they are ignoring an American ruling because it is baseless. Australian and Dutch flagged ships captained by Australians crewed by international crews. Hehe. US law is irrelevant.

  • 0

    cleo

    their so-called "whale sanctuary" is a farce; Australia has no right to declare international waters as a "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary"

    Erm, it wasn't Australia that declared the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, it was the IWC.

    Can't wait to see them come home. And be greeted by US Marshalls holding Arrest Warrants for Contempt of Court.

    In Australia?

    Well done Cleo, once again completely ignoring the fact the the SS are the ones at fault here.

    Regardless of who's at fault, I don't want to see any ships sunk or people thrown into icy waters.

  • 0

    Probie

    And l guess you missed the bit where Australia's highest court said that the Japanese actions (whaling in the southern ocean) where illegal.

    The Southern Ocean ISN'T Australias teritory.

    So which is more important an American ruling or an Australian one?

    Since the SS is based in the U.S.- the American one is. The Australian one doesn't have any legal basis, since no-one really recognises their claim that the Sounther Ocean is theirs.

    Seems the Japanese are more than happy to ignore the australian ruling because it goes against them but scream murder at SS is ignoring the US ruling.

    Yeah, like the SS being happy with the first ruling by the biased judge, now whining when a real judge says the first guy was nuts and they are pirate scum?

    Mind you they are ignoring an American ruling because it is baseless. Australian and Dutch flagged ships captained by Australians crewed by international crews. Hehe. US law is irrelevant.

    Not when the SS is based in the U.S. it isn't.

  • 0

    marcelito

    Pirates?...Damn - everybody loves Captain Jack Sparrow.

  • 1

    cleo

    I think they should also go after the Chinese trade in shark fins I think around Central America but again with limited resources Japan whaling is their top priority currently.

    It was going after shark finners in Guatamalan waters that put Watson on the wrong side of Costa Rica in 2000, showing that SS has been going after shark finners for at least a dozen years. SS has campaigns targetting the killing of dolphins, whales, seals and sharks, and poaching in the Galapagos. We hear more about the whales and Japanese whaling because of the Whale Wars programme and because this is Japan Today.

  • -5

    Ranger_Miffy2

    Pirates are real, and they are out there off the coast of Somalia and other poor countries. Pirates seize ships by force, kidnap the passengers, sometimes kill them, and demand large amounts of ransom. The steal things off the boat, including the entire boat!

    SS is doing none of these, and as per a comment far above, they are more accurately called "vigilantes", and I say, GO SS. Save the Whales. Make Japan come around.

  • 1

    EngrHassanSabi

    Who ever bumped into who should accept the consequences and stop this madness before the ships sink and the crew of these ships turn into human popsicles.

  • 2

    CH3CHO

    They are killing whales in violation of an Australian court order,” Moure said.

    Their argument is valid only if Antarctica and the surrounding water belong to Australia. The whaling dispute is being heard at the International Court of Justice, right now. If Australia loses the case, said Australian court order will also lose validity. Why cannot they wait for the out come of the international dispute resolution procedure?

  • 1

    ihope2eatwhales

    it wasn't Australia that declared the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, it was the IWC.

    As you know cleo, such Sanctuary as adopted by IWC permits the catching of whales for scientific research. This is why Japan's activities are legal.

    Australia does not believe it, but I believe ardently that ICJ will confirm it.

    Regardless of who's at fault, I don't want to see any ships sunk or people thrown into icy waters.

    This is very gracious of you. Sea Shepherd pirates could learn from you.

  • -6

    Tony Ew

    @OssanAmericaFeb. 27, 2013 - 09:43AM JST

    @ Yubaru

    Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Headquartered in Washington State accepted US Court Jurisdiction when the case began. So did Paul Watson as an individual. SSCS have been trying to get the injunction prohibiting them from approaching within 500 yards of the whalers, a costly task totally unnecessary if Sea Shepherd actually believed that the US Court "had no jurisdiction" in international waters. So lets stop with the silly "no jurisdiction" arguments. Contempt of court actions will follow.

    "US law does not cover the whole planet" US law covers US citizens (Watson has dual Canadian/US) and US organizations and corporate entities. NO matter where on the planet they may be. You are confusing "jurisdiction" and "enforcement".

    My reading is SS people are too naive about the real world where political considerations can interfere with judicial decisions. SS may have thought the judges PROTECT US CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS by demanding other ships, Japan in this case to stay 500 yards away from the whales so the whales will never be caught! What you have here is the US court working on behalf of Japan, not on behalf of US citizens!

    You never know how desperate Washington want this feud to be over with, just like Japan/Korea Dokdo feud. It just get in the way of bigger US Japan and other allies co operations so a little heat is applied to the US Court just like political arm twisting affect which judge got elected to the Supreme Court.

    People, even judges are bendable!

    @ Yubaru

    "The SS ships are dangerously impeding the right of way on international waters. If any of us did the same in our boats we would be run over without much of a second thought"

    Read my lips: SS is conducting VIGILANTE ACTION. Japanese whaler ships should themselves get out of harms way!

  • 2

    taj

    GO SS. Save the Whales. Make Japan come around.

    RangerMiffy, do you not understand the damage that SS has done to the cause of "making Japan coma around?" Their on-going idiocy has done nothing here but build up sympathy for the whalers and an increased interest in eating whale. They undue any efforts by groups which aim to "win over" the general public, to stop government spending, avoid mercury, etc..

    If you want to prevent whaling, DO NOT support these clowns.

  • -1

    Ewan Huzarmy

    Pirates plunder, in this scenario their is only one side guilty of that act, the Japanese plundering the oceans of it's whales. The US has to agree to keep Japan sweet,as they are the US's biggest customer for military hardware.

  • -4

    Ewan Huzarmy

    there not their sorry, please continue.

  • 3

    Yubaru

    Read my lips: SS is conducting VIGILANTE ACTION. Japanese whaler ships should themselves get out of harms way!

    Since you use vigilante as an adjective let me teach you something here about what the word means;

    *done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice. *

    You admit here then what SS is doing is illegal, therebye justifying the whalers response in defending themselves. Thank you.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @arrestpaulFeb. 27, 2013 - 10:37AM JST

    Tony Ew - Again SS is not an eco terrorist or a modern day pirate.

    Again, the FBI consider the eco-terrorist SS to be an eco-terrorist group and the court considers the eco-terrorist SS to be pirates as described by UNCLOS.

    At this rate we should banish the English language because politicians/governments are so good at word smithing! These are 'designer words' to conjure up images of ' baddies, hooliganism at sea' with the intent to sway public opinions!

    Me, I am content with the most basic observation: VIGILANTISM! When your friendly US court try to murder the English language with 'modern day pirates' this immediately tells me this court cannot be taken seriously! That language is more suitable for politicians, not legal minds!

    This is required reading for the supreme intellect of the US Court of Appeals:

    "A 2008 academic paper by researchers at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria concluded that the group "may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they say they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states' and the international community's inabilities or unwillingness to do so."

  • -2

    zenkan

    vigilante - member of self-appointed group maintaining order... Just saying...

  • 0

    Moonraker

    It is pretty shocking and sad to see all the comments and people here who seem to side with the whale killers. What kind of world do they want?

    Whose whales are they anyway? Where is the law that says stealing and killing them claims ownership? Pirates steal. Sea shepherd, far from stealing the whale-killers' booty, are trying to prevent stealing so the judge here is a fool.

  • 4

    slumdog

    It is pretty shocking and sad to see all the comments and people here who seem to side with the whale killers. What kind of world do they want?

    Perhaps they want a world in which the rule of law is followed. I do not think it is necessary to side with the 'whale killers' to be against illegal tactics. The judge was pretty clear in his reasoning.

    You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. “When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.” - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/u-s-court-calls-sea-shepherd-modern-day-pirates#sthash.weKTBzSy.dpuf

  • 2

    A Realist

    cleoFeb. 27, 2013 - 10:56AM JST

    their so-called "whale sanctuary" is a farce; Australia has no right to declare international waters as a "Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary"

    Erm, it wasn't Australia that declared the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, it was the IWC

    So? The IWC has no right to do that either; the IWC has no right to declare any waters a "whale sanctuary" or any other kind of sanctuary, and the Australian government, by recognizing such a fare, is just as culpable as the IWC.

    "Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.

    This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2) of the ICRW, which states that the creation of any sanctuary must "be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry".[12][13]

    As there is no settlement procedure in the IWC for this type of dispute, Japan has asked the IWC to submit its case to a relevant legal body for analysis. The IWC has refused to do so."

    Of course the IWC would not submit its case to any relevant legal body, because it has no case and knows very well it would lose. The Australian government knows it very well too, and in this case is just as two-faced as China. It claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but when something emotional like this comes along it chooses to ignore the law. Shame on Australia.

  • 3

    USNinJapan2

    Moonraker

    It is pretty shocking and sad to see all the comments and people here who seem to side with the whale killers. What kind of world do they want?

    Precisely the problem with you pro-Sea Shepherd (notice, not anti-whaling necessarily) people that you can't help viewing this as a pro-whaling vs. anti-whaling issue when it's a law-abiding vs. law-breaking issue. As I've pointed before, many here, including me, who criticize Sea Shepherd are not necessarily pro-whaling but do not condone Sea Shepherd's law-breaking vigilante tactics. The whalers are doing what they do within the parameters of the IWC's restrictions. Disagreeing with this doesn't give anyone the right to physically harass or endanger the whalers and violate universal laws governing safe navigation. It doesn't matter what ideal these actions are taken in the name of, the ends don't justify the illegal and dangerous means, and that is exactly what Chief Judge Kozinski has established in his ruling. Some of you simply can't accept the fact that a person can be anti-whaling AND be anti-Sea Shepherd. In fact, that's the only rational anti-whaling stance one can take in my opinion.

  • 1

    hkitagawa

    They flag is also a Pirate. It seems that the organization is a kind of big show business since they don't follow the rules and they have many kind of weapons. Anyway, there is many kind of events like the mass suicide of whales that needs to be researched. There is no news when it happens.

  • 1

    A Realist

    slumdogFeb. 27, 2013 - 11:56AM JST

    It is pretty shocking and sad to see all the comments and people here who seem to side with the whale killers. What kind of world do they want?"

    I want a world where laws are obeyed, where animals (including whales) are animals and not dieties. I want a world that is ruled by reason and logic, not a world that is ruled by emotion based propaganda of "environmental groups" which are nothing but eco-terrorists living on handouts from gullible fools whose view of nature is founded on Disney movies and children's books. I do not want a world where criminals such as Paul Watson feel they can make their own laws and rules for everybody else to live by. I want a world where people are not swayed by propaganda and are smart and educated enough to find out facts and think and reason for themselves.

    I realize that it is a forlorn hope, a lost cause. Cult leaders like Paul Watson and his ilk have no problems raking in millions from deluded fools.

  • 0

    Himajin

    The right word is "vigilante group" !

    And that's just SO much better...

  • 1

    Himajin

    What's with all these people lately opening accounts just to rant about a specific article?

    Haven't the courage to back up your convictions?

  • 0

    megosaa

    confiscate SS and other ships, freeze their accounts! send the SEALS to find watson.

  • -5

    Tony Ew

    @YubaruFeb. 27, 2013 - 11:31AM JST

    Read my lips: SS is conducting VIGILANTE ACTION. Japanese whaler ships should themselves get out of harms way!

    Since you use vigilante as an adjective let me teach you something here about what the word means;

    *done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice. *

    You admit here then what SS is doing is illegal, therebye justifying the whalers response in defending themselves. >Thank you.

    Not so fast! It is the other way round! The SS is there to PROTECT THE WHALES, Japanese whalers coming into the vicinity PUT THEMSELVES IN HARMS WAY! Therefore the illegal acts are committed by the whalers NOT the SS

    This vigilantism is not the same as your garden variety vigilantism done in your housing estate for example. Who break the law is obvious: the bullying whalers RAMMING the smaller SS protecting the whales, but again since it is in international water, all 'laws' are flimsy, have no legal certainty since nobody can prove beyond a shadow of doubt who is the real bad actor here. Common sense says it is the bigger guy!

    The ONLY clue to jurisdiction is the ship's registration. BUT how dare the whalers claim they are not the offensive party when SS is PROTECTING the whales from being slaughtered? Simply put the whalers are putting themselves in harms way, not the other way around AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR ILLEGALLY RAMMING SS SHIPS!

    Viewed from my perspective then it is the Japanese whalers who are the real modern day pirates!

    I have to concede that if the Japanese whalers somehow got a boatload of whales already dead, SS should not harass them any further. Not only is this counter productive, this is bad for their own image too! SS only purpose is to stand in the way of the Japanese whalers, denying them the ability to harpoon the whales and if necessary use a little force to subdue the Japanese whalers. If the bigger Japanese whalers comes ramming at your ship, you will do the same instead of running away. This is no different from your everyday police law enforcement where a little violence is needed to subdue a violent party, so please don't call this illegal!

  • 3

    Nessie

    We hear more about the whales and Japanese whaling because of the Whale Wars programme and because this is Japan Today

    In shark finning, the SS illegal actions are against illegal finning. (illegal vs. legal)

    In whaling, the SS illegal actions are against legal research whaling. (illegal vs. legal)

    That's why we hear more about whaling.

  • -2

    bannedacctsam

    Odd ruling by the appeals court -

    In the US, killing a whale, let alone serving whale meat is grounds for years of prison time.

    Thus -

    Killing whales is not okay and the act of trying to stop the illegal act isn't ok either - so where's the logic?

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @Ewan HuzarmyFeb. 27, 2013 - 11:27AM JST

    Pirates plunder, in this scenario their is only one side guilty of that act, the Japanese plundering the oceans of it's whales. The US has to agree to keep Japan sweet,as they are the US's biggest customer for military hardware.

    Exactly! I am Shocked & Awe by the learned US Court of Appeals decision against SS, but now I realize business and international politics are more important than judicial impartiality! Thanks for highlighting the facts that escape many people's attention!

  • -2

  • -5

    Tony Ew

    @cleo

    It was going after shark finners in Guatamalan waters that put Watson on the wrong side of Costa Rica in 2000, showing that SS has been going after shark finners for at least a dozen years. SS has campaigns targetting the killing of dolphins, whales, seals and sharks, and poaching in the Galapagos. We hear more about the whales and Japanese whaling because of the Whale Wars programme and because this is Japan Today.

    Thanks for the update. See, SS is not just targeting the Japanese. SS is doing the right thing to keep the oceans from being plundered under the guise of 'research'.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    Thanks for the update. See, SS is not just targeting the Japanese. SS is doing the right thing to keep the oceans from being plundered under the guise of 'research'.

    The Shark finners are not plundering the oceans under the guise of research. They are doing it for food and profit. Try not to confuse the two as it doesn't make your argument any stronger.

  • 5

    Himajin

    SS may have thought the judges PROTECT US CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS by demanding other ships, Japan in this case to stay 500 yards away from the whales so the whales will never be caught! What you have here is the US court working on behalf of Japan, not on behalf of US citizens!

    As long as one plaintiff is an American , the judgement should favor Americans? Now THAT would be a crooked court system!

    Anti-whalers remind me of reformed smokers. You know the type. They smoke like smokestacks for 30 years, but after they quit they take up the gauntlet, lecturing all and sundry about the evils of smoking.

    New England whalers based out of New Bedford Ma , Nantucket Ma and other ports took over 10,000 whales a year for decades. Eventually they hunted the right whale into extreme rarity in NE waters and began to take sperm whales. 10,000+ a year at the peak of the whaling era. When whales got scarce in American waters, they moved on to Chile and Peru, Hawaiian waters and the waters around Japan, sometimes hunting for up to 5 years at a stretch as whales became more scarce. And they didn't even eat the meat, but boiled the blubber for lamp oil and machinery lubricant, used baleen for buggy whips, ambergris for perfumes, and bones for corsets. New Bedford took so many whales that it was known as "The City That Lights the World". Steam engines and other developments made use of whale oil obsolete.

    Whaling is allowed to certain people in Alaska--

    "In the United States, whaling is carried out by nine different indigenous Alaskan communities. The whaling program is managed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission which reports to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The hunt takes around 50 bowhead whales a year from a population of about 10,500 in Alaskan waters."

    Now that they don't do it anymore (and low whale counts in some species are directly related to American whaling, which continued on a smaller scale until 1930) now it's BAD,BAD,BAD and anyone doing it after they have stopped is EVIL. Give me a break. Americans drove a couple of whale species almost to extinction, and remember the bison as well. Oh but they are holier than thou, now....

    The Alaskans are taking 50 whales from a population of 10,500(0.47% of that population). The Japanese are allowed (but don't always catch) 900 whales out of a population of 103,000 (0.87%of that population). They are *legally allowed * to hunt for 900 whales annually. The Sea Shepard is taking the law into it's own hands, and defying the right that the Japanese have been given legally. If they want to have that right rescinded, legal action is the key, not causing injury and destruction of property.

  • -5

    Disillusioned

    Oooooh! Let's point the finger at SS! OK, so, the SS group are considered to be pirates for their extreme actions against the Japanese whalers. Pretty fair call, but what should we call the Japanese who blatantly disregard an international ban on commercial whaling, lie to use a loophole to catch whales for food, ignore an internationally recognized whale sanctuary and then turn around and state that hunting whales is a cultural tradition? There 'may' be a cultural tradition of whaling in Japan, as it WAS in many other countries, but the Japanese 'tradition' never extended to Antarctica. The rest of the modern world has spent the last 40 odd years protecting whales and conserving the pristine environment of the southern ocean. What gives Japan the right to exploit the conservation efforts of the rest of the world and cash in on it? If Japan wants to hunt whales commercially, they should drop out of the IWC and hunt whales in their own dessert oceans and, stay the heck out of Antarctica!

    So, SS are pirates! What is a good name for the Japanese whalers?

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @TizalleymanFeb. 27, 2013 - 10:15AM JST

    @Tony Ew

    What you have here is international waters, a no man's 'land' which should be out of reach of the US laws. US court therefore should use the example above as guidance to butt out!

    So are you trying to imply that there is no law in international waters? If I take my boat into international waters, I can rob, kill, etc. without worrying about any fear of reprisal? This argument of jurisdiction and international waters is moot. You can argue your personal feelings about it all you want, but the law is what it is. Sea Shepherd is a US organization and is in violation of a US court order no matter where they are operating. Unless there are any lawyers out there that want to site official rulings or precedence, please refrain from further arguments of ignorance...

    OK, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said the illegal acts conducted in international waters is where the dispute is. Who is the real culprit? Japanese whalers or US registered SS ? WHAT PROOF does the US Court of Appeals have that it is SS who initiated the conflict instead of the Japanese whalers? I am specifically referring to situations where SS try to protect a pod of whales and the Japanese whalers come ramming into them. Who is the modern day pirate, eco terrorist in this case?

    If no whales can be found in the vicinity and SS harass the Japanese refueling , then SS is probably at fault. The US Court must define a narrow exception where SS can operate her vigilante actions instead of a broad 500 yards distance from the whalers. That to me looks like the Court is working on behalf of the Japanese government!

  • 3

    Himajin

    Yes, point a finger at SS for their violent illegal tactics. Again, we have the idea of 'doing bad things is OK if for a cause I agree with'.

    You are advocating and supporting bullying , illegal violent behavior because you don't like their opponents and protesting a legal court decision against people you favor, regardless of whether they are right or not.

    Take the Japanese to court.

  • 4

    Yubaru

    Not so fast! It is the other way round! The SS is there to PROTECT THE WHALES, Japanese whalers coming into the vicinity PUT THEMSELVES IN HARMS WAY! Therefore the illegal acts are committed by the whalers NOT the SS

    SS put themselves and their ships in the way of a refueling ship trying to get on station and refuel one of the fleet, they were not in the act of whaling at the time, so their actions at that time had nothing to do with protecting anything and were acts made with the intent to damage or destroy the ships ability to refuel. That was a terrorist act plain and simple.

    Next human life comes before any animals or mammals.SS put themselves in a dangerous position even after violating the agreed upon limits placed by the US court.

    There is no argument they are wrong and should be stopped, plain and simple.

  • 4

    Heda_Madness

    WHAT PROOF does the US Court of Appeals have that it is SS who initiated the conflict instead of the Japanese whalers? I am specifically referring to situations where SS try to protect a pod of whales and the Japanese whalers come ramming into them. Who is the modern day pirate, eco terrorist in this case?

    So do you think that the Japanese and the Korean refueling ship thought it would be a good idea to refuel right at the spot where the SS was sitting, minding their own business?

    If you want proof, have a look on the SS website... they've been proudly spouting off about it,

  • 4

    Heda_Madness

    The rest of the modern world has spent the last 40 odd years protecting whales and conserving the pristine environment of the southern ocean. What gives Japan the right to exploit the conservation efforts of the rest of the world and cash in on it?

    You may want to look up the history and purpose of the IWC. THAT should answer that question.

  • -4

    DudeDeuce

    OK, I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said the illegal acts conducted in international waters is where the dispute is. Who is the real culprit? Japanese whalers or US registered SS ? WHAT PROOF does the US Court of Appeals have that it is SS who initiated the conflict instead of the Japanese whalers? I am specifically referring to situations where SS try to protect a pod of whales and the Japanese whalers come ramming into them. Who is the modern day pirate, eco terrorist in this case?

    If no whales can be found in the vicinity and SS harass the Japanese refueling , then SS is probably at fault. The US Court must define a narrow exception where SS can operate her vigilante actions instead of a broad 500 yards distance from the whalers. That to me looks like the Court is working on behalf of the Japanese government!

    You come to a Japan forum with your anti-whaling views, unfortunately you will get thumbs down galore.

  • -8

    Tony Ew

    @Yubaru @Heda_Madness

    I did clarify here not all acts by SS is done properly and actually damage their own cause eg the refueling operations incident.

    The US Court must define a narrow exception where SS can operate her vigilante actions instead of a broad 500 yards distance from the whalers. That to me looks like the Court is working on behalf of the Japanese government!

    When pods of whales surface, it will be a 'he said, she said' situation and it will be hard to say who 'take ownership' of the pod first. It all depends on where the whale surfaces, near SS or Japanese whaler ships. ONCE SS gets in between to do her vigilante acts, the Japanese whalers must back off. This I think is where the US court does not have the imagination to clarify the rules of engagements and instead make a blanket 500 yards zone that obviously look one sided!

  • 3

    Heda_Madness

    The US Court must define a narrow exception where SS can operate her vigilante actions instead of a broad 500 yards distance from the whalers

    This is what the US court said

    When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate

    I'm not sure what laws you live by or where you see it fit to do that.

  • -4

    letsberealistic

    Hmm, I sense negotions behind closed door between US and Japan. If you buy more US beef we'll take more action on SS. Why else would the US be interested in the dispute??

  • -8

    Peter Payne

    Once I saw a sign in Tokyo saying, "The reason you can'd find good maguro these days is, the whales are eating them all." This is one (stupid) rationale for whaling.

    Fun fact: why did Commander Perry force open Japan to trade? In part it was to allow seamen from American whaling ships a way to be safe if they happened to be shipwrecked in Japan.

  • 4

    Heda_Madness

    If I live to a hundred I will never understand how a ruling that highlights:

    When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers

    is due to negotiations behind the scenes.

    Go somewhere in the US and do any of those and you will be arrested for breaking the law. Because, and this isn't because of any behind the scenes activity, but because you've broken the law. Why is it so difficult to comprehend?

  • -6

    tkoind2

    The US will always have Japan's back unless it means a loss of influence or money to US interests. So this is not terribly surprising.

    Arrestpaul is right, most of the the world does not care. But then that extends to most of the world not really caring about much at all beyond their own self-interests. Otherwise global warming and other key issues would be getting more traction.

    Those who do are are the exception and are often demonized for not joining the legions of zombies who don't care about most important issues. They are seen as the enemy of peace and business as usual. But history validates that it is exactly these people who care who ultimately influence change. Even if that change comes long after painful conflict and sacrifice.

    I think that Japan's whaling is wrong despite the apathy shown this issue. I think these people are drawing attention to it at great risk and cost. And I hope, very much so, that they carry on doing so regardless of what some issue zombie judge has ruled. Rebels have always and will always need to step outside the protection of the law when the moral and right thing to do requires so. This is no different.

  • 3

    Himajin

    Tony, vigilantism is illegal action taken by individuals taking the law into their own hands, I don't understand your reasoning that SS be allowed to be free to continue.

  • 1

    Yubaru

    it will be a 'he said, she said' situation and it will be hard to say who 'take ownership' of the pod first. It all depends on where the whale surfaces, near SS or Japanese whaler ships.

    Are you joking here, "take ownership"? Let's be for real now. A fisherman catches something with his line, spear, harpoon, whatever, and you think anyone has the right to cut them off from landing said fish?

    SS actions are to keep the fleet away from the whales, no matter where they surface, and to try to justify their actions by coming up with the excuse that they were closer first is ludicrous.

    Read the rules, international accepted, for vessels, in international waters. Just one here that sticks out, Section II Article 18;

    A power-driven vessel must give way to: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (this may include vessels towing one another[9]); a vessel engaged in fishing; a sailing vessel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea

    The Japanese ships are engaged in the act of "fishing" and technically speaking that is what the Japanese are doing at the time SS is attempting to stop them. That alone, among a list of other infractions should be enough to land SS in any court of law. International waters is the key. Where the Japanese whaler's are "fishing" are in grounds that no country "owns".

  • 0

    eyeonwarson

    @ Disillusioned

    So, SS are pirates! What is a good name for the Japanese whalers?

    Legal whalers would be a good start :-)

    What many Sea shepherd supporters seem to forget is that Sea Shepherd, along with Paul watson, have substantial land holdings in the USA, for example, the Friday harbour headquarters of SSCS . In contempt of court proceedings, such properties are liable for seizure, along with any SSCS assets - why do you think that Watson supposedly tried to resign as President and CEO of SSCS? He`s trying to avoid being held personally liable for the actions of his organisation.

    Expect their Tax exempt charitable status to be revoked as the first result of contempt of court proceedings

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Next stop would probably be holding Animal Channel accountable charges of conspiring, aiding and, abetting with SS in violating an injunction laid by the court.

  • -6

    tkoind2

    Bottom line SS aside Japan is in the wrong here and should be stopped. If it takes people being tagged as pirates to do so, then so be it! I support SS and their efforts to thwart Japanese whaling. I feel pretty confident that this ruling will do very little to discourage them. And rightly so.

    The more costly whaling becomes for Japan the more likely it will end.

    All this aside, Japan needs to be spending that money on Tohoku. People have short attention spans and have forgotten that much work remains to be done in the north. How can any government justify spending money on whaling while its own people are still struggling so much. Even being asked to give back aid money.

    More and more I see that Japan's government is as corrupt as Indonesia or any of the other top corrupt states. The only real difference here is that they are much better at masking it as business as usual. Most often at the expensive of Japan's passive and politically apathetic (if not predominantly uninformed) population.

    Whaling costs taxpayers money that is needed elsewhere. In a politically savvy society, votes would fix this problem. But in Japan a few oyaji decide to proceed and no one challenges them. Sad and shameful behavior.

  • -5

    Ranger_Miffy2

    Whaling industry is logging into this discussion board. Does not matter.

  • -5

    Tony Ew

    @Heda_MadnessFeb. 27, 2013 - 02:51PM JST

    @HimajinFeb. 27, 2013 - 03:38PM JST

    Tony, vigilantism is illegal action taken by individuals taking the law into their own hands, I don't understand your reasoning that SS be allowed to be free to continue.

    The US Court must define a narrow exception where SS can operate her vigilante actions instead of a broad 500 yards distance from the whalers

    This is what the US court said

    When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate

    I'm not sure what laws you live by or where you see it fit to do that.

    Let's be clear here. Each action by SS or the Japanese whalers have to be judged based on it's own merits. As I said the refueling incident is probably SS fault but in other cases where SS is protecting a pod of whales from aggressive actions by the whalers, SS JUST LIKE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL have the VIGILANTE RIGHT to use whatever 'humane force' against the whalers with ONLY the ultimate intention of keeping the whales out of reach from them.

    I said the Court erred by making a blanket 500 yards zone ruling. This court obviously don't judge each clash based on it's own separate actions. A more careful consideration will show SS is always right whenever a pod of whales surface and they attempt to chase off the whalers by any min deterrent means.

  • -3

    pointofview

    Since 2001, if you disagree with a government or bureaucratic thuggery you are considered some kind of terrorist or pirate. go figure. Just another corrupt way to lock people up.

  • 1

    SamuraiBlue

    Looks as if someone is advocating vigilantism next stop lynching and a kangroo court.

    Sorry but the global community does not work that way at least I hope not.

  • -3

    Tony Ew

    @Disillusioned

    So, SS are pirates! What is a good name for the Japanese whalers?

    Using the vigilante analogy, the property being protected are the whales instead of houses and people staying in say a housing estate where a typical vigilantism action is performed.

    Based on this analogy, let's call the Japanese whalers INTRUDERS, THIEVES, ASSAILANTS when they attempt to remove the whales from the ocean! Remember the SS is creating a protective space to keep these 'thieves, intruders from assailing the whales.

  • -2

    Thunderbird2

    Strange - I thought pirates plundered other ships for their loot, drank lots of rum and ale, and generally had a fun time arrrrr.... How can SS be compared to them? Do they plunder other ships and steal their loot? Nope. Do they have eye-patches and peg-legs, hooks for hands and go "arrrrr" all day long? Nope.

  • -1

    Tony Ew

    @tkoind2

    More and more I see that Japan's government is as corrupt as Indonesia or any of the other top corrupt states. The only real difference here is that they are much better at masking it as business as usual. Most often at the expensive of Japan's passive and politically apathetic (if not predominantly uninformed) population.

    Whaling costs taxpayers money that is needed elsewhere. In a politically savvy society, votes would fix this problem. But in Japan a few oyaji decide to proceed and no one challenges them. Sad and shameful behavior.

    Exactly! I think Japan is a lost society with many younger generation just couldn't care less or feel hopeless, thus letting a minority older generation political machinery run their country.

    Whaling is only one of the many disputes the JP leaders have with others. I hope JP people participate more from all spectrum of life, then we'll get a better handle what Japan really think about global issues.

  • 2

    SamuraiBlue

    Tony Ew

    Sorry but you anology is busted since the Antarctic ocean is not your private property nor whales branded as private property either.

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @Yubaru

    A power-driven vessel must give way to: a vessel not under command; a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver (this may include vessels towing one another[9]); a vessel engaged in fishing; a sailing vessel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InternationalRegulationsforPreventingCollisionsatSea

    The Japanese ships are engaged in the act of "fishing" and technically speaking that is what the Japanese are doing at the time SS is attempting to stop them. That alone, among a list of other infractions should be enough to land SS in any court of law. International waters is the key. Where the Japanese whaler's are "fishing" are in grounds that no country "owns".

    SS says: I came, I saw, I PROTECT the whales! I SAW THEM FIRST, so off I go to form a protective zone around the pod of whales.

    If Japan really want to intimidate SS once and for all, send some military ships to scare off SS but that would cost the Japanese taxpayers too much yen isn't it?

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    Tony EwFeb. 27, 2013 - 11:22AM JST @OssanAmericaFeb. 27, 2013 - 09:43AM JST My reading is SS people are too naive about the real world where political considerations can interfere with judicial >decisions. SS may have thought the judges PROTECT US CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS by demanding other >ships, Japan in this case to stay 500 yards away from the whales so the whales will never be caught! What you have >here is the US court working on behalf of Japan, not on behalf of US citizens!

    I agree that SSCS are naïve, but only to the extent that they do nt understand concepts like lawful and unlawful. jurisdiction and enforcement, Court Orders and Injunctive relief. Hence their legal defense has been a shambles and the proverbial whale feces is about to hit the fan. And I d question your appreciation of Law if you think it has to do with politics. The US court is upholding US Law, nothing more nothing less.

    You never know how desperate Washington want this feud to be over with, just like Japan/Korea Dokdo feud. It just >get in the way of bigger US Japan and other allies co operations so a little heat is applied to the US Court just like >political arm twisting affect which judge got elected to the Supreme Court.

    No comparison. The Japan/SKorea problem, apart from being totally irrelevant to this discussion, other than that South Korea is a country that is eagerly waiting to resume whaling because they too have a very long tradition of whaling and consuming whale meat, and the M/T Sun Laurel is a South Korean vessel, is a security problem that affects US diplomatic and strategic policy in the region. Whaling is nothing, the US is officially an anti-whaling nation, yet it is also a whaling nation that allows limited aboriginal whaling.

    People, even judges are bendable!

    Yes, that is why the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges panel have recommended that Judge Jones who failed to recognize SSCS as pirates previously should be removed from the case.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    wtfjapanFeb. 27, 2013 - 09:37AM JST wont make any difference SS will just open a new company in a country that is more friendly to there cause, the >publicity like this just makes me want to donate more cash to them, bring on the fight SS the supporters are growing >by the day LOL

    That is called "subterfuge" and Courts worldwide are not stupid. Now that a US Court has labeled SSCS as "Pirates" look to Somalia as to how the world deals with "pirates". Continued resistance and activity by SSCS will result in actual JCG and even AMA arrests on the high seas.

  • 2

    eyeonwarson

    The problem for SSCS and watson is rather simple. SSCS has multiple property holdings in the US, many in watsons name. Now as Watson cannot set foot on US soil ( Interpol remember? ) he cannot do anything about these properties that are in his name. Any contempt of court proceedings will impound these properties and assets first ( Contempt proceedings have already begun ) As for the ships, don`t expect to see them near US soil anytime soon for the reasons Ossanamerica states above. As for those with american passports onboard the ships, well, they are in for a rude surprise when arriving on American soil, perhaps this is one of the reasons so many on the ships are wearing masks and bandanas over there faces ( good luck with that )

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    "People, even judges are bendable!"

    Yes, that is why the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges panel have recommended that Judge Jones who failed to >recognize SSCS as pirates previously should be removed from the case.

    Sorry I made an error. It was not "recommended". It was "ordered".

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    cleoFeb. 27, 2013 - 10:56AM JST

    Erm, it wasn't Australia that declared the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, it was the IWC.

    That;s right it was the same IWC which also authorizes research Whaling and exempts research whalers from recognizing moratoriums and sanctuaries. I just know you must know IWC Article VIII already. But if you have any difficulty understanding that what the research whalers is doing is legal, please read; http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266cd.pdf

    "Can't wait to see them come home. And be greeted by US Marshalls holding Arrest Warrants for Contempt of Court."

    In Australia?

    In the United States. I said US Marshal. Why would you even ask?

    "Well done Cleo, once again completely ignoring the fact the the SS are the ones at fault here.

    Regardless of who's at fault, I don't want to see any ships sunk or people thrown into icy waters.

    Well that's exactly why the US Court imposed the restraining order on SSCS, Which SSCS has been fighting. Are you beginning to understand that you've been rooting for the wrong people?

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - Read my lips: SS is conducting VIGILANTE ACTION. Japanese whaler ships should themselves get out of harms way!

    Hahahaha. Vigilante action is violence. The eco-terrorist SS use violence to force others to do their bidding and you support violence as a means to an end.

    How do your read lips in a text based forum?

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - Whether the Japanese whalers actions constitutes 'heinous crimes' will be subject to debate, but here it is an animal rights issue, a henious crime AGAINST WHALES.

    SS is merely protecting pods of whales from unnecessary slaughter done under 'research' pretext.

    If there is an overpopulation issue then the whales may rightfully need to be humanely poached but we are not there yet.

    Subject to debate is one thing. Subject to an actual criminal case is another. What country has granted "rights" to whales? You and a vocal minority have decided that whales have "rights" but you have no more authority to grant that then the eco-terrorist SS have to sink, ram, attack, or disable any vessel anywhere.

  • 2

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - SS says: I came, I saw, I PROTECT the whales! I SAW THEM FIRST, so off I go to form a protective zone around the pod of whales.

    If Japan really want to intimidate SS once and for all, send some military ships to scare off SS but that would cost the Japanese taxpayers too much yen isn't it?

    Watson isn't forming a protective zone around a pod of whales. He blocking the path of refueling vessels. Refueling vessels have limited manuvering capabilities. Watson is also ordering his eco-terrorist SS to violate the 500 yard buffer zone in order to ram and entangle the whaling vessels with reinforced ropes. There ARE NO PODS OF WHALES where Watson is currently conducting acts of piracy.

    If Watson wasn't intimidated, he wouldn't have fled from the Costa Rica court or the Canadian court or the German court or abandonded his leadership position (but not the actual leadership) of the eco-terrorist SS. Watson is a fugitive. If he's detained, he's heading for Costa Rica AFTER he answers for any crimes OR UNLAWFUL VIGILANTE ACTION committed against the nation that detains him.

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    Thunderbird2 - Strange - I thought pirates plundered other ships for their loot, drank lots of rum and ale, and generally had a fun time arrrrr.... How can SS be compared to them? Do they plunder other ships and steal their loot? Nope. Do they have eye-patches and peg-legs, hooks for hands and go "arrrrr" all day long? Nope.

    Your thoughts maight make sense for someone who gets their information from Hollyweird movies. That might explain why you don't understand the legal definition of piracy. The eco-terrorist SS repeated violent activities clearly violate the UNCLOS, the SUA Convention and the COLREGS against piracy.

  • 3

    arrestpaul

    pointofview - Since 2001, if you disagree with a government or bureaucratic thuggery you are considered some kind of terrorist or pirate. go figure. Just another corrupt way to lock people up.

    The eco-terrorist SS use of violence earned them their well deserved reputation as eco-terrorists and as pirates. Violence is not the answer. Watson will be locked up eventually because he repeatedly resorts to acts of violence. The U.S. court will eventually decide how much Watson and the eco-terrorist SS will be penalized for their repeated acts of violence.

  • -7

    YuriOtani

    So America can protect non American ships in non American waters from the evil Sea Sheppard. America has become the "policemen of the world" and US law is now the law of the world.

  • 4

    Steve Mcgrew

    Watson and his crew/crews are Eco terrorist ,that much is certain..Obama should send out a Drone and end this crap today!

  • 5

    gelendestrasse

    Sea Shepherd has really put their foot in it this time. This is going to make the lawyers rich. It's obvious that the SS ship violated navigation rules as well as the court order. They are in for a tough time. I have to wonder where Watson thinks he can set foot on dry land now? I can imagine that the next move will be to freeze his assets. Ouch!

  • 2

    Yubaru

    So America can protect non American ships in non American waters from the evil Sea Sheppard. America has become the "policemen of the world" and US law is now the law of the world. -

    Sorry but this comment is just a knee-jerk reaction by someone ignorant of the US system and laws. Any person in any country can file a lawsuit in an American court seeking redress for actions taken by an American entity in this case SS BECAUSE SS is registered in the United States.

  • 3

    Himajin

    " SS JUST LIKE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL have the VIGILANTE RIGHT to use whatever 'humane force' against the whalers with ONLY the ultimate intention of keeping the whales out of reach from them."

    Law enforcement personnel are not allowed to act as vigilantes, I think you completely misunderstand what 'vigilante' means...it is not 'knight in shining armor" SS are not law enforcement, no matter how you try to insist so.

    Yuri, SS is based in America, it's holdings are in America, therefore they can be tried in an American court. Punishing SS for

    ignoring a restraining order destruction of other people's ships acid attacks

    and the like does not equal "being the world's policeman" If SS were a foreign corporation the US courts would have no say.

  • 5

    Himajin

    "In the high seas there is zero law enforcer available"

    False. Each ship is subject to the laws of the country of the flag she flies. If SS "enforced" the actual laws regarding the restraining order placed on them, and the legal quota Japan is allowed to take, there wouldn't be constant run -ins. SS is VIOLATING the law, not enforcing it.

    "SS is doing a very very noble job! "

    With illegal methods. "The end justifies the means" is an ethically bereft reason for any conduct.

  • -6

    cleo

    Perhaps they want a world in which the rule of law is followed.

    That's right; a world where 'scientific research' means learning as much as possible by observation and killing as few of the animals as possible - not sending zonking huge factory ships and fleets of harpoon ships to kill hundreds at a time to throw on plates. The regulations relating to the use and treatment of lab mice are stricter.

  • 3

    Nessie

    Well , thats a nice thought but - throughout human history if everyone adhered to it all the time not much meaningful change would have taken place.

    This is the old "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. The standard counter-argument: "Show me your omelette."

    The SS omelette will have Japan quitting the IWC and still hunting whales. It will have legitimate environmental groups caught in an SS-inspired anti-environmentalist backlash. That's not a pretty omelette.

    Now, to breakfast!

  • -6

    YuriOtani

    Yubaru the society may be incorporated in the US for taxes but none of the ships are registered in the US, the Japanese ships are not registered in the US and they are not in US waters. Nessie the >omelet< is 15 whales being killed before the hunt was >suspended< or cancelled. Mark my words if given a chance these Japanese whalers would kill every whale and dolphin while the world watches and makes feeble protests. Then one day people would want to know why they went extinct? What the other groups are doing is not working.

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    Again if they are not a US country and if US laws are not applicable to them why have they wasted so much money on celebrity appeals to the supreme court and why they are fighting this and asking for the judge to be removed from the case. They MUST surely think it's bad for them, whether you do or not.

  • 2

    Himajin

    The original main ship used to be registered in the US, but is no longer. Each of their ships is registered with a different country.

    They are incorporated as a non-profit organization in the US. The fact that they are registered there puts them under US law. The court case was about punishing SS, not about 'helping Japanese ships'. It's not that hard to understand. They were in violation of a US-court issued restraining order, so of course the case will be tried in a US court.

  • 3

    Yubaru

    the society may be incorporated in the US for taxes but none of the ships are registered in the US, the Japanese ships are not registered in the US and they are not in US waters.

    You don't get it. Since they are a registered US entity they are by US law required to follow the laws of the US whether or not their ships are registered there or not.

  • 2

    hokkaidoguy

    YuriOtani Mark my words if given a chance these Japanese whalers would kill every whale and dolphin...

    I'd love to hear why you think the Japanese would go out of their way to hunt every dolphin and whale species in the oceans to extinction. Care to expand on that?

  • -1

    pointofview

    @arrestpaul,

    Oh ya thats right. Governments can destroy anything but they arent considered terrorists. Sounds like sheeple asleep at the wheel condoning the disgusting things that elitists do.

  • 3

    Nessie

    Nessie the >omelet< is 15 whales being killed before the hunt was >suspended< or cancelled.

    And you think the Japanese won't be out for another helping?

    Mark my words if given a chance these Japanese whalers would kill every whale and dolphin while the world watches and makes feeble protests.

    I'll mark your words as hysterical ones.

  • 0

    cramp

    the courts are stupid...pirates are robbers who work in the high seas, last time i heard sea shepherd robs no one of anything...

    whales don't belong to japan so they're not being robbed

    hence sea shepherd are not pirates

  • 1

    Himajin

    cramp, I can see how you might have one after that twist of logic...SS scuttles ships, rams them, they cause a good bit of damage.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    crampFeb. 28, 2013 - 07:17PM JST the courts are stupid...pirates are robbers who work in the high seas, last time i heard sea shepherd robs no one of >anything...

    Piracy does not require "robbing" or "stealing" anything. It requires acts of violence for private purposes. Sea Shepherd are pirates by global standards.

  • 1

    hidingout

    Its like I've been saying for years ...SS and that lot need to get real jobs and stop messing about with the livelihoods of others.

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    cramp - the courts are stupid...pirates are robbers who work in the high seas, last time i heard sea shepherd robs no one of anything...

    whales don't belong to japan so they're not being robbed

    hence sea shepherd are not pirates

    Hence? The courts didn't define the legal definition of piracy. Nations do. Privateers like Watson don't care what ANY nation's law say. He doesn't believe that any of them apply to him or his eco-terrorist band of ne'er-do-wells. Watson rejects the laws of Canada, Norway, Russia, the U.S.A., Costa Rica, Japan, Germany, Spain, Malta, Scotland, Namibia, Iceland, Makah, Faroe Islands, Portugal, Belize, UK, and Togo just to name a few.

    Watson uses violence as a means to an end. And you support his violence. Greenpeace has called Watson a violent extremist and refuses to have anything to do with Watson's violence. Your standards are different.

    The eco-terrorist SS repeated violent actions clearly violate the UNCLOS, the SUA Convention and the COLREGS against piracy. Piracy is violence committed on the high seas by private parties for their own gain. While robbery is considered one form of "gain", so is forcing others to do your bidding. Watson's inept pirate leaders "gain" attention in order to line their own pockets with pro-violence donations.

    The eco-terrorist SS are not affiliated with any nation. That makes them private parties in the eyes of the law. The eco-terrorist SS have NO legal authorization to attack anyone. Private parties committing acts of violence in international waters are pirates, whether you agree with that definition or not.

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    YuriOtani - ..... the society may be incorporated in the US for taxes but none of the ships are registered in the US

    In case you haven't been following the case or only listen to the lies of the eco-terrorist SS, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, sued Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in U.S. federal district court in Seattle, U.S.A.. The suit was filed in Seattle because Sea Shepherd is based in the state of Washington, U.S.A..

    The suit requested, among other things, an injunction to stop Sea Shepherd's violent operations against Japanese whalers. The court also ordered the U.S. based organization to keep it's pirate ships 500 yards away from the whalers and their support vessels. An order that the eco-terrorist SS have videoed themselves violating.

    The ICR isn't suing the ships. They are suing the U.S. based organization. It's the U.S. based organization that will pay any penalties and fines for the violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS scows. Please donate more money to the U.S. based, eco-terrorist SS so they will be able to pay the penalties that will fund ICR research whaling for the future.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    cleoFeb. 28, 2013 - 09:16AM JST "Perhaps they want a world in which the rule of law is followed."

    That's right; a world where 'scientific research' means learning as much as possible by observation and killing as few >of the animals as possible - not sending zonking huge factory ships and fleets of harpoon ships to kill hundreds at a >time to throw on plates.

    How you feel about Whales, Whaling, Research Whaling, Animal Rights, etc is irrelevant to this article.

    "Even if one believes it is barbaric to harvest whales for any purpose at the beginning of the 21st century, as practiced by Cetacean, it is clearly permitted under international law. See International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling art. VIII, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74. Sea Shepherd’s piracy is not. See Maj. Op. at 3–14."

    M. SMITH, Circuit Judge Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, No. 12- 35266 http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266cd.pdf

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    Since the Supreme Court refuses to hear this case, I offer my 'supreme' verdict:

    The Court of Appeals decision should be strucked down completely! SS is not a modern day pirate. If the court is unhappy with SS behavior, the best action is to instruct Washington State to de register the SS entity for conducting activities not in accordance to the spirit of the charity designation of SSCS. This will effectively make SS unable to operate as an entity there or anywhere in the US. The reason this make sense is because there was previous 'silent agreement, implied agreement' by the US for allowing SS to operate as a vigilante group targeting fishermen of other big mammals eg shark fins harvesting. Now that it become too problematic, just de register SSCS!

    By de registering SS, US wash her hands off this intractable problem and any future operations carried out by SS will have to be ID to the person who register the ship or an entity that is registered in another country. Therefore any fines levied on SS assets should be thrown out, ordering SS to stay at least 500 yards away from the Japanese whalers should be cancelled.

    When an entity is established in the US, the purpose is clearly defined and the missions understood by the State registering it. Washington State knew all along the purpose of SSCS mission and did not object. For this reason if the Court find SS actions becoming unpalatable the only action the Court can take is to de register SSCS. Without the charity' designation of SSCS, there is no entity to run SS other than individual members who will be accountable under US law IF the ship is registered in US.

    "Damaging the whaling ships “could cause them to sink or become stranded in glacier-filled, Antarctic waters, jeopardizing the safety of the crew,” the Appeals Court ruled. Sea Shepherd, it concluded, engaged in “clear instances of violent acts for private ends, the very embodiment of piracy.” "

    This is one astounding misrepresentation of facts by the US Court of Appeals! This is NOT a private ends activities by SS. This is PUBLIC ends activities by SS properly described as VIGILANTE ACTION to protect the whales. A private ends means SS crews becoming millionaires perhaps from their activities, but where is this evidence?

    SS crews should just send three pairs of eye patches to the three judges in the Court of Appeals so the world can really see that justice is indeed very very blind!

  • 1

    Kyle Alpert

    Having the declared 'pirates' opens the door to solutions that are more final. SS should be super concerned about the wording of that ruling...

  • 2

    22cowboys

    "He determined the protesters’ tactics were nonviolent because they targeted equipment and ships rather than people." So the 'honorable' Judge Jones must also believe that passenger cars and airplanes struck by RPGs aren't violent acts because the targets are the vehicles and not the people inside. I guess we all need a new definition of what violent acts are.

  • 1

    Martin007

    Who is funding these eco-terrorists? Surely the intellegence agencies can track these financial transactions.

  • -3

    cleo

    Who is funding these eco-terrorists?

    They're subsidised by the government of Japan, out of our taxes and funds earmarked for reconstruction in Tohoku.

  • 3

    Nessie

    TonyEW, your post leads me to believe that you do not understand what "public" and "private" mean.

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - Since the Supreme Court refuses to hear this case, I offer my 'supreme' verdict:

    The Court of Appeals decision should be strucked down completely! SS is not a modern day pirate. If the court is unhappy with SS behavior, the best action is to instruct Washington State to de register the SS entity for conducting activities not in accordance to the spirit of the charity designation of SSCS.

    "de register"? What the heck does that mean? Are you confusing the taking of an organization to civil court with a nation registering deep sea vessels? A nation can chose to register or "de register" a vessel based on the past history and current activities of that vessel's crew or the actions of the company that owns the vessel. A registered or "flagged" vessel represents that nation. An attack on a flagged vessel is an attack on the nation which registered that vessel. The eco-terrorist SS scows have been "de registered" by several nations because of their repeated acts of violence. Several nations have refused to register eco-terrorist SS scows because of their history of repeated acts of violence.

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the eco-terrorist SS appeal of the appellate court's decision, it's a fact that the SCOTUS agrees with the lower court. The eco-terrorist SS are committing acts of piracy as piracy is defined by international law.

    The violent actions committed by Watson and the eco-terrorist SS all but insure that Cetacean will win it's case against the U.S.-based eco-terrorist SS. The next legal question will be whether the U.S. court will "de register" the charity designation of the eco-terrorist SS. Will future pro-violence, eco-terrorist SS supporters still be able to deduct their pro-violence donations from their taxes?

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @arrestpaul @Nessie

    The court ruling is about private ENDS, not private or public MEANS as you mention. SS actions is not a private ENDS motive which will invariably means enriching oneself, to make oneself famous and so on, in other words personal GAINFUL activities. SS actions are not personal gainful activities but a gainful activities for the PUBLIC good which is protecting the whales from inhuman unnecessary slaughters, especially when there is no evidence of overpopulation and the 'research' claim by the whalers is suspect.

    It is common for SOTUS to decline hearing a case, don't know why, but that is not agreement with lower court! Busy schedules, could not find precedent, we don't know how they operate.

    De registration occurs all the time, a liquor bar selling to minors can have license revoked, business closed, ditto casino license revoked for allowing minors to gamble and so on. De register and removing license have same effect: to cut off the legs from the entity so it cannot succeed in it's mission, be it profiteering or vigilante/pirate action as the Court describe SS actions.

    Don't label the violent acts of SS illegal. When a police taser somebody, is that violent act illegal? As I said SS actions become neccessary, taking VIGILANTE ACTIONS because there is no law enforcement done to protect the whales. Again people do that all the time in communities across the world when official law enforcements cannot or will not do the job. What are righteous people suppose to do? Since there is so much controversy over SS actions, I think cutting off her legs ie by de registering SSCS in the US is the way to go. Let them regroup and operate elsewhere.

  • 1

    Deplore

    So long as they're not endangered (or human), people should be allows to hunt, kill, and eat whatever they please.

  • 3

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - .....Don't label the violent acts of SS illegal. When a police taser somebody, is that violent act illegal? As I said SS actions become neccessary, taking VIGILANTE ACTIONS because there is no law enforcement done to protect the whales. Again people do that all the time in communities across the world when official law enforcements cannot or will not do the job.

    I can certainly understand your displeasure with the rulings of the courts but that doesn't change the law. You're attempting to justify the repeated violent actions of the eco-terrorists. Vigilante actions are illegal. If you and Watson want to ignore established law for your own private purposes, that's your choice. However, governments can and will arrest, detain, and subject vigilanties to a trial. If the vigilanties are found guilty of violating a nation's laws, the court has the legal authority to fine, penalize, and incarcerate convicted criminals. Watson will love the view from his future Costa Rica cell.

    Nations also have laws for dealing with civil issues. The U.S. based, eco-terrorist SS are being sued to prevent the repeated acts of violence of their representatives on board eco-terrorist SS vessels. The U.S. court has found that ICR has standing to bring suit against the eco-terrorist SS because the U.S. eco-terrorist SS are based in the U.S.A.. Watson chose to ignore the court's order to stay 500 yards away from their intended victims. The eco-terrorist SS chose to ignore the court's order to stop their violence.

    The U.S. based eco-terrorist SS organization will be held accountable for the violence of the pirate actions of the eco-terrorist crews and vessels. Your donations will be handed over to the whalers to pay for any physical and fianancial damages caused by Watson and the eco-terrorist SS pirate actions. I doubt that any court will take your interpretation of how their nations laws should be written and enforced as being anything more than an amusing anecdote but that should not stop you from filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court brief) with the U.S. appellate court.

    After ICR wins it's case against the U.S. based eco-terrorist SS organization, I expect Canada to file a similar case against the U.S. based eco-terrorist SS organization to recover the monies owed it for Watson's refusal to pay his fines and the dockage charges for abandoning the SS scow Farley Mowat. Many of the other countries, who's fishermen and vessels have been violently attacked by the eco-terrorist SS, may also file civil suits.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @arrestpaul

    Notice what I said about the Court of Appeals decision. I think they erred but of course SS have no choice but to obey the ill advised decision. All I am saying is the Court should have cut off the legs of SS operations as I noted by de registering the organization, freeze her bank account, disallow fund raising in the US. This is no different than US trying to get Iran/N Korea to co operate by hitting them where it hurts: at the finance level. By ordering SS to stay at least 500 yards away from the whalers it gives the appearance of the US Court working on behalf of Japan. What business does the Court have to deny SS vigilante mission especially when there is a TREND of past patterns? Kill it at the foundation level as I suggested and all problems wil be solved!

    You may not like Vigilante term but I guess you don't live in the real world when vigilante is NECESSARY when law enforcement fails! People are COMPELLED to do certain actions for public interest or to save a person like Good Samaritan acts in a timely manner. I think in France you will be put in jail for not being a Good Samaritan when you don't help somebody in trouble, so this is something you can relate to the Vigilante acts as NECESSARY to protect the whales from endangerment by the Japanese whalers.

  • 0

    T-Mack

    Walk's like a duck, talk's like a duck, must be a duck terrioist...SS is a new form of terrorism, but still age an old violence...

  • -1

    Tamarama

    They are no more pirates than they are terrorists, it's a very silly thing to say.

    Eco vigilantes maybe. But clearly and obviously not pirates.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Tony Ew - .....You may not like Vigilante term but I guess you don't live in the real world when vigilante is NECESSARY when law enforcement fails! People are COMPELLED to do certain actions for public interest or to save a person like Good Samaritan acts in a timely manner. I think in France you will be put in jail for not being a Good Samaritan when you don't help somebody in trouble, so this is something you can relate to the Vigilante acts as NECESSARY to protect the whales from endangerment by the Japanese whalers.

    I love it when you use the term "vigilante". It proves that you know the eco-terrorist SS are resorting to violence to force others to do their bidding. Vigilantes are still violating the law. Vigilantes are subject to arrest and imprisonment. If vigilantes are willing to do the crime, then they should be willing to do the time. Watson will love Costa Rica.

    The judge used an international standard to describe the eco-terrorist SS as pirates. It's the use of violence that makes the eco-terrorist SS pirates. It's that use of violence that you support. Claiming that good samaritans are the same as vigilantes is a bit of a stretch though.

  • 0

    Christopher Smith

    If the SS weren’t out there doing what they are doing, how many more whales would be slaughtered? Yes, their actions may not be moral, but then again, neither might the whalers.

  • -2

    avigator

    Very unprofessional comment by the court. Japanese were pirates back in the 1800s. Chinese called them Wakos. They used to attach Chinese merchant ships. That is why China closed commerce except with Philippines. Lots of whales come to Okinawa, Why not not hunt down there?

  • -1

    eyeonwarson

    @ avigator,

    Lots of whales come to Okinawa, Why not not hunt down there?

    Simple, because the IWC doesn`t allow it. they do however, allow hunting in the SO under SC permit.

  • 1

    Daijoboots

    out of our taxes and funds earmarked for reconstruction in Tohoku.

    Oh please Cleo. If you and your anti-whaling ilk actually cared about Tohoku rather than just using their name to support your agenda, you would have backed off after 3/11 rather than relentlessly insisting on asserting your value set (large), which in turn resulted in increased security expenses for the fleet.

    2.28 billion yen was allocated from a 500 billion yen post-disaster reconstruction fund for fisheries-related spending. Do the math Cleo. It's less than 0.5 percent.

    It doesn't matter what you say. In fact the more you toot your horn the more people dig their feet in. Counterproductive. You can't eat this? We'll see.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    cleoMar. 01, 2013 - 01:18PM JST "Who is funding these eco-terrorists?" They're subsidised by the government of Japan, out of our taxes and funds earmarked for reconstruction in Tohoku.

    Not cute at all cleo. Still batting for the outlaws? The eco-terrorists as labeled by the FBI are the Sea Shepherd Cons Society, recently labeled Pirates" by a US Court and headed by a wanted international fugitive. The US Court has stated that what the Japanese whalers are doing is LEGAL, and what Sea Shepherd are doing IS NOT.

  • 1

    OrangeXenon54

    I wanna know more about these high powered lasers. How do I get one? Also, how is it nonviolent if the equipment you're attacking is basically the only thing preventing these sailors from drowning?

  • 1

    Martine Müller

    I love whales but I hate Sea Shepherd.

    Just imagine, Indians start a aggressive group like the Sea Shepherd with the slogan "Save the holy cow in US". American should not eat beef!

    I want to see your reaction.

    Peaceful should be the answer to everything. I do my part in not eating or buying whale meat. This is the only thing I can do as foreigner. I also do not see every Japanese eating whales and prejudge them.

  • -2

    AkashiAussie

    As far as I know, Sea Shepherd US have cut all ties with Sea Shepherd Australia which is now operating independently with Australian registered ships. As a result, the US has no authority right? The weak Australian government will probably do all they can to assist the Americans though. 'All the way with LBJ,' and all that...

  • 0

    adjutant

    Interesting to see the ire and fury of some Japanese directed at the American people. As thought they cannot distinguish SS the organization from US the country.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Crime

View all

View all