You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
Federal Appeals Court rules Sea Shepherd's anti-whaling tactics amount to piracy
2013-02-27
Rolled over to Wednesday. AoS.
*snork* Finally calling a spade a spade pirate.
After two months of delay, federal judges yesterday outlined their reasons for ordering an environmental group known for harassing whaling ships to stay 500 yards away from the vessels.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in December, reversing a lower court ruling.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said the order was justified because Sea Shepherd's activities targeting Japanese boats near Antarctica amount to piracy.

"You don't need a peg leg or an eye patch," Kozinski wrote. "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."
Yee-ouch!
Kozinski, writing for the three-judge panel, said the researchers have the proper permits to comply with international whale hunting rules. The court sent the issue back to the district court for a trial and insisted that another judge be assigned to the case.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Love the part of the ruling about assigning it to another judge...
Link goes to the court decision (info in write-up not in publically available source yet).
Posted by:Barbara

#24  "We conclude that “private ends” include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds, such as Sea ShepherdÂ’s professed environmental goals. That the perpetrators believe themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public."

This is good stuff. And may give "ECO warriors" and those that fund them a need to rethink. I am talking the tree huggers, tree-spikers, transportation stoppers and public road blockers and all those other wonderful people that cause damage to others in in their zest for their "cause".

I am afraid this case is not over though. It hasnt gone to trial yet. And the finding doesnt quite marry up with the The Law of the Sea Convention which is about the closest one gets to a modern definition of piracy. ie you need the offence to happen outside of national sea borders (check); you need a form of assault on another ship (check); and you normally need some kind of private financial gain. (its in effect- robbery at sea). Not so sure it's there. BUT I like the finding. Maybe they shouldnt have charged for their film footage for the media?


Posted by: Northern Cousin   2013-02-27 19:34  

#23  My wife would sing along with the opening set, something like:

My world is a hamburger
topped with melteee cheeese.
Side of tater tots
oozing of some greeease.

All I know is what would happen if I was out on a yacht and started launching stuff at a coast guard ship. Hell, if I threw an empty can at someone's boat out at there local pond there would be issues.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-02-27 11:33  

#22  That bit about the district court making a ruling without any precedent or view of reality is spot on.

Launcing anti-personelle devices, destroying power and navigation, ramming, its older than Greeks vs. Persians.

And when some land-lubbing high plains Kansan is watching Discovery Channel's show and slapping his head at how gawdaweful the seamanship is, I have to wonder why anyone would even let them port.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-02-27 11:27  

#21  I love reading Kozinsky opinions.
Posted by: Sgt. D. T.   2013-02-27 10:43  

#20  Step 1: Photoshop the Sea Shepherd with a 5-inch gun mounted just forward of the bridge.

Step 2: Alert the Japanese Navy.

Step 3: Deny involvement.

Posted by: Besoeker   2013-02-27 06:17  

#19  Sink or capture their boats summarily with no fanfare and all force required. Use Navy SEALS to eliminate the Sea Shepherd pirates in the same fashion as the Somali ones. Shoot their aircraft out of the sky.

Try Barker, despite his age, for piracy and incarcerate him, and sue him for damages. Any other person or organization who contributes to this is to be tried for piracy and possibly treason. Confiscate their assets.

Shut down the Discovery Channel and confiscate their physical plant and assets, if they do not desist immediately in being accessories to the crimes of piracy committed by Sea Shepherds.
Posted by: no mo uro   2013-02-27 06:08  

#18  9th District court in San Francisco?!!!!!
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2013-02-27 05:36  

#17  
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2013-02-27 00:45  

#16  Sue Barker and the Discovery Channel for any damages. They'll be gone in a flash...
Posted by: tu3031   2013-02-26 21:15  

#15  Information Dissemination has a photo and brief, but pithy, comment here.
Posted by: Steve White   2013-02-26 20:22  

#14  Have to throw in those associated within the Discovery Channel for being willing propagandists, with exclusive coverage of only one party and actively editing their video to further the cause of that party.

Worst pirate
worst pirate in the world
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-02-26 18:54  

#13  

Hope that stands for Bob Barker and others who have funded this organization, co-conspirators and all.

The Price is Wrong Bob !
Posted by: Jotch Clogum5083   2013-02-26 18:32  

#12  Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USC § 1651 - Piracy under law of nations
Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 18:14  

#11  Thanks to a $5,000,000 contribution from American television personality and icon Bob Barker, Sea Shepherd was able to quietly purchase and refit the former Norwegian whaler in Africa. The ice-strengthened, fast, chaser boat quietly departed from Mauritius on December 18th to join up with the Sea Shepherd ships Steve Irwin and Ady Gil in the Southern Ocean.

Barker has also funded the cost of a helicopter that will accompany the societys ships. The aircraft is named The Nancy Burnet after the president of United Activists for Animal Rights, an organization Barker also supports. This new helicopter will participate in future campaigns.

"I'm delighted to be able to help the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in its mission to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the worlds oceans," said Barker. "There is lot of talk about preserving our ecosystems and species, but this is one organization that puts these words into action."
Posted by: Jotch Clogum5083   2013-02-26 18:08  

#10  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 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. ...

It'd be rather interesting were there to be a discovery process regarding Sea Shepherd's sources of funding.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-02-26 17:59  

#9  Just great stuff you provided Rantburg John Frum, but where in all this is the part for punishment ..... You know where the pirate walks the plank, is keel-hauled, draw and quartered, made to eat week old, gas station sushi.

Jeez! Lets get to the fun part of the story.
Posted by: Jotch Clogum5083   2013-02-26 17:55  

#8  http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266.pdf
Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 17:41  

#7   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. ... 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 ShepherdÂ’s professed environmental goals. That the perpetrators believe
themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public.

Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 17:39  

#6  Ouch
Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 17:33  

#5  The district judgeÂ’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.
Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 17:32  

#4  Regardless, Sea ShepherdÂ’s acts fit even the district courtÂ’s constricted
definition. The projectiles directly endanger CetaceanÂ’s crew, as the district court
itself recognized. And damaging CetaceanÂ’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 CetaceanÂ’s piracy claims.
Posted by: john frum   2013-02-26 17:30  

#3  NO SHIT!!!
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2013-02-26 16:41  

#2  Sink 'em. Problem solved.
Posted by: Muggsy Mussolini1226   2013-02-26 14:46  

#1  While I think whaling is barbaric, what Shepard's crew does is pure piracy. And they should be treated as pirates.

Build the gallows.
Posted by: DarthVader   2013-02-26 14:40  

00:00