Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 13 of 24
"The video clearly shows a pattern of close passes beside and in front of whalers, they are a nimble little speedboat, the whaler a clunky and slow ship. The collision was the protestors fault. They should have to pay for the new paint job at least."
THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.
Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So with no law enforcement anywhere nearby
who is the body that would investigate this?
Law of the Sea is a legal specialty area.
UNCLOS is one governing legal authority. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.
Piracy is defined as acts of violence, detention, or deprivation against a ship and committed for private ends on the high seas (ie outside territorial waters). Legally all states have the right to seize and prosecute persons who commit piracy on the high seas. International Law does not cover pirate acts within coastal waters (the 12 mile limit) which makes Indonesian piracy a troubling issue.
Pirates are hostis humani generis or 'an enemy of all mankind' thus jurisdiction is universal. Terrorism is viewed in much the same way, thus providing legal reasoning in international law for a country like the US to enter a country like...Afganistan to hunt for terrorists absent a formal declaration of war or the invitation of the Afgan government (such that existed in 2001). Other examples (both good and bad) are Isreal entering Lebanon, Russia entering Georgia, India and Pakistan, China in Mongolia, the US Marines in Algeria, etc.
More fitting to the whaling incident is the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Navigation (“the SUA Convention”). This makes it illegal to seize or exercise control over a ship by threat or use of force thereof or any other form of intimidation. This was updated in 2005 to include acts of Political Piracy such as the ones being committed by the protest boats.
It is important to note that New Zealand, the closest state, has declined to take action in this case. They have indicated that they are not responsible for the safeguarding the protest boats when they are engaged in dangerous and illegal activities.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
THANK GOD FOR VIDEO.
Maybe, just maybe, you can get away with that in court (considering the cretins you seems to be dealing with). FORTUNATELY - there really are videos. Much, I'm sure, to your chagrin.
I linked to a number of videos.
In court the main question would be 'how did this happen'? How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler as to suffer the collision? The speedboat was not disabled, it was faster and more manueverable then the clunky ship. The crew was not oblivious or incapacitated. So what brought the two so close together that collision was the result?
The answer is that the boat was engaged in its routine practice of close passes, attempted boardings, and crossing the whaler's bow towing cables in an attempt to damage or disable the ship's rudder. The videos I linked to make that very clear.
I'd take a case like this to a jury and win a conviction against the protest-pirate (or win a defense of the whalers). I note for the record I would not take the case to defend the whalers, neither would I authorize charges against them, but I would prosecute the protesters.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."
The whaler turned INTO the boat - violating the FIRST duty of any captain.
And OF COURSE you wouldn't show that. Violating the oath to 'the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth'.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's take 'Hero's' argument into everyday life.
Several youths are sauntering down the street strung across all lanes, in a slow-motion jive-ass stroll. They are interefering with traffic, yelling at and flipping-off drivers, creating potential distractions, and occassionally kicking at cars and potentially causing dents. And of course they are jaywalking.
That give me the right to run them down.
Right 'Hero' ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Think I'm backing out of this one. I feel like both sides have spoken their piece and this has become Hero v. Everyone Else. Waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HEY - I've been off line for many days now ! It's not like I'm part of a pack. I'm just expressing my POV.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki: It usually is. Hero is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to his profession, and he can be a useful reference to call upon for insights, but he doesn't mince words about what he does. Hero's lawyer-think combination of "is it legal" and "can I prove it" and "if yes then good" can be somewhat disturbing for us less "letter of the law" and even "no law" type people. Especially when we also tend to see the law as a source of abuse, or as the basis for some seriously crazy policy.
I'm pretty sure he's just Lawful Neutral though, because even though he sometimes punishes people for ticking him off and wasting his time, he doesn't seem to be in the profession for selfish reasons. That's generally where I draw the line, and I actually think there are lawyers out there on far shakier ground than Hero.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"can I prove it"
Not so much "can I prove it", but "can I get a jury to agree with me, by any means necessary". If it involves manipulation, logical fallacies, hiding parts of the story, mis-stating things here and there - oops - oh, well. They (or we) should'a been smarter.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"How did a speedboat come so close to the whaler ..."
The whaler turned INTO the boat
Perhaps. The video does not reflect this, but assuming its true, the whaler is slow, ponderous when compared to the speedboat. In order to turn into the speedboat and strike it the speedboat would have to be extremely close. They could have and should been able to avoid any direct action by the whaler.
Again, the video does not reflect what you are saying. The videos show numerous close passes by the much faster speedboat and attempts to disable the whaler by passing in front of it at close range. Other videos show deliberate ramming by other protest ships and there are also records of successful and unseccessful attempts to close with and board the whalers.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME