Inevitable?

[theprestige]

Well hells, if you're pirates, why not act like pirates? Plenty of people on this thread are endorsing killing the Sea Shepherds, so why don't they just bring a few Rocket-Powered Grenades with them on their ship, and ACTUALLY solve the issue? An RPG-7 to the tush should end any whaling problems.

Or maybe they're not acting like pirates?

I can think of several reasons Sea Shepherd does not use RPGs:

• They don't know where to get them.
• They don't know how to use them.
• They hope that their opponent will not escalate past the level of violence they themselves are willing to engage in.
• They hope people like you will defend them if they don't escalate.

The fact is, they're intentionally doing damage and creating risk for other ships at sea. How is that excusable? And how does it entitle them to set the rules of engagement or define the limits of escalation?

 

[quadraginta]

I can read. My point stands. We're not saying we won't admit to something. We're saying there's nothing to admit to. That's rather a different point. I don't even know why we're arguing, since we seem to have the same position. Why did you even quote my remark at all?

Why? Because you accused (if you'll excuse the expression) me of being

... comfortable accusing people of wrongdoing without evidence ...

I'm not, and I didn't, and I felt that I should make that clear.

We're not arguing. At least I'm not. I'm defending myself against an unfounded and unwarranted calumny. Which you made.

Got it?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

(SNIP)

As to how much of a "big deal" it is, it depends on the size of the boat. In a small boat likely to be capsized by wave action, it's a pretty big deal. Of course, the best advice for a small boat in a big storm is to deploy a drogue and ride it out--for which you don't need "steerageway" anyway. For a really big ship (cruise liner, oil tanker) it's really neither here nor there. You might have some unpleasant moments, but the seas aren't going to sink you (navigational hazards of other kinds could, but not wind and wave alone). For an intermediate size vessel like a whaling ship, it would take a pretty "perfect storm" to seriously endander the vessel simply from loss of steerage--I suppose it's just possible that once in a hundred years of so this would happen, but it's certainly not an imminent likelihood that makes the deliberate attempt to foul the props of whaling ships into some kind of deadly action.

I think you're wrong. Losing steerageway could be a big deal for any sized ship. You have a tanker in the southern lattitudes in a big blow, with huge swells, it's not real good. (See below)

You're comparing a 93ft fishing boat to a 50meter whaler in the Southern Ocean. Seriously?

It would be worse for a 50-meter whaler.

To sum it up. "We're not gonna admit the Japs did on purpose, but if they did on purpose we're not gonna admit it was wrong."

And we are referring to them as "Japs"... because?

That's not particularly rough sea they're in there. And the idea that a ship that temporarily loses propulsion is DOOMED to go down to Davy Jones's Locker is one of the typical pieces of ridiculous hyperbole that people who want to excuse the Shonan Maru have peddled. Ship's have mechanical problems of one kind of another every day all over the world; it's exceedingly rare for it to lead to disaster.

Temporary? I don't think it would be temporary and it all depends on the sea state. It's not hyperbole.

You might be right, I'm not sure. Even if you are, the Ady Gil was quite clearly done for the day and not bothering anyone at the time of the collision. The Shonan Maru 2 went hunting for it and ran it down.

I believe I heard them say something about "we slowed them down". I hope they were done for the day.

The Shonan Maru is only 50 meters long. That's really not as big as you seem to think. It's basically twice the length of the Ady Gil. We're not talking about some kind of supertanker. As for your idea that she was shunted into the Ady Gil by a wave (funny how she goes from being an unmaneuverable behemoth to being a cork on the waves)...the video contradicts that. Look at the way the Shonan Maru is heeling as she swings around towards the Ady Gil. She heels away from the direction of the turn. That's the way a boat her size reacts to having the helm swung hard over (the opposite of a little motorboat which will lean into the turn). If a wave was pushing her towards the Ady Gil it would have to have come from the side towards which the ship is leaning. That'd be a mighty funny way for a ship to react to a wave as it pushes her around. Ships don't lean into waves, they lean away from them. QED.

I'm not sure that I buy the bolded. The ship could have been rocking back and forth from the swell.

I never said she was 'shunted into the Ady Gil by a wave'. Whe was in a signifcant swell, the ocean was moving, she was on the ocean, she was moving forward on engines and she was movig sideways on the ocean. That was what you were seeing. (Ady Gil < Shonan Maru < Ocean). See below video of a much larger ship being tossed around like a cork. It's all relative.



I wonder what would have lost if she had lost steerageway?

The Shonan Maru was at least twice as long, but that's not as important as it's mass. It was much, much more massive than the motor boat. It takes a lot more energy to move it around.

And yes, the Ady Gil should have been able to get out of the way. They could have started backing off as soon as the Shonan Maru started to head towards them. Obviously they made a bad decision in holding their ground--obviously assuming that the Shonan Maru skipper was planning to buzz past them. That doesn't absolve the Shonan Maru skipper from his act of deliberately steering his ship into the Ady Gil, however. If I'm out in my car and decide to swerve towards a pedestrian on the sidewalk, it's no excuse for my actions if the pedestrian stands still thinking "oh, he'll swerve away at the last minute" rather than running to safety at the first sign of danger.

Like I said, it's not clear that he delibertly ran down the Ady Gil.

 

[Comrade Raptor]

I have trouble entertaining the plausibility of any story from the Sea Shepherds after they claimed a Coast Guard vessel (you know, those folks whose primary job is SAR) tried to intentionally ram them.

Since then I regard anything SSS says as a fish story until forcefully and conclusively proven otherwise.

 

[politas]

No, I can't agree on that at all. The ship appears to have maintained a constant course and speed at all times. The Ady Gil clearly initiated a sudden increase in thrust immediately prior to the collision, but it's unclear if that was forward thrust to put the boat in the path of the whaler, or reverse thrust to move it back. I suspect the latter.

Have you watched all three of the videos posted? The Shonen Maru's POV, the Ady Gil's POV and the third ship POV?

 

[gumboot]

Have you watched all three of the videos posted? The Shonen Maru's POV, the Ady Gil's POV and the third ship POV?

Yes. I've seen four videos, I think.

 

[Dragoonster]

Have you watched all three of the videos posted? The Shonen Maru's POV, the Ady Gil's POV and the third ship POV?

The one that convinced me it was (likely) intentional was the Ady Gil's one, it appeared the whaler spun around to engage them rather than be off on its way. The others also make it clear the Ady isn't at much speed if any, rather than looking at the wake I looked at small individual waves behind it which weren't moving in relation to it until it did that last-second speed up.

Again though, I have no major problem with the ramming intentional or uninentional.

 

[GreyICE]

I can think of several reasons Sea Shepherd does not use RPGs:

• They don't know where to get them.
• They don't know how to use them.
• They hope that their opponent will not escalate past the level of violence they themselves are willing to engage in.
• They hope people like you will defend them if they don't escalate.

The fact is, they're intentionally doing damage and creating risk for other ships at sea. How is that excusable? And how does it entitle them to set the rules of engagement or define the limits of escalation?

I simply don't think a group that includes explanations of how to make sure that a ship is unoccupied before scuttling it belongs in the same category as the Al Qaeda and the Somali pirates that the US military killed.

I have a firm belief that words have meanings, and characterizing them as 'terrorists' and 'pirates' makes those words lose the meanings that they typically have. Maybe 'saboteurs' would be better, as that word reasonably describes their actions, neh?

 

[arthwollipot]

That video has you leaning more towards the Japanese? Those guys were relaxing and saying they'd had a hard day. The guy who seems to be the leader tells one of the others to tell the people in the cabin to "stop now", so they can save fuel. Then he talks about refueling. That indicates to me that they were done. They were sitting still in the water, no longer hassling the whalers, when the Shonen Maru charges up and runs them down!

That video is worse for the Japanese than any others yet shown!

Okay - there's this guy I know who is actually a member of the Sea Shepherd organisation. Yes, he was wearing a t-shirt displaying the names of the ships Sea Shepherd had sunk.

The boat was out of fuel. They were sitting dead in the water, waiting for their support vessel to arrive. They couldn't have got out of the way if they'd tried.

Fortunately I was wise enough not to engage in conversation, limiting my observation to admiration of the boat. I mean, he's a nice guy and all, but I certainly don't support his organisation.

 

[arthwollipot]

Note that the Sea Sheppard ship flies a Jolly Roger from its bow. Under International Maritime Law any ship flying a Jolly Roger is considered to be broadcast its intent to partake in piracy, and immediately loses any rights or protections under International Maritime Law. Any other ship may essentially whatever they like with said Pirate vessel.

Can you provide chapter and verse for this? It seems a little extreme, not to mention archaic.

 

[politas]

Yes. I've seen four videos, I think.

I have to admit that I'm quite surprised you could think it was not an intentional ramming, in that case. It looks pretty clear to me. The video from the Shonen Maru itself looks like it could go either way, but the other two are pretty definite.

Do you think Ady Gil was under way, and thus had the ability to steer out of the way?

Do you think the video from Ady Gil, where they seem to be watching a ship heading off in front of them while relaxing, is a complete fake for the cameras? When they are holding up the warning siren to alert the Shonen Maru to their proximity as it starts to swing towards them?

 

[Ravenwood]

The boat was out of fuel. They were sitting dead in the water, waiting for their support vessel to arrive. They couldn't have got out of the way if they'd tried.

Actually, according to the SSS, they transferred off 400 liters of fuel from the AG before abandoning her, so I would have to say that she still could have gotten out of the way under power quite well.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually, according to the SSS, they transferred off 400 liters of fuel from the AG before abandoning her, so I would have to say that she still could have gotten out of the way under power quite well.

Well, I don't take a second-hand anecdotal report as gospel, of course.

I did wonder at the time why all of the news outlets weren't yelling that the ship was out of fuel. I would have thought it'd be a sure-fire justification.

 

[quadraginta]

Well, I don't take a second-hand anecdotal report as gospel, of course.

I did wonder at the time why all of the news outlets weren't yelling that the ship was out of fuel. I would have thought it'd be a sure-fire justification.

I don't think they were out of fuel. They clearly had throttle at the last moments before the collision.

I also don't think they were under way in any meaningful fashion until those last few moments. I came to that conclusion from the Shonan Maru deck video, not because of anything Sea Shepherd claimed.

If they only had 400 liters on board I'll bet they were feeling a bit thirsty. That would have given her about 400nm of range at her best fuel rate, which isn't much where they were. Her fuel capacity was 12,000 liters.

 

[rjh01]

Can you provide chapter and verse for this? It seems a little extreme, not to mention archaic.

This is not as good as what you asked for but it is interesting

Jolly_Roger^WP

Historically, the flag was flown to frighten pirates' victims into surrendering without a fight, since it conveyed the message that the attackers were outlaws who would not consider themselves bound by the usual rules of engagement—and might, therefore, slaughter those they defeated (since captured pirates were usually hanged, they didn't have much to gain by asking quarter if defeated).

 

[quadraginta]

Can you provide chapter and verse for this? It seems a little extreme, not to mention archaic.

This is not as good as what you asked for but it is interesting

Jolly_Roger^WP

Historically, the flag was flown to frighten pirates' victims into surrendering without a fight, since it conveyed the message that the attackers were outlaws who would not consider themselves bound by the usual rules of engagement—and might, therefore, slaughter those they defeated (since captured pirates were usually hanged, they didn't have much to gain by asking quarter if defeated).

Doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to this ...

<snip>

Under International Maritime Law any ship flying a Jolly Roger is considered to be broadcast its intent to partake in piracy, and immediately loses any rights or protections under International Maritime Law. Any other ship may essentially whatever they like with said Pirate vessel.

<snip>

You're right. It's not as good.

In fact it isn't any good at all.

 

[rjh01]

Still looking and found this. Piracy^WP

Bolding mine

Law of nations
Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).[94]
For a different opinion on Pirates as Hostis Humani Generis see Caninas, Osvaldo Peçanha. Modern Maritime Piracy: History, Present Situation and Challenges to International Law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA - ABRI JOINT INTERNATIONAL MEETING, Pontifical Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro Campus (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jul 22, 2009
In the United States, criminal prosecution of piracy is authorized in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 10:
The Congress shall have Power ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
In English admiralty law, piracy was defined as petit treason during the medieval period, and offenders were accordingly liable to be drawn and quartered on conviction. Piracy was redefined as a felony during the reign of Henry VIII. In either case, piracy cases were cognizable in the courts of the Lord High Admiral. English admiralty vice-admiralty judges emphasized that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept" with pirates; i.e. contracts with pirates and oaths sworn to them were not legally binding. Pirates were legally subject to summary execution by their captors if captured in battle. In practice, instances of summary justice and annulment of oaths and contracts involving pirates do not appear to have been common.
Since piracy often takes place outside the territorial waters of any state, the prosecution of pirates by sovereign states represents a complex legal situation. The prosecution of pirates on the high seas contravenes the conventional freedom of the high seas. However, because of universal jurisdiction, action can be taken against pirates without objection from the flag state of the pirate vessel. This represents an exception to the principle extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur (the judgment of one who is exceeding his territorial jurisdiction may be disobeyed with impunity).[95]

 

[rjh01]

My first source says that the flag is used to say "surrender or die." If you do put up a fight, it will be to the death. So killing everyone who flies that flag on the high seas would be an act of self defence.

About the only thing I have not justified from gumboot's post is that this is under International Maritime Law. Gumboot does not claim to be Borg so he can get certain things wrong. Of course he may come back and give us some references.

 

[shadron]

Okay - there's this guy I know who is actually a member of the Sea Shepherd organisation. Yes, he was wearing a t-shirt displaying the names of the ships Sea Shepherd had sunk.

The boat was out of fuel. They were sitting dead in the water, waiting for their support vessel to arrive. They couldn't have got out of the way if they'd tried.

Fortunately I was wise enough not to engage in conversation, limiting my observation to admiration of the boat. I mean, he's a nice guy and all, but I certainly don't support his organisation.

Your second paragraph - is it connected with the other two? Are you referring to the Ady Gil at the scene of the incident? They'd be much more than negligent to allow a boat like that to run completely out of fuel and be idled while carrying on their tactics. This is the first I've heard that they might have been unable, rather than just unwilling or unprepared, to move.

EDT: Saw your retraction lower down. Ignore me.

 

[quadraginta]

My first source says that the flag is used to say "surrender or die." If you do put up a fight, it will be to the death. So killing everyone who flies that flag on the high seas would be an act of self defence.

About the only thing I have not justified from gumboot's post is that this is under International Maritime Law. Gumboot does not claim to be Borg so he can get certain things wrong. Of course he may come back and give us some references.

Since that was apparently the primary assertion of his statement, having been repeated twice in the same short paragraph, one might find it a useful part to justify.

The point he was trying to make...

Any other ship may essentially whatever they like with said Pirate vessel.

... depended from that, and that alone.

Keep trying.