Japanese Whaling Ship Catches Fire

[letterboy]

I'm sure you do!
My point was that you'd probably describe them as terrorists as well!

Probably for a few minutes until they were sunk and than they would become refugees and given full pardons and exctradicted (SP) to Norway

 

[Kim]

Probably for a few minutes until they were sunk and than they would become refugees and given full pardons and exctradicted (SP) to Norway

Oh yeah? Is that the customary US way of dealing with these sort of people? A sort of "rendition" to Norway!

I can't imagine them sending anyone to Norway before they'd served whatever sentence they got in the US first though.......and I very much doubt that would be a free pardon!

 

[letterboy]

Oh yeah? Is that the customary US way of dealing with these sort of people? A sort of "rendition" to Norway!

I can't imagine them sending anyone to Norway before they'd served whatever sentence they got in the US first though.......and I very much doubt that would be a free pardon!

Not going into politics but right now they probably wouldn't. . . but in a few years they may. . .

 

[Kim]

Not going into politics but right now they probably wouldn't. . . but in a few years they may. . .

Exactly. I agree as well. I don't think that anyone would really accept someone going around sinking their boats on purpose. Maybe some don't describe that as terrorism but I believe it is. Not all terrorism involves bombs and stuff.
For me Sea Shepherd is an organization that tries to achieve it's goals through violent and destructive means. If we can't label them terrorists, then what would be a more fitting title?

 

[Sadamune]

What's not violent or harmful about sinking boats with people on them?

Kim, to my knowledge the methods employed by Sea Shepherd to sink these vessels deliberately avoided harm to humans by sinking them in harbors where the vessels would have few people on board and where immediate rescue was available. Regardless, the fact that nobody was injured or killed in these operations is proof enough that the label 'terrorist' is inappropriate. As I stated before, I do not consider a reasonable definition of terrorism to encompass the intentional destruction of property where humans are unharmed. This ultimately might be a semantic point, but a necessary one if you wish to use that term.
Because Sea Shepherd has never injured or killed a human being in all its history and prides itself on that fact makes the political epithet of 'terrorist' absurd in my opinion, assuming that you agree with the previously posted definition of 'terrorism'.

For me Sea Shepherd is an organization that tries to achieve it's goals through violent and destructive means.

I agree that Sea Shepherd occasionally uses destructive means to accomplish its goals, but such events have been infrequent and do not accurately characterize the overall organization. As for being violent, I think that is a completely untrue, as I consider the term 'violence' to necessarily connote injury to living beings, and as no one has ever come to harm by their activities, I consider the use of the term as unjustified. As stated before, I do not think property destruction as an activity can rationally warrant the term 'terrorism'.

If we can't label them terrorists, then what would be a more fitting title?

If you want a label that accurately describes Sea Shepherd, I suggest, "aggressive obstructionists of activities that are injurious to marine life". It might not roll off the tongue as easily as 'terrorist', but at least it's accurate.

As for Sadamune and the concept of policing, Sea Shepard has no authority, real or perceived, that flows from any law or any recognized government on the planet. They are anarchists.

Untrue, as Sea Shepherd clearly perceives their mandate to enforce international law. Otherwise, they wouldn't do what they do. As for 'real' authority, do you not recognize the United Nations? As law is an abstract concept and an artifice of human society it is inherently subject to human interpretation, and therefore, various points of view. Thus, it's hard to know what 'real' means, as it varies from person to person. However, if by 'real' authority you mean a bunch of people who got together to create piece of paper that described a bunch of rules everyone had to follow, then the United Nations World Charter for Nature would be it. It is a 'real' piece of paper with 'real' nations obligated to follow its rules. Sea Shepherd's mandate derives from that and other legal documents. Perhaps you do not agree with Sea Shepherd's interpretation of that piece of paper. Fine. But consider that the Canadian government has in the past recognized the charter's authority in a case regarding Sea Shepherd's founder Paul Watson, which is a legal precedent substantive enough to warrant the term 'real' in my book.

Sadamune

 

[rawls]

Wow...This thread certainly took off since my "thoughtless" post

I am tired of this guy being miss quoted from the very beginning of this post and have to speak out. See page 1 of this thread. Rawls ws not happy that someone had died. Read his quote, he was happy that the whaling ship caught fire.

Fishboy, from what I read, you have misinterpretid him.

I don't think Rawls or anyone here wants to see anyone die from this situation

I appreciate your comments WR...Thank you...

it was still a pretty thoughtless comment.

Not thoughtless at all Kim...I intentionally quoted the thread title and not the part about the sailor missing. I am not happy about a sailor missing. Even though I am very much against the harvesting of endangered speices, if I had seen that sailor overboard and could have done something to save him there is no way I could have sat by and simply watch him drown. I believe most people would do no different. As far as an eco disaster, it could have happened but it didn't. If it had, would I have been happy about it...No. But whose fault would that have been. What difference would it make whether I or anyone else was happy about it or not. They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place. I can say this, you have a great gift of playing with words to make it seem someone is thoughtless or careless, and your points plausable. For me...your dog don't hunt. Am I happy to see the ship taken out of comission so that it will no longer be able to harvest an endangered speices...I stand by my original comment...Good!

 

[Kim]

Not thoughtless at all Kim...I intentionally quoted the thread title and not the part about the sailor missing. I am not happy about a sailor missing. Even though I am very much against the harvesting of endangered speices, if I had seen that sailor overboard and could have done something to save him there is no way I could have sat by and simply watch him drown. I believe most people would do no different. As far as an eco disaster, it could have happened but it didn't. If it had, would I have been happy about it...No. But whose fault would that have been. What difference would it make whether I or anyone else was happy about it or not. They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place. I can say this, you have a great gift of playing with words to make it seem someone is thoughtless or careless, and your points plausable. For me...your dog don't hunt. Am I happy to see the ship taken out of comission so that it will no longer be able to harvest an endangered speices...I stand by my original comment...Good!

You made your comment while the fire was still actually burning on the ship and no-one had any idea whether it was going to be alright or not. Who's playing here?

 

[tedtim]

Untrue, as Sea Shepherd clearly perceives their mandate to enforce international law. Otherwise, they wouldn't do what they do. As for 'real' authority, do you not recognize the United Nations? As law is an abstract concept and an artifice of human society it is inherently subject to human interpretation, and therefore, various points of view. Thus, it's hard to know what 'real' means, as it varies from person to person. However, if by 'real' authority you mean a bunch of people who got together to create piece of paper that described a bunch of rules everyone had to follow, then the United Nations World Charter for Nature would be it. It is a 'real' piece of paper with 'real' nations obligated to follow its rules. Sea Shepherd's mandate derives from that and other legal documents. Perhaps you do not agree with Sea Shepherd's interpretation of that piece of paper. Fine. But consider that the Canadian government has in the past recognized the charter's authority in a case regarding Sea Shepherd's founder Paul Watson, which is a legal precedent substantive enough to warrant the term 'real' in my book.

Sadamune

The Canadian government has seen fit to deregister the Sea Shepard vessel MV Farley Mowat (actually now also deregistered by Belize). Interesting.

AFAIK, Sea Shepard has been given no mandate. The United Nations, while they make a lot of noise at times, gives a mandate and establishes organizations to implement resolutions. Could you please provide a link to any UN document or source that provides such a mandate to Sea Shepard to enforce the Charter on Nature.

Again, I call them anarchists, being that they believe they have a mandate free from any government. The United Nations as an organization does not permit anyone to inforce their charter. They clearly have to operate under a direct mandate from the UN.

I return to my other point. If their actions result in the sinking, or otherwise disabling of vessels that cause pollution, the actions are wrong. By their action to damage a vessel, they can directly be the cause of environmental problems. It does not matter if people are on the ships or not.

The whaling actions contravine the UN, but the Japanese continue to state that it is just for research. I don't believe that, but it is not up to an independent organization to enforce the UN Charter, it is up to recognized sovergn nations to do that either individually, or collectively.

 

[Web Monkey]

That's a real shame. Probably going to drive up the cost of "Fins and Blowholes" dogfood in Japan.

Terry

one crewmember is missing, but the rest have been rescued by other whaling ships:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/wl_nm/japan_whaling_fire_dc_1

probably an accident ....

 

[rawls]

You made your comment while the fire was still actually burning on the ship and no-one had any idea whether it was going to be alright or not. Who's playing here?

I addressed that Kim.

If it had, would I have been happy about it...No. But whose fault would that have been. What difference would it make whether I or anyone else was happy about it or not. They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place.