Greenpeace

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:54 am

Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:
Natapoc wrote:
Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:and that is a good thing is it? Sinking ships and endangering hundreds of human lives is acceptable to save animals?

No human lives were endangered during these actions. Sinking boats involved in illegal activity (poaching, ect) is different from hurting people.

How can no human lives be endangered? There are people on boats, no? Sinking boats involved in illegal activity is still illegal. Just like shooting people who commit a small crime, its wrong.

Although each case is different as far as I understand the sinking occurred on ships that were not occupied at the time.

by **Garimidia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:07 am

Bowquiver wrote:
Garimidia wrote:
Hairless Kitten II wrote:They didn't tie OTHER people.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2872 ... erra-or-PM

Wow, I heard that the did on the national news. Fail

Spelling fail.

Indeed.

by **Non Aligned States** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:07 am

Natapoc wrote:Sea Shepherd HAS sunk ships before and the organization is proud of it. Remember what Sea Shepherd is doing is fully legal under international conservation law.

Show me an internationally recognized law that allows people to legally to sink other people's ships (without the owners permission naturally).

Also, I take it this means all Sea Shepherd vessels are now fair game and can be sunk on sight. Deaths can be avoided by adopting maritime prize rules. Force the crew into lifeboats, and then sink the ship.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:11 am

Oh and regarding how it is legal that they stop illegal poaching operations. This is legal because Sea Shepherd assumes the role of a law enforcement organization as provided by the United Nations World Charter for nature. This charter was adopted on November 9 1982

Particularly section 21 which specifically allows "international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations" the power to enforce international conservation law.

I'm including the text of section 21-24 below:

World Charter for Nature: Implementations

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations

(b) Establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction

22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

by **Garimidia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:13 am

Natapoc wrote:Particularly section 21 which specifically allows "international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations" the power to enforce international conservation law.

Wow, that could pave the way for serious security issues.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:14 am

Garimidia wrote:
Natapoc wrote:Particularly section 21 which specifically allows "international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations" the power to enforce international conservation law.

Wow, that could pave the way for serious security issues.

Kinda. There are restrictions for how you can enforce it. If you are not careful you will be considered a criminal/terrorist/pirate by law. Sea shepherd is very careful to never cross that line.

This is just like a cop has rules that he or she must abide by and they can't just go out and arrest anyone or try to stop you from doing something legal.

by **Garimidia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:16 am

Natapoc wrote:
Garimidia wrote:
Natapoc wrote:Particularly section 21 which specifically allows "international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations" the power to enforce international conservation law.

Wow, that could pave the way for serious security issues.

Kinda. There are restrictions for how you can enforce it. If you are not careful you will be considered a criminal/terrorist/pirate by law. Sea shepherd is very careful to never cross that line.

This is just like a cop has rules that he or she must abide by and they can't just go out and arrest anyone or try to stop you from doing something legal.

Ram but make sure no-one's hurt?

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:24 am

Non Aligned States wrote:
Natapoc wrote:Sea Shepherd HAS sunk ships before and the organization is proud of it. Remember what Sea Shepherd is doing is fully legal under international conservation law.

Show me an internationally recognized law that allows people to legally to sink other people's ships (without the owners permission naturally).

Also, I take it this means all Sea Shepherd vessels are now fair game and can be sunk on sight. Deaths can be avoided by adopting maritime prize rules. Force the crew into lifeboats, and then sink the ship.

If a sea shepherd vessel is engaged in an illegal poaching operation then you have authority under the law I cited. What you describe for enforcement may be illegal you would have to check the regulations and a lawyer well versed in these laws.

by **Non Aligned States** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:26 am

Natapoc wrote:Oh and regarding how it is legal that they stop illegal poaching operations. This is legal because Sea Shepherd assumes the role of a law enforcement organization as provided by the United Nations World Charter for nature. This charter was adopted on November 9 1982

Particularly section 21 which specifically allows "international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations" the power to enforce international conservation law.

No it doesn't. It does not allow any action outside of national legislation of their home port country. Sinking other people's ships is no more legally permissible than torching your house is. Incidentally, one could take this to mean that the French operations against Rainbow Warrior are completely justified. If things had gone as planned anyhow.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:32 am

Non Aligned States wrote: [snip]Incidentally, one could take this to mean that the French operations against Rainbow Warrior are completely justified. If things had gone as planned anyhow.

No it is not. Things are not as simple as you are making them out to be. There are many laws that must be followed by an organization operating under the law enforcement clause.

The french were not operating under those laws in any way.

People acting as law enforcement have rules that they must follow. This has been held up in court.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:41 am

If you are still confused about these types of laws think of it this way. Say the the government passes a law that allows you to have the enforcement abilities of a cop in some cases. Lets pretend one of the cases is that if you see someone spitting bubble gum on the sidewalk that you have the right to take their bubble gum away and destroy it or turn it in to a police office.

Remember I'm asking you to pretend that the bubble gum law passed I'm not saying it currently is law anywhere.

So now you see someone with bubblegum but they do not spit it on the sidewalk they just carry it. If you take it from them and throw it in the trash you have broken the law and committed theft.

Now instead you see someone with bubblegum and they DO spit it on the sidewalk. Now you have the right to take it away and destroy it or to turn it in to the office. What do you NOT have the right to do? Use it yourself, sell it, ect.

Now you see someone with bubblegum and they DO spit in a trash can (a non sidewalk object). You have no right to take it from them and if you do have committed theft.

by **Non Aligned States** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:42 am

Natapoc wrote:The french were not operating under those laws in any way.

And neither is Sea Sheppard.

Natapoc wrote:People acting as law enforcement have rules that they must follow. This has been held up in court.

Citizens arrest is permissible under most nations. There is no nation which allows citizens arson, or citizens piracy. Hence, Sea Shepperd is not operating legally by sinking other people's ships. If you want to argue that what they did is legal, then you will have to find the relevant treaty or law that makes such exceptions to criminal actions.

EDIT: Your latter example is also a failed case, as the supposed destruction of the ships took place when they were unoccupied, and thereby, not being used to engage in an active crime. What you proposed is closer to following the supposed gum chewer back to their house where more chewing gum is on hand and burning it down. It is grossly illegal.

Additionally, no such law exists that empowers a citizen to do more than restrain a criminal. You cannot beat them, you cannot take away their things unless they are threatening you with it. You cannot hold them to the tarmac until they die of heat stroke. You are only permitted to restrain them. Your example fails on more than one count.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:01 am

Non Aligned States wrote:[snip]

You make allot of bold claims. If it was true that sea shepherd were operating illegally don't you think paul Watson would be in jail? After all you can't just get away with destroying peoples property like that right? For 30 years?

He makes allot of countries very angry but he always operates within the law. You are just making things up regarding the law. "Citicens arrest" has nothing at all to do with this. His actions have been tried in court before and he was found to have not violated the law. There are many governments who would love nothing more then to find even one thing that they could use to put Paul Watson in jail for but none of them have.

And you think you have found something? You think you have a better understanding of international laws then the governments themselves and their highly paid prosecutors? Then all the whalers lawyers?

Sea shepherd is enforcing existing international and national laws. They have been asked by some governments in the past to assist them at times in enforcing such laws.

Here is a breakdown of some of the relevant laws from the sea shepherd website: http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/l ... rters.html

by **Non Aligned States** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:11 am

Natapoc wrote:If it was true that sea shepherd were operating illegally don't you think paul Watson would be in jail? After all you can't just get away with destroying peoples property like that right? For 30 years?

If you have power and influence, you can get away with a lot of things. If you can cover your ass and maintain some form of distance between yourself and the act, you can get away with more.

Natapoc wrote:He makes allot of countries very angry but he always operates within the law.

So you claim, but you haven't shown any law that allows the destruction of other people's ships as legitimate. Don't say there is, show it. The charter you quoted does not allow vigilante actions that trespass into destruction of property not belonging to you.

And no, I don't consider Sea-sheppard's own site to be a valid source. Activist groups, especially those who do partake in violent actions, cannot be relied on to provide an unbiased accounting or justification for their actions. If there is an international charter that allows what they claim to be legal, find the relevant sections and show it.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:20 am

Non Aligned States wrote:And no, I don't consider Sea-sheppard's own site to be a valid source. Activist groups, especially those who do partake in violent actions, cannot be relied on to provide an unbiased accounting or justification for their actions. If there is an international charter that allows what they claim to be legal, find the relevant sections and show it.

The link I gave has legal opinions written by real lawyers and not random posters in internet forums who pretend they know what the law says. I generally trust the legal advice of a professional over that of a random forum poster. Sorry but I don't see your views on issues of law to be particularly authoritative.

The link I gave you is not about sea shepherds actions. It details the laws that relate to it and is written by an actual lawyer. (some of them are written by many lawyers)

The reason I'm not debating the details of these laws with you is that I also do not have a degree in international law. Like you, I don't know what I'm talking about but unlike you I rely on the opinion of qualified legal professionals rather then my own opinion.

by **New Hayesalia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:26 am

Greenpeace can complain, and they'll be annoying. This entitles them to having the organization outlawed.

by **Non Aligned States** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:27 am

Natapoc wrote:*snip*

In short, you cannot, or will not, show the actual laws and charters written down that make such otherwise criminal acts permissible.

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:30 am

Non Aligned States wrote:
Natapoc wrote:*snip*

In short, you cannot, or will not, show the actual laws and charters written down that make such otherwise criminal acts permissible.

The laws I showed you have held up in court. Particularly in Canada when Paul Watson was put on trail and won under the exception I specified.

by **New Dracora** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:00 am

Natapoc wrote:Okay well I am not able to download and watch that video and I don't have the expertise to analyze it properly even if I could so I'll just take your word for it and assume that the person who made the decision willfully violated Greenpeace policy against doing such things.

I'm not sure why they would want to cover that up though. If anything it would increase their membership.

Okie doke - download VLC media player from this site: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

This is an open source player that is capable of playing videos of all the file types you'll see on your journey through the internets.

edit: here is the link again also. Click to download (it's 'bout 7.5 MB's in size). If that doesn't work, right click on the URL and select 'save target as' from the menu that appears.

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/GPAS2.mpg

by **Parthenon** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:50 pm

Are you honestly trying to argue that ecoterrorism is legally sound? I honestly feel like emailing your posts to some of my law professors so that can share a nice facepalm with me...

by **Natapoc** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:57 pm

Parthenon wrote:Are you honestly trying to say argue that ecoterrorism is legally sound? I honestly feel like emailing your posts to some of my law professors so that can share a nice facepalm with me...

Nope I never said terrorism is legally sound. I said that operating under section 21 of the law I mentioned allows NGOs, individuals, and others to enforce international conservation law as I specified earlier.

by **Bitchkitten** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:58 pm

Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:Im over Greenpeace

No matter how dangerous, stupid or however many people are affected by these mongrels, their actions are always portrayed as 'heroic.' Yes, even commiting acts of piracy and ramming other ships, their actions are heroic.

I like Greenpeace. Civil disobedience is a good thing. Protecting the enviroment is a good thing. Win/win

by **Brogavia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:11 pm

If I was the captian, and they lashed themselves to my ship, I'd scuttle it.

by **Shawilde** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:25 pm

Parthenon wrote:Are you honestly trying to argue that ecoterrorism is legally sound? I honestly feel like emailing your posts to some of my law professors so that can share a nice facepalm with me...

For someone studying law you certainly aren't very good at basic logic. Terrorism is by definition illegal, so the idea anyone could or would argue that "ecoterrorism" was "legally sound" is...well just plain illogical, to say the least.

by **Parthenon** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:33 pm

Shawilde wrote:
Parthenon wrote:Are you honestly trying to argue that ecoterrorism is legally sound? I honestly feel like emailing your posts to some of my law professors so that can share a nice facepalm with me...

For someone studying law you certainly aren't very good at basic logic. Terrorism is by definition illegal, so the idea anyone could or would argue that "ecoterrorism" was "legally sound" is...well just plain illogical, to say the least.

You know, you might have sounded intelligent if that wasn't the entire premise of my post...

Greenpeace

Who is online