Anti-whalers Sea Shepherd are pirates, says US court

[Redfairen]

Source: Associated Press

The largest federal court in the US has slammed Sea Shepherd and its leader Paul Watson, saying "you don't need a peg leg or an eye patch" to be a pirate.

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals castigated the group on Monday for the tactics used in its relentless campaign to disrupt the annual whale hunt off the dangerous waters of Antarctica.

"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."

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/anti-whalers-sea-shepherd-are-pirates-says-us-court/story-e6frg6so-1226586697953

[geomon666]

1. Yup n/t

[Zoeisright]

16. Gee, what a reasoned, nuanced post.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[Psephos]

39. Thankfully, we have yours as a counterexample. n/t

[warrant46]

41. Ho Hum

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

60 U.S. 393 (How.)

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

Another example of a Flawed opinion

the Court went on to hold that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories because slaves are personal property and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects property owners against deprivation of their property without due process of law.

[1983law]

50. Seriously?

Sorry, but Paul whatever is akin to Dred Scott? Comparing S.C. opinions, especially in societal or straight legal significance, demonstrates a level of ignorance that is just disappointing.

[Nika]

51. Good analogy.

This judge has no true perspective on the value of the precious nature of the warmest blood in the oceans.

This is the Japan that herds dolphins into coves, butchers them and then feeds their flesh contaminated with mercury they got from severe pollution to school kids because no one will buy the meat from them.

Japan has no true value for anything but a profit and an upholding of anything that exploits anything living on this Earth for the capital that is made from doing so.

Thanks. The sea is full of victims similar to Dred Scott in how they are exploited and oppressed. We need to defend and protect them, not Japanese whores to a toxic and exploitive brand of capitalistic endeavor.

[cstanleytech]

71. Problem is legally dolphins and whales much like cows dont really have any legal rights.

I am not a supporter of things like whaling or fin harvesting from sharks but this group is needlessly putting other peoples lives at risk and that is not their right.

[Nika]

83. No, it is there obligation.

It is the whalers putting valuable parts of the tapestry of life on this planet at jeopardy.

There is not a product from whales where there is not a cheaper and better alternative. What they do is simply insane.

And no one is putting them at risk, they are begging and tasking someone to do a very law enforcement-like interdiction on them they richly deserve.

[cstanleytech]

87. Oh, so its their "obligation" to try and kill others to support their opinions.

Thanks that makes me feel so much better.

[Nika]

89. No one tried to kill these people.

The goal is to stop whaling, not to cause death. But if it makes you feel better to be FReeperishly bombastic and exagerate, whom am I to try to stop you?

[cstanleytech]

91. So the whaling boats were unmanned and being remotely controlled? Thanks for the heads up

as I honestly thought that there were humans on board the ships that they were ramming.

[Nika]

92. Show me a quote that emanates from Captain Watson stating the policy has suddenly become one of...

... wishing death on people instead of the stated goal to stop this butchery of whales or illegal transfer of heavy fuels in Antarctic waters, and you would have a point.

All I see is you being bombastic, exaggerating and misrepresenting the events this thread is about.

Nobody was killed, and there was no attempt to kill anyone made here.

[cstanleytech]

93. Exaggerating am I? Ok now, lets try this then and please follow along.

Please respond with a yes or a no to keep it as simple as possible.
Were the ships rammed on purpose?
Were there human beings on the ships?
Was there a chance that ramming a ship might cause injury to those on the ships?
Could said injuries have included the death of one of those if they were injured?

[Nika]

99. Was the ship the whalers sunk by colliding with it done on purpose?

There is brinkmanship back and forth in this heated game, but the whole thing is started by the Japanese refusal to recognize that because of the severe decimation of whale populations, the ruination of the balance of cetacean species on the planet and the uniform consensus by everyone else in the world except for the Icelanders the whaling game is over.

They do this as criminals and scoundrels and I support what I see as just and proper actions to stop their pouching of what remains of large, extremely intelligent mammals in the ocean.

The whalers have sunk an expensive composite material ship by ramming and running over it and are engaged in actions that also endanger lives.

But both sides would rescue members of their adversaries were they overboard, and the actions are measured and less than the use of torpedoes, arms and explosives.

It is a game that is definitely meant to elevate the level of public awareness of the problem and to put international pressure on the Japanese to wake up and smell the coffee on this issue.

I am glad they are engaging the Japanese, and I am someone who empowers the effort by contributing money to Sea Sheppard monthly. I am also a forest activist in Oregon, and you are talking to someone who has engaged in brinkmanship against timber people, the USFS and the BLM.

Thus you get no yes or no short responses in regards to the good efforts of my sisters and brothers of Sea Sheppard. I am not just a mere observer of this sort of activism. I am schooled in it.

[cstanleytech]

100. I never claimed the whalers arent assholes though.

They clearly are but this isnt about them being assholes its about the actions of the people trying to prevent them from whaling and the protesters are imo crossing the line when they ram ships with people on them.
Plus you appear to be disregarding the other potential aspect of the ramming which is the potential risk for one or both ships to sink and the pollution that could be spread due to things like fuel leaking into the ocean not to mention any other chemicals the ships might have on board.

[Nika]

102. I have a unique perspective on this as a forest activist who was nearly killed doing a tree-sit

On 24 July 1998 at three in the morning I was climbing a tree to protest the building of a Nike Store in Eugene Oregon where four large beautiful trees once was. A security guard got a hold of my climbing rope by climbing a tall chain link construction fence grabbing part of it and shaking it loose from my backpack.

I was about 15 feet up and using climbing gaffs on my feet and he was dislocating my arm with the rope I had around the tree I was trying to hook onto my belt wrapped around my wrist as I struggled to stay where I was. I could of hurt or killed him by throwing heavy pieces of metal equipment I had with me and the thought did occur to me.

I was angry that he had so little concern for my life that he would be causing me pain and a risk of a fall just to stop me from climbing. But I realized that I had an obligation to keep it non-violent despite my pain and anger as I was trained to do.

I finally managed to jettison some equipment and keep climbing. Though I was using much more energy and the climb now had elements of a free climb to it as I had to grab what I could on the tree to keep going up.

My adrenalin ran out when I got to about forty feet up and I realized as I locked my fingers around a branch that I was going to fall to the ground. I shouted down to my ground support man and the construction site guards to call the fire department.

A cop, Sean Mc Gain showed up before they did and got the guards to grab the fence and pull the sections below me and their stands to pull it away so I wouldn't kill myself on it by landing on it.

The burley guy who had pulled my rope actually didn't want to do this at first, but the cop saved my life by verbally putting the fear of the negative outcome of a death investigation into his head.

The fence was heavy, the sections bolted together, and needed all there to pull on it to clear the ground below me.

I remember hearing Officer Mc Gain encouraging me to hang on and could hear the beeps of the raising door of the fire house three blocks away on Pearl Street where the ambulance would come from.

I don't remember the fall, but I remember being conscious for a short time on the ground, the smell of blood from a scalp wound where my head had hit fracturing my skull and thinking I had been in a bicycle wreck before I passed out again.

I was in a coma for a week and broke my right knee, liquefied my wrists and had to have bone from my pelvic girdle implanted to replace the parts of the four lower arm bones that had lost blood supply.

It took many months to heal, and I now type this with two fingers instead of touch typing like I once could.

I remember the fear and anger, the temptation to hurt the burley young man below me pulling my rope and verbally taunting me. I remember the temptation to look this guy up and take vengeance on him for what he did for some time after this happened.

I remember the end of that thought process as I realized I did the right thing in staying non-violent. I still think I would be just as stubborn even to this day in refusing to surrender and end my climb and would just try to succeed if I went back in time to the same place and situation.

My thoughts on the Sea Sheppard/whaler situation brings up complex and even conflicting emotions to me, but my heart remains with the protesters and were I with them I would be doing exactly what they were doing.

Like them I would be doing dangerous things with the hope no one would die on either side as the game of brinkmanship unfolded.

I hope my thoughts and the sharing of my experience helps your thought process concerning this story, and I thank you for your input and how it helps my thought process on this story.

I know no one involved in this situation wants to see anyone die from the Sea Sheppard organization and I hope this is so in regards to the whalers. And I thank you for your level of concern for the sanctity of human life.

[cstanleytech]

108. You could teach the sea shepherd people a thing or two in the use of non violence it would

appear then.

[Posteritatis]

113. Gotta love whipping out bigoted, broad-brush language in the same post you invoke Dred Scott. (nt)

[CreekDog]

63. I wonder who the whales and those who know international law would say the pirates are?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. What are you when you violate international law by killing protected animals?

[azurnoir]

7. in this case?

research I hear and for them profitable, 'tasty' research

[Angry Dragon]

3. Need a lawyer to represent the whales

[sakabatou]

4. And whaling is what now? Oh yeah, illegal.

[cstanleytech]

72. Then the answer to the current problem is to close the loopholes and it isnt to ram ships and

put other peoples lives at risk because you disagree with them.

[Xithras]

85. Nobody was forced to be on those ships.

Environmentalism has always been my core political cause, more important than civil rights, more important than social security or healthcare, and more important than the economy or foreign wars. It's the reason I consider myself a leftist.

Quite frankly, I don't have any problem with people dying to protect the environment. The Japanese knew the SS would be there, they know there's a risk to the ships, and yet they choose to harvest the whales anyway. Decades ago, when I was young and dumb, I was involved in direct action to save the redwoods here in California, which included tree spiking (well, sort of...it's complicated). What the SS is doing is no different.

Trees before people. Whales before butchers. We all have our own priorities.

[Nihil]

97. ITA. (n/t)

[Timbuk3]

5. Thankfully

I don't think Paul cares what the 9th circuit thinks.

I watched those law-breaking whaling bastards shoot a whale, albeit on Whale Wars and not in person.

Fuck them.

Stop killing whales, who are arguable smarter than we are, just so you can serve up the best sushi in your condo.

[PatrynXX]

6. course most of what that judge said is taken out of context

it's to defend the whales. So hey hey whats the pirate flag up there for. sheesh. duh.. but they don't ram ship's intentionally. the Japanese do and they don't give a fuck who they kill.

[MrModerate]

8. They're vigilantes, not pirates. The judge is 'without a doubt' an ass.

Not saying I'm in favor of vigilantism, but I'll take them over cetacidal maniacs.

[villager]

9. "Corporate pirates though," says the judge, "like the ones who own me, why

...they're A.O.K.

I just meant the ones that interfere with profit margins, is all."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Until demand ceases, there will always be whaling, even if it is only aboriginal

My take is that it is generational and will be going away soon. I am concerned that with the fisheries failing due to over fishing, whaling might be seen as a way to meet seafood demand.

The 9th Circuit is arguably the most liberal in the US. I doubt there will be a substantive change in their position, even en banc. Their critique of the trial judge was devastating

[Kolesar]

22. The meat expires on the shelf

There is scant demand in Japan.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. That means there is more demand than they are taking

actual demand levels are not documented and may rise as other fisheries are depleted.

[Nevernose]

61. It's heavily subsidized by the Japanese government

In many cases, the Japanese whalers literally cannot give the meat away for free because there is so little demand. It's insanity fueled by misplaced national pride and old fashioned graft.

I'm with you on part of your earlier post, though: we'd be better off just not eating salt water seafood at all for a couple of generations, unless they can find a way to farm it more effectively.

[0rganism]

110. or that whalers can only "harvest" their prey in discrete (and very large) quantities

You can't take 1/2 a whale. Whenever a whale carcass comes in, that's several tons of whale meat dropped onto a sagging market.

"demand levels...may rise as other fisheries are depleted"
You probably know this already, but whales aren't fish and their populations are already depleted to the point of endangerment. They aren't farmed or herded, they're hunted. The Japanese government's attitude toward this practice is despicable.

[CreekDog]

65. wait a minute, you support letting the whales go extinct to save fish populations?

huh?

nevermind.

i'm not even surprised.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Please reread what was said.

I said that I was concerned that whale meat demand could go up if other fisheries fail. That is not support, that is an observation and concern. Food resources are dwindling (if you haven't noticed).

[pediatricmedic]

11. The judge is technically correct, but ultimately wrong in the court of public opinion

[Sirveri]

60. I thought pirates actually took the other persons boat, or robbed them.

These guys don't board other ships and rape and murder the crew before stripping the boat bare. Or taking the crew hostage for ransom. Or taking the boat and press ganging the crew and using them to make further raids.

[Nika]

64. They are heroes standing up to thieves and muggers

It is an honor to know, respect and support them. I am increasing my recurring donation to them next month by a substantial amount.

They are anything but pirates, they are heroes deserving of respect and gratitude.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. The legal definition is somewhat broader than that

See post 23 in this thread

[primavera]

70. Yep, that is a shortcoming about law

Even when the laws are established by self interested parties, like corporations or their pet politicians, working to legitimize, further, and protect their own avaricious misconduct at the expense of everyone else, it's still law that we're all supposed to respect.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. Those are long term international treaties

and those are well established definitions with a lot of time and history. I am pretty comfortable with them. Now if the topic was IWC rulings...

[primavera]

74. I know. An area of law even weaker than domestic law.

You know the score. Treaties are written to accommodate the weakest link, or they wouldn't get passed at all. Unless the treaty provides loopholes you could drive a fleet of trucks through for the protection of signatories' national industries, the parties refuse to sign it. Not that it matters much, I suppose, since nobody ever actually pays any attention to international law anyway.

[pediatricmedic]

68. Not always

Hindering or preventing freedom of movement on the sea, causing property damage, and injuring crew would be enough.

It is also correct that the Japanese are violating International laws against whaling under the umbrella of scientific study. They pretty much ignore the courts and laws since they are an independent nation and don't accept those laws.

Even with this ruling from the court, no law enforcement agencies in the US or any other country with the exception of Japan will take action. This does give the Japanese an opening to send a warship out to capture and arrest the crews. I can see them holding the crews until whaling season is over and scrapping the ships.

I don't really understand the Japanese obsession with whale meat, it can't be that tasty or good to eat. Then there is the increased toxicity from Mercury and other chemicals in the meat. It seems crazy to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. My take is that the Japanese are using a civil vs criminal approach

If the ruling is upheld, Japan will use it to gnaw away at SSCS assets in US courts. Ships could be impounded and contributions seized. There are treaties that support enforcement of judgements world wide. Watson should be as concerned about this as he was about that reused prop fouler a few seasons back. It could beach him for good.

Japan has had the warship option for quite some time and it has nothing to do with the US courts. They have chosen not to use it. My guess is that if Japanese crew members are injured or killed they would get more aggressive. Such an event might also cost the SSCS ships involved their national registrations. A stateless ship is fair game for anyone.

[roody]

12. That is what it takes to save whales.

Go Sea Shepherd.

[defacto7]

13. The term Pirate

has only been a solely negative term since the 20th century.

Historically, whether a pirate was good or bad was totally dependent on which side you were on... or what country they were supported by.

Pirates are not necessarily bad.

[melm00se]

78. you might want to do

so reading on pirates. By this I do not mean the romanticized versions but the actual history of piracy.

For the most part they were/are nothing more than murderous thugs in boats.

the penalties for piracy, up until the 20th century, has been death. There are coverings and pottery decorations from ancient Greece showing keel hauling as a common punishment for piracy. Rome swept from west to east through the Mediterranean to wipe out piracy (didn't last). The Barbary pirates of the 15th to early 19th century were murderers as well as slave traders (especially of Christians) that flourished only because the naval powers of the day were too busy fighting each other to really put the hammer down on them. They were more than happy to pay an indemnity to them. Eventually, it took the example of nascent USA to show that piracy in the Med was not acceptable.

While there were some progressive (modern definition) pirates, the vast majority lived violent bloody lives that were ended at the end of a rope.

[defacto7]

95. Ah, but I have....

I don't think I have read the romantic versions actually. In my understanding, pirates were mercenaries most of the time hired by governments and monarchs to attack and plunder goods from their enemies as well as create fear and general mayhem. But if they were caught, death was always the ultimate penalty in the end.

Your examples are true in the most published and notorious of cases. There were historic cases of the worst examples of human beings one can imagine. But piracy for the most part was a political machine and in the end those who participated were not even considered pirates as long as they were on the "winning" team. Then they would be considered the modern counter part to freedom fighters and patriots. That part would not be a readily published and their names would not carry the odious name of pirate.

As a term, pirate could always be used if they were to be presented as enemies of particular side. Even warriors or non-uniformed military could easily be tagged pirate. It all depended on who had the control, and in this day and age it's an easy mark by those who wish to control public opinion. To call the Sea Shepherd crew pirates is no different than calling Syrian rebels the same. Syrian rebels have their own terms for the standing Syrian government that's not much different than calling Assad a pirate. Using a term such as pirate by a court judge is simply an angry sentiment to stir public opinion, no more. That is childish, uncalled for and the epitome of propagandizing. Either we need to use the term pirate to actually mean "one who commits piracy" or we need to not use it at all.

Thus my statement that pirate is not necessarily a bad thing... but I'll add... as long as they are on my side... and I would never call the Sea Shepherd crew pirates.

[melm00se]

96. Piracy

I don't think I have read the romantic versions actually. In my understanding, pirates were mercenaries most of the time hired by governments and monarchs to attack and plunder goods from their enemies as well as create fear and general mayhem. But if they were caught, death was always the ultimate penalty in the end.

to be sure, there are examples of piracy used as a tool of state. These individuals would be better defined as privateers. If you read thru the definition(s) in the UNCLOS and SUA, you will notice that they clearly differentiate between piratical acts committed by people employed by a government and by (for want of a better word) "independents".

Historically, a vast majority of piracy was committed by "independents" and followed a clearly defined path. Piracy would start (actually recommence) with individuals attacking individual targets of opportunity. if left unchecked, ss their wealth and power grew, these individuals consolidated into the maritime equivalent of organized crime. Again, if left unchecked, these pirate groups would grow in power until they became de facto governments. It was at this point that their targets ("true" nations), would then bring their full power to bear upon these quasi nation/states which, when successful, would damage/destroy them to the point where they would disappear until the cycle would begin again.

Pirates (in all phases of the above) will, in general, attack targets of opportunity but they will also factor in the likelihood of retribution by the targets' country. The history of pirates in the Mediterranean during the 2nd millennium shows that. As a nation's aggressiveness and ability waxed, the Barbary pirates steered well clear of their targets (as that nation was likely to park itself off pirate controlled cities and pound them into submission). The reverse was true as a country's naval power waned.

back the Sea Shepherds: their behavior (especially the parts about "drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders" and "point high-powered lasers at other ships&quot clearly meets the definition spelled out in SUA Convention

"destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship"

and that spelled out in UNCLOS

"Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

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

So if someone meets the definition of pirate they are, well, a pirate.

Your comment:

but I'll add... as long as they are on my side... and I would never call the Sea Shepherd crew pirates.

just goes to prove a personal thesis of mine that people only view laws as just when it meets their own, personal, definition of morality.

[defacto7]

109. I can accept your view

though I disagree with your view...

but, your last statement proves my point that some people will construe anything into what they want to prove whether fact or fiction. You fall into the category of "blind to the context".

Be well.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. Clarence Thomas, ex-Monsanto attorney, sitting on the Supreme Court and not recusing himself

from all Monsanto cases, is a pirate. Sea Shepherd are heroes.

[Deep13]

15. morons. nt

[Earth_First]

17. Ahhh yes, another well-reasoned environmental response by the United States...

How refreshing.

[wordpix]

54. well you know, environmentalists are the n-----s of the world, don't you?

Pirates my ass!

[blackspade]

18. Kozinski obviously does not know what a pirate actually is.

Sea Shepard is not committing piracy, they are preventing it.

[lexw]

19. More like, Robin Hood of the seas.

[SunSeeker]

20. Sad.

The Sea Shepard is trying to enforce the anti-whaling laws, something the international community should be doing but isn't.

Maybe the Court was legally correct, but Kozinski's tone is inappropriate under the circumstances.

[groundloop]

21. Seems like they should have at least acknowledged that the Whalers are breaking the law

Why can't the court at least point out the fact that the Japanese are breaking international law by whaling, and that their claim of doing "Research" is pure bullshit?

[One_Life_To_Give]

81. As Japan controls the IWC that writes the Laws concerning International Whaling

Japan through it's diplomatic and financial control of the International Whaling Commission has been able to write International Law to allow exactly what they want it to. Much as Lobbyists have written US law. That is why the UN and Countries around the globe don't directly intervene, what Japan does is strictly legal according to International Law.

Just as Japan wouldn't be expected to bother filing a lawsuit in the first place without some reasonable expectation that US Law was on their side. I am sure they intend this to try and hobble Watson's efforts.

[melm00se]

23. the UNCLOS and SUA Convention provide definitions of piracy

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

UNCLOS:

Article101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

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

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

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

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

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

SUA Convention

ARTICLE 3

1. Any person commits an offense if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

1. seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation; or

2. performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

3. destroys a ship or causes damage to a ship or to its cargo which is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship; or

4. places or causes to be placed on a ship, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that ship, or cause damage to that ship or its cargo which endangers or is likely to en-danger the safe navigation of that ship; or

5. destroys or seriously damages maritime navigational facilities or seriously interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship; or

6. communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safe navigation of a ship; or

7. injures or kills any person, in connection with the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses set forth in subparagraphs (a) to (f).

2. Any person also commits an offense if that person:
1. attempts to commit any of the offenses set forth in paragraph 1; or
2. abets the commission of any of the offenses set forth in paragraph 1 perpetrated by any person or is otherwise an accomplice of a person who commits such an offense; or
3. threatens, with or without a condition, as is provided for under national law, aimed at compelling a physical or juridical person to do or refrain from doing any act, to commit any of the offenses set forth in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (b), (c) and (e), if that threat is likely to endanger the safe navigation of the ship in question.

ETA: additionally "piracy" is juris gentium (law of nations) and being a party to either the UNCLOS or SUA Convention, obligates the involved country/countries to pursue prosecution.

Justice Roberts erred in his interpretation when &quot h)e had determined the protesters' tactics were nonviolent because they targeted equipment and ships rather than people". An objective reading of the above 2 excerpts would seem to side with Justice Kozinski.

[bemildred]

24. "Only we get to do that sort of thing."

I think Kosinski is wrong here, if their motives are not venal, they are not pirates. Vandals, terrorists, or civil insurrectionists yes, but not pirates. It's not good to see a judge being careless about language.

[24601]

46. In law, motive is not relevant. Intent is. Motive may help a jury draw inferences; however, it is

not an element of proof required to prove guilt.

[bemildred]

48. Law, schmaw, he is lecturing them from the bench. nt

[WRH2]

25. 2 petitions before WHITEHOUSE.GOV supporting Sea shepherds eed support.

Both would help bring the Potus to get involved. please support the cause.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

[happyslug]

27. The Court is only following what the White House wants

The court, in its opinion, clearly points out that its decision is based on two legal facts, first the US does NOT recognize that Australia has ANY jurisdiction over the part of the ocean Sea Shepherd was harassing the Japanese Whalers in AND that the treaty involving whales, reserves the right to determine who can do "scientific" research on whales to each signatory as to its own ships, I.e. if Sea Shepherd wants to get a VALID court order stopping the Japanese from whaling, it has to do so in JAPAN, not Australia or the US. That is what the treaty says and the 9th Circuit will follow the treaty.

Please note, the 9th Circuit is considered the most liberal of all of the Circuit court of appeals, for that reason it is the most reversed by the US Supreme Court. The problem is I do NOT see the Supreme Court seeing any PROBLEM with this decision, in fact the Supreme Court will only take it to uphold it.

Notice, they is NO CONSTITUTIONAL issue here, Congress and the White House can change this if they wanted to. The White House can says it is recognizing Australia claim to the Southern Ocean, the White House can denounce the Whaling treaty and decide to enforce its own rules itself (Just like the British did to the African Slave Trade after 1808), but I do not see the White house doing either.

Congress can change the law, defining piracy differently, i.e. permitting what is violence to exclude what Sea Shepherd has done. Congress can permit private enforcement of foreign Court Orders in international waters (Which the Court noted Congress has NOT done).

Thus if you support Sea Shepherd, the better approach is to lobby the White House and Congress, for the courts will only enforce the law as written and right now the 9th Circuit opinion follows the written law. Today, the law is clear, the use of any type of Force is prohibited in enforcing any law EXCEPT by Goverment Officials and any use of force, even against items of property is piracy.

[happyslug]

26. Here is the actual opinion

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

Text of the opinion below:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. 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.

Plaintiffs-Appellants (collectively, “Cetacean”) are Japanese researchers
who hunt whales in the Southern Ocean. The United States, Japan and many other nations are signatories to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling art. VIII, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 U.N.T.S. 74, which authorizes whale hunting when conducted in compliance with a research permit issued by a signatory. Cetacean has such a permit from Japan. Nonetheless, it has been hounded on the high seas for years by a group calling itself Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its eccentric founder, Paul Watson (collectively “Sea Shepherd”). Sea Shepherd’s tactics include all of those listed in the previous paragraph.

Cetacean sued under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for injunctive and declaratory relief. The statute provides a cause of action for “a tort . . .committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Cetacean argues that Sea Shepherd’s acts amount to piracy and violate international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas. The district court denied Cetacean’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its piracy claims. We have jurisdiction over the order denying the injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We also have jurisdiction to review the dismissal of the piracy claims because the district court’s reasoning for dismissing them is “inextricably intertwined with” its reasons for denying the preliminary injunction. Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 421 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).

I. DISMISSAL OF THE PIRACY CLAIMS

We review the district court’s dismissal of Cetacean’s piracy claims de novo.
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). “[The definition of piracy under the law of nations . . . [is] spelled out in the UNCLOS, as well as the High Seas Convention,” which provide almost identical definitions. United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446, 469 (4th Cir. 2012); see United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), art. 101, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397; Convention on the High Seas, art. 15, Apr. 29, 1958, 13 U.S.T. 2312, 450 U.N.T.S. 82. The UNCLOS 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.” UNCLOS art. 101 (emphasis added); see also Convention on the High Seas art. 15. The district court’s analysis turns on an erroneous interpretation of “private ends” and “violence.” The district court construed “private ends” as limited to those pursued for “financial enrichment.” But the common understanding of “private” is far broader. The term is normally used as an antonym to “public” (e.g., private attorney general) and often refers to matters of a personal nature that are not necessarily connected to finance (e.g., private property, private entrance, private understanding and invasion of privacy). See Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary 1969 (2d. ed. 1939) (defining “private” to mean “{b}elonging to, or concerning, an individual person, company, or interest”).

We give words their ordinary meaning unless the context requires otherwise.
See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 8–9 (2004); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.
Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 69 (2012). The context here is provided by the rich history of piracy law, which defines acts taken for private ends as those not taken on behalf of a state. See Douglas Guilfoyle, Piracy Off Somalia: UN Security Council Resolution 1816 and IMO Regional Counter-Piracy Efforts, 57 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 690, 693 (2008) (discussing the High Seas Convention); Michael Bahar, Attaining Optimal Deterrence at Sea: A Legal and Strategic Theory for Naval Anti-Piracy Operations, 40 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1, 32 (2007); see also Harmony v. United States, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210, 232 (1844) (“The law looks to [piracy] as an act of hostility . . . being committed by a vessel not commissioned and engaged in lawful warfare.”). Belgian courts, perhaps the only ones to have previously considered the issue, have held that environmental activism qualifies as a private end. See Cour de Cassation [Cass.] [Court of Cassation] Castle John v. NV Mabeco, Dec. 19, 1986, 77 I.L.R. 537 (Belg.). This interpretation is “entitled to considerable weight.” Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983, 1993 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that “private ends” include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds, such as Sea Shepherd’s professed environmental goals. That the perpetrators believe themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public.

The district court’s interpretation of “violence” was equally off-base. Citing no precedent, it held that Sea Shepherd’s conduct is not violent because it targets ships and equipment rather than people. This runs afoul of the UNCLOS itself, which prohibits “violence . . . against another ship” and “violence . . . against persons or property.” UNCLOS art. 101. Reading “violence” as extending to malicious acts against inanimate objects also comports with the commonsense understanding of the term, see Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary 2846, as when a man violently pounds a table with his fist. Ramming ships, fouling propellers and hurling fiery and acid-filled projectiles easily qualify as violent activities, even if they could somehow be directed only at inanimate objects.

Regardless, Sea Shepherd’s acts fit even the district court’s constricted definition. The projectiles directly endanger Cetacean’s crew, as the district court itself recognized. And damaging Cetacean’s ships could cause them to sink or become stranded in glacier-filled, Antarctic waters, jeopardizing the safety of the crew.

The activities that Cetacean alleges Sea Shepherd has engaged in are clear instances of violent acts for private ends, the very embodiment of piracy. The district court erred in dismissing Cetacean’s piracy claims.

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). We review the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, L.A. Cnty., 366 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2004). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990).

A. Likelihood of Success

Cetacean sought its injunction pursuant to three international agreements:
the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of
Maritime Navigation (“SUA Convention”), art. 3, Mar. 10, 1988, S. Treaty Doc.No. 101-1, 1678 U.N.T.S. 222, the UNCLOS and the Convention on the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (“COLREGS”), Oct. 20,1972, 28 U.S.T. 3459, 1050 U.N.T.S. 18.

1. The SUA Convention

The SUA Convention prohibits acts that endanger, or attempt to endanger,
the safe navigation of a ship. SUA Convention art. 3. Cetacean presented
uncontradicted evidence that Sea Shepherd’s tactics could seriously impair its ability to navigate. The district court nonetheless concluded that, since Seapage 8 Shepherd has not yet disabled any of Cetacean’s ships, it’s unlikely it would succeed in the future. This was clear error. The district court overlooked the actual language of the Convention, which prohibits “endager[ing]” safe navigation. Id. This requires only that Sea Shepherd create dangerous conditions, regardless of whether the harmful consequences ever come about. See Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary 843. As to whether Sea Shepherd’s tactics actually are dangerous, the record discloses that it has rammed and sunk several other whaling vessels in the past. See Appendix.

The district court also erred by failing to recognize that Sea Shepherd, at the very least, attempted to endanger the navigation of Cetacean’s ships. An attempt is sufficient to invoke the SUA Convention, even if unsuccessful. Sea Shepherd’s repeated claims that its efforts are merely “symbolic” and “employed so as to ensure maximum safety” are disingenuous. How else can it explain that it has switched to metal-reinforced prop-fouling ropes? Reinforced ropes carry the same symbolic meaning as normal ropes, but they are far more destructive. Nor does symbolism require Sea Shepherd to bring its ships dangerously close to Cetacean’s. The district court’s conclusion that Cetacean wasn’t likely to succeed on its SUA Convention claims rested on an implausible determination of the facts and an erroneous application of law; it was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

2. The UNCLOS

For the reasons explained above, Part I, supra, the district court erred in its
assessment of Cetacean’s UNCLOS piracy claims, and consequently abused its discretion in assessing the likelihood of success on these claims. See Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 405.

3. The COLREGS

The district court did find that Cetacean is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the COLREGS. The COLREGS state obligatory and universal norms for navigating ships so as to avoid collision. Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. Maritrans, Inc., 530 F.3d 1169, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2008). Sea Shepherd deliberately navigates its ships dangerously close to Cetacean’s ships. The district court’s finding that this is likely a violation of the COLREGS is adequately supported by the record. See Hinkson. 585 F.3d at 1251.

B. LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE HARM

The district court determined that “injury is possible, but not likely,” even
though it found that the projectiles Sea Shepherd launches at Cetacean’s ships “are an obvious hazard to anyone who [sic] they might hit” and that Sea Shepherd navigates its ships “in such a way that a collision is highly likely.” Sea Shepherd itself adorns the hulls of its ships with the names and national flags of the numerous whaling vessels it has rammed and sunk. See Appendix. The district court’s observation that Cetacean hasn’t yet suffered these injuries is beside the point. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Cetacean’s uncontradicted evidence is that Sea Shepherd’s tactics could immobilize Cetacean’s ships in treacherous Antarctic waters, and this is confirmed by common sense: A dangerous act, if committed often enough, will inevitably lead to harm, which could easily be irreparable. Harris, 366 F.3d at 766.

C. BALANCE OF EQUITIES
The district court correctly found that the balance of equities favors
Cetacean. As it noted, “[a]bsent an injunction, the whalers will continue to be the victims of Sea Shepherd’s harassment,” but “Sea Shepherd . . . points to no hardship that it will suffer if the court imposes an injunction.”

D. PUBLIC INTEREST

“The public interest inquiry primarily addresses impact on non-parties rather
than parties.” Bernhardt v. L.A. Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 931 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is particularly the case where “the impact of an injunction reaches beyond the parties, carrying with it a potential for public consequences.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009). The primary public interests at issue here are the health of the marine ecosystem, Winter, 555 U.S. at 25–26; see also Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006), and the safety of international waterways.

Where a valid law speaks to the proper level of deference to a particular
public interest, it controls. See Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 512 F.3d 1112, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2008). Our laws defining the public interest in regards to whaling are the Whaling Convention Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, both of which permit whaling pursuant to scientific permits issued under the Whaling Convention. 16 U.S.C. § 1372; 16 U.S.C. § 916c. Cetacean’s activities are covered by such a permit and thus are consistent with congressional policy as to the marine ecosystem.

Our laws also reflect a strong public interest in safe navigation on the high
seas. As already discussed, Sea Shepherd’s activities clearly violate the UNCLOS, the SUA Convention and the COLREGS. See Part II.A, supra. As such, they are at loggerheads with the public interest of the United States and all other seafaring nations in safe navigation of the high seas.

The district court also considered the interest in keeping U.S. courts out of
the international political controversy surrounding whaling. But enjoining piracy sends no message about whaling; it sends the message that we will not tolerate piracy. This is hardly a controversial view, as evidenced by a joint statement from the United States, Australia, the Netherlands and New Zealand condemning dangerous activities in the Southern Ocean. Joint Statement on Whaling and Safety at Sea from the Governments of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States: Call for Responsible Behavior in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (Dec. 13, 2011), available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178704.htm. Refusing the injunction sends the far more troublesome message that we condone violent vigilantism by U.S. nationals in international waters.

The district court also rejected Cetacean’s claims on international comity
grounds. While there is a public interest in maintaining harmonious international relations, it’s not a factor here. An Australian court has entered default judgment against Cetacean, purporting to enjoin it from whaling in Antarctic coastal waters over which Australia claims sovereignty. The district court’s deference to Australia’s judgment in that case was an abuse of discretion. Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2009). To begin, the district court misunderstood the Australian judgment, which addressed the legality of Cetacean’s activities, not Sea Shepherd’s. Whatever the status of Cetacean’s whaling under Australian law, it gives Sea Shepherd no license to engage in piracy. It is for Australia, not Sea Shepherd, to police Australia’s court orders.

Additionally, comity applies only if the foreign court has competent
jurisdiction. Id. at 1011. But the United States doesn’t recognize Australia’s
claims of sovereignty over Antarctic waters. See Note from U.S. Deputy
Representative to the United Nations, to Secretary-General of the United Nations (Dec. 3, 2004); Note from Embassy of the United States, to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mar. 31, 1995). By according comity to Australia’s judgment, we would implicitly recognize Australia’s jurisdiction, in contravention of the stated position of our government. The conduct of foreign affairs is within the exclusive province of the Executive, see United States v. Hooker, 607 F.2d 286, 289 (9th Cir. 1979), and we must defer to its views, see Willams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 415, 420 (1839); cf. Mingtai Fire Ins. Co. v. United Parcel Serv., 177 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 1999).page 14

E. UNCLEAN HANDS

An injunction is an equitable remedy. Winter, 555 U.S. at 32. While the Winter factors “are pertinent in assessing the propriety of any injunctive relief,” id., traditional equitable considerations such as laches, duress and unclean hands may militate against issuing an injunction that otherwise meets Winter’s requirements. Here, however, the district court abused its discretion in denying the injunction based on unclean hands. Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc., 621 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).

The district court held that Cetacean’s hands are unclean because, “n
flouting the Australian injunction, the whalers demonstrate their disrespect for a judgment of a domestic court.” Because neither the United States nor Japan recognizes Australia’s jurisdiction over any portion of the Southern Ocean, Cetacean owes no respect to the Australian order. Moreover, the unclean hands doctrine requires that the plaintiff have “dirtied [his hands] in acquiring the right he now asserts, or that the manner of dirtying renders inequitable the assertion of such rights against the defendant.” Republic Molding Corp. v. B.W. Photo Utils., 319 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir. 1963). Cetacean has done nothing to acquire the rights to safe navigation and protection from pirate attacks; they flow automatically from customary international law and treaties. Nor is there anything remotely inequitable in seeking to navigate the sea lanes without interference from pirates.

* * *

The district court’s orders denying Cetacean’s preliminary injunction and
dismissing its piracy claims are REVERSED. The preliminary injunction we
issued on December 17, 2012, Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd
Conservation Soc’y, 702 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2012), will remain in effect until
further order of this court. The district judge’s numerous, serious and obvious errors identified in our opinion raise doubts as to whether he will be perceived as impartial in presiding over this high-profile case. The appearance of justice would be served if the case were transferred to another district judge, drawn at random, and we so order in accordance with the standing orders of the Western District of Washington. The panel retains jurisdiction over any further appeals or writs involving this case.

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

[WRH2]

28. yaa, like he said

are you busy, can we get you a plane ticket to handle this?

[fasttense]

30. And all environmentalists and ecologists are terrorists too

so lets get out the drones.

The corporations rule the courts. There is only enough justice left for corporations, none leftover for people, the environment or even some silly whales.

[happyslug]

32. So you agree, people can Hurl Acid at you?? and that is perfectly legal!!!

Lets get beyond the peg leg and eye patch, get to the second sentence, what the court said in simple English is it a CRIME to:

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,

All of the above are acts of violence. The Court of Appeals has to accept as fact the undisputed facts found by the Trial Judge. The above were all found to have occurred by the District Judge.
This is NOT someone, protesting the whaling, this is NOT someone blocking whalers from moving, this is NOT someone tyeing himself to a whale and forcing the other side to resort to violence to remove him or her, it is the FIRST USE OF VIOLENCE. The use of Violence, other then by a State or an agent of a State (as that term is defined under International Law, Austria, USA and Japan are all "States" under that definition) is prohibited other then in self defense (and even self defense is limited for it must be self defense to protect human life NOT wildlife or property).

Remember the law is a two way street, if Sea Shepherd has the RIGHT to do the above, so does everyone else against anyone else. i.e. if the above acts were legal for the Sea Shepherd to do against the Whalers, it can be done against YOU also. Can I throw acid at you for using the internet, which is partially powered by Nuclear and Coal energy to protest either (or both) Coal or Nuclear power? Hopefully you will said I do NOT have the right to throw Acid at you, or your home, your place of business or your means of transportation as "Free Speech".

As the Court found, the President has sole authority when it comes to Foreign policy, including the enforcements of treaties. Private people can NOT enforce those treaties (unless the treaties say so, and the treaties involve do permit private cause of action BUT ONLY IN THE COUNTRY WHOSE SHIP THAT IS BELIEVED TO BE VIOLATING THAT TREATY IS REGISTERED IN, i.e. Japanese Courts, not the US or Australian Courts).

These acts of terrorism (Which is what they are, they are NOT peaceful protests) makes good head line news, but other then drawing people's attention to the issue has no other effect on this issue.

I hate to say this, I do NOT want Acid thrown at me, my house, my place of employment, my means of transportation etc. To get that I must also agree that I will NOT throw acid at the homes, places of employment and means of transportations of others. It is a two way street, which is what Sea Shepherd is NOT willing to accept and the reason the Court entered the order which it did.

[rwsanders]

33. You are mistaken in your understanding of "acid" in this case.

They are not hurling sulfuric or hydrochloric acid. The acids they are throwing are organic acids that are foul smelling. The intention is to make occupying the ship or using the equipment difficult for the crew.

The SSCS is the only group there to enforce international law. If the US has a problem with their actions, then we should be forcing the Japanese whalers out ourselves or STFU.

For us the best bet is to try to not buy anything from the whale killers. Not much of a problem since most is coming from China anyway.

[fasttense]

34. Law??? The same "law" that picked W as our prez?

The same "law" that allowed banksters to get away with blatant fraud? The same "law" that states torture is illegal yet allowed W and Cheney to torture anyone they thought were POWs. How about those antitrust "laws" that prevent monopolies? How about those right to chose abortion "laws" or those Buy American "laws". Are those the "laws" you are referring to?

I find it amazing that the quaint idea that America is ruled by a system of laws is still thrown out as a reason to prosecute people. America is ruled by the whim of rich old men not "laws". When I can go to court against GE and get the same treatment as GE then we are ruled by laws.

Gee it's so sad that some property was damaged but that's what the "law" is there to protect - property, not people, not the environment, not whales that are quickly vanishing from the face of the earth. But hay, you got a "law" that says those protecting the whales are pirates and outlaws so maybe, just maybe, we will follow that law, this time only, but all the others we are just going to ignore.

And if by following that ONE "law" all the whales are wiped off the face of the earth, at least you know it was legal, not fair, not just, but legal.

[wordpix]

57. +1000

[Psephos]

40. Good post.

I am completely anti-whaling, but whaling isn't the issue here.

We either have the rule of law or we have anarchy. Neither is great, but the first is far better than the second.

[wordpix]

56. but you think it's fine to kill whales against international law

yeah, makes perfect sense

[happyslug]

79. The Court did NOT find that the whales were being killed against International Law

The court further said, if that was the case, given these were JAPANESE SHIPS, based out of JAPANESE PORTS, it is up to JAPANESE courts to determine if the Whaling was against International law NOT any other court and such Jurisdiction is determined by INTERNATIONAL LAW. If the Sea Shepherd thought this whaling was illegal, the Courts of Japan is where such a case has to be filed, not Australia nor US courts.

Outside of the Japanese Courts (Where the issue of the whaling being illegal is a domestic matter given this involved Japanese whalers) the issue of whaling is a product of Foreign relations, and foreign relations is the exclusive domain of the Executive Branch of the US Federal Government (headed by President Obama). Given this is a foreign relations issue the courts will defer to the Executive Branch and the Executive Branch has NEVER said such whaling is illegal.

I can see you dislike whaling, but the proper place to object is the Japanese Courts, if it can be shown to such courts such whaling is illegal. If it can NOT be shown such whaling is illegal the appeal is then to the Japanese Government or the US Government if you want it to be illegal. Self action is NOT an option, if that action is positive in nature (as oppose to justing blocking or otherwise forcing change through similar negative actions).

[wordpix]

86. like ANYONE will get a fair court hearing on whaling in Japan

Dream on...

[MrMickeysMom]

106. Not so... you need to base this on the facts, not what you think...

the acid solution is nothing more that a concoction that impacts the decks of the vessel and makes a big STINK. The stopping of the propeller by the speed boats is designed to sabotage the rudder and stop the whalers from mass killings, which are illegal (though they say they do this for "scientific reasons"... that's a load of hog wash.

Everything Sea Shepard has done isn't in the USA, so I think we have a difference of what happens territorially. Just whatever it is you equate with "acid thrown" has nothing to do with what Sea Shepard did.

You perhaps should actually watch footage of this... I'm throwing cold water on your fiction meanwhile.

[happyslug]

107. That they threw Acid was a finding by the Court

And when we are talking about the Court decision, you have to go with the findings of facts by the Judges who heard the case. Thus you may not think it was Acid, but the trial judged called it acid and thus any court of appeals must accept that fact as we must d if you want to discuss this case, You may think other facts are involved, but when discussing this case we are restricted to the facts found by the trial Judge.

All the whalers asked for was a US Court ORder to prevent the ship from leaving A US port. That is within the jurisdiction of a US Court if the Whales can show the ship will be used criminally against them. You may NOT think what Sea Shepherd is doing Criminal, but that is NOT the law in the or Japan.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. Well, thanks, judge happy slug!

I just had to say that...

But, any argument can be bought, and I do not think what the Sea Shepherd did was illegal. I DO think what the Japanese were doing WAS illegal.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

[Laffy Kat]

101. You jest, but the Southern Poverty Law Center labels Sea Shepherd a "hate group".

Don't have a link but I read it a few months ago in their magazine. I don't understand how trying to save beautiful and protected animals is hateful. Really pissed me off.

[wordpix]

55. my favorite part is where Japanese whalers call themselves "Cetacean"

"War is peace, slavery is freedom..."

[Peter cotton]

31. If the shoe fits...

[Exultant Democracy]

35. Yes they are, swashbuckling Pirates ever last one of them.

More in the tradition of privateers then pirate, but the difference is negligible. Honestly you don't even have to agree with these guys to objectively understand that they are pretty freaking bad-ass. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of them, it appears to be thoroughly unenjoyable.

[melm00se]

38. Privateering

has been outlawed since 1856 under the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law.

[Nika]

36. These whalers are NOT researchers as the court decision states they are.

The Japanese are using a loophole as a foot in the door to keep on destroying intelligent mammals that deserve protection after decades of severe over kills in commercial whaling that has wiped out entire populations and some species of whales.

Thank you Captain Watson and Sea Shepard for your courageous policing of the seas to help eliminate the outlaws still whaling in a time when most of humanity has learned the error of their ways and have stopped this vile and criminal practice.

[happyslug]

43. And if you read the opinion, it is up to JAPAN to regulate what it ships does

If you dislike the loophole, the proper place to challenge it is in the Japanese Court System, that is all the court ruled. Once it made that decision, the rest comes from that decision. The Company asked a US Court to issue an injunction against an AMERICAN SHIP in an AMERICAN HARBOR from leaving port for the sole purpose of harassing the ships of the company asking for the injunction (When such company's ships were doing what is legal for them to do under Japanese Law, given they were Japanese Ships in international waters).

The Company clearly showed that the ship's sole intent was to harass the ships of the company and thus the Company had the RIGHT to ask an American Court to prevent such an an American Ship sailing from an American Harbor to do what was illegal under American Law.

The problem here is the Sea Shepherd has been escalating what they have been doing. They started out just blocking the Japanese whalers, forcing them to use more time and energy to obtain their catch. The problem for the Sea Shepherd was this was NOT enough and they kept on escalating, till they finally started to do POSITIVE acts, instead of negative acts. Instead of Blocking and sending out small boats (I almost used the term Whale boats for that is about the size of the boats Sea Shepherd were using a few years ago) to interfere with the catch, they started to cut lines, ramming the Whaler's boats instead of just blocking them, (Ramming is easier then blocking, takes some navigation skills to keep one's boat in a position to block another, it is a lot easier to ram), throwing things at the ships and boats (No matter HOW innocuous, it is still a projectile) and other positive acts.

During the Birmingham problems of the 1960s, Martin Luther King and his follows made it a solid policy NOT to do anything Positive, no throwing objects, no ramming objects, they preferred action was to stand and protest, which included blocking streets, standing still when told to leave etc. This was extremely effective and forced the Birmingham Police to do any acts of violence (Which was caught on Camera). Recently during Occupy Wall Street movement, the same acts were done, again no acts of violence, peaceful demonstration including blocking traffic, but efforts were made so that any violence that did occur was done by the Police (and that was caught on camera, the famous video of the Berkeley Police using billy-clubs onto the stomach of protesters with their arms around each other, clearly showing who was doing the acts of violence).

http://shelf3d.com/B_f06VQOkI4#Occupy Cal video: Police brutally beat, arrest Berkeley students

Sea Shepherds actions is even beyond the level of the radical tree huggers, tyeing themselves to a tree, living in a tree, around a tree etc. Some of the actions of ELF may reach up to the level of the Sea Shepherd, but ELF has made an effort to avoid even the appearance of putting Humans in danger, I can NOT say the same about Sea Shepherd.

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

[Nika]

45. There is a difference between Earth First! protesters like others and myself who do non-violent

civil disobedience and ELFers who vandalize and destroy property -- sometimes in a way that could hurt people as when they would spike trees years ago.

I have done a great deal of tree sits and lock downs with chains and Black Bears (locking device) and I was never violent. We do not allow ELFers (Earth Liberation Front people) to tale part in Cascadia Forest Defender actions, the group I am part of here in Eugene, OR. We do not agree with them.

When I read your uninformed and tempermental diatribe about what others and I do in the forest pissing me off by confusing people like me with ELFers, I have no interest in your argument on your take of the illegal and immoral whaling the Japanese are doing. As far as I am concerned, you are highly uninformed on enough aspects of the issue to bother with in that regard.

This is occurring in international waters in a very sensitive area ecologically speaking in a time global warning endangers many species in that area.

There is no justification for this whaling, and I contribute to Sea Shepard and Save Japan Dolphins and fully support what they do.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

49. Probably the best post on this topic.

I don't support whaling but can't support the Sea Shepherd's tactics either.

[The Stranger]

37. Rehearing en banc

Stay tuned.

[warrant46]

42. This Kozinski is a Bush Bot and a Piece of WORK

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. What about the other two judges? IIRC it was a 3-0 decision

[happyslug]

80. Smith wrote a partial dissent, agreeing to the ruling EXCEPT for the removal of the Trial Judge

See my earlier thread Smith partial dissent is attached at the bottom of the opinion of the court.

Here is the dissent:

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

Smith was appointed by George Bush in 2002, while his brother was the GOP Senator from Oregon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Smith


The third Judge A. Wallace Tashima was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1992, notice he did NOT write a dissent, he agreed that the trial judge should be replaced by another judge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Wallace_Tashima

[derby378]

44. Ahrrrr!!!

When you hunt a species of animal to extinction in the name of corporate profits, especially if you can't find anyone willing to consume the meat of the animals you slaughter, what did you expect was going to happen?

This is far different from hunting dodos and thylocines. In their cases, humanity hunted them to extinction and didn't give it a second thought. But humanity, at last, is evolving.

[Quantess]

47. Sad.

Sad all around.

[daleo]

52. Too bad the whales can't hire lawyers

They deserve better. They are intelligent, sensitive, feeling creatures, like many humans are (but not all judges).

[Pterodactyl]

53. Right or wrong, it is clearly illegal - and dangerous.

[wordpix]

58. yes "it" is---for the whales, especially

I will NEVER forget the episode on whale wars when the Japanese killed a very small whale, obviously a baby.

[Pterodactyl]

90. Yeah, I've seen that show. It's only a matter of time before an SS operative gets killed or...

...kills someone. Those crazy escapades are going to cause a collision.

[wordpix]

103. the Freedom Riders and other protesters for civil rights likewise engaged in

"crazy escapades" that put their lives at risk. I guess they shouldn't have taken those risks, at least not in your view, right?

[Pterodactyl]

104. Not at all. Unlike you, I think HUMAN rights are more important than animals.

That's just the way I am.

[DeSwiss]

59. You can't ''unrotten'' the apple. n/t

[Sunlei]

62. woah look at the video w japan using 2 ships to ram and flood- HERO Sea Shepherd

Japan are such liars to claim 'research' as a reason to kill our worlds whales.

http://us.seashepherd.org/support-us/

[catbyte]

76. I have given SS money for 40 years and will continue to do so. Whatever it takes to

protect cetaceans from those murderous whalers. I don't care how much property those fucking whalers lose.

[Nika]

84. Thank you for your generosity. I've given them money for just over seven years and have had friends

go and work for him crewing.

They are the good guys. It is amazing to me that some people here just can't see that.

[MFM008]

77. USA Court lol lol lol

who cares, Im supporting the anti whale killing guys. GO Sea Shep. A pirates life for me.

[flvegan]

82. The Sierra.

Let me know when she takes another whale. And that was just the beginning.

Pirates? Damn motherfucking right.

[and-justice-for-all]

88. What they do is not piracy.

[LeftyMom]

94. Piracy is profit-motivated, by definition.

I must have missed the memo when they stole a whaling ship, drank their sake, and delivered the booty to their sponsoring sovereign, King Bob Barker I of Plinkonia.

[roody]

98. Donate to the Whales' Navy here.

http://www.seashepherd.org/support-us/

[MrMickeysMom]

105. NOTHING the Sea Shepard did was wrong... but THEY WERE attacked by Japanese whalers...

In fact, the whalers have done physical bodily harm.

So, what Judge Kozinski has a problem with is that the human race care about the whales to the point where they would commit acts of sabotage... THAT'S supposed to trump the fact that the whalers kill populations of whales when they legally shouldn't... or, they commit murder.

I think murder trumps sabotage and this judge's warped sense must come from seeing too many Johnny Depp movies.

[Godhumor]

112. I'm curious, who did the whalers murder? n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

114. You don't suppose...

... killing whale populations to the brink of extinction is murder?

I suppose one must be human for life to be valued? What, then of the food chain of life? What do we know about these populations and their entire effect?

It's murder in my book.

[Godhumor]

116. So no actual murder then.

And, no, whales can't be murdered by humans. Not by any actual definition of the word.

[MrMickeysMom]

118. According to whom?

You?

[Godhumor]

119. No, according to what murder is actually defined as

Whales can be killed, hunted, slaughtered, driven to extinction, etc. But murder is a very specific capital crime. Whales are not in that conversation, nor should they be compared to people who have actually suffered violent loss of a loved one.

[MrMickeysMom]

120. Technically right, but very dominionist...

Okay, I suppose the point you've made over and over is one of a nation of laws point of view. Shall I then assume we can't step away from capital crimes for the larger point? Can we at least equate love with anything outside of Kingdom Humanoid Knuckle Dragonous? Can we equate wiping out of species living in the sea to our own ultimate demise?

Probably a lost cause, I know.

[arikara]

115. Thanks for reminding me

I need to make another donation to Sea Shepherd.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. More like the Japanese whaling ships are pirates...

After all, you don't need a peg leg or an eye patch...