• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greenpeace piracy?

gumboot said:
Do you have a problem with people who haven't done anything illegal being illegally detained by a repressive regime and held pending trial on charges the regime's own leader thinks are nonsense?
Click to expand...

If you mean trespassers, no. I don't. I accept your interpretation of maritime law but I do not care for this purpose. I have no problem with them verbally, non-intrusively protesting, I have no trouble with them buying advertising, producing and showing (on their property or property they have a legal right to be on) films/videos, etc. BUT I do not hang banners off their stuff, they should not be doing such or it's equivalent on other peoples.

And, doing that kind of thing gets them attention, but it's not getting them any support or money from me. I save mine for people who work behind the scenes quietly and effectively making progress, not on showboaters.
 
gumboot said:
Do you have a problem with people who haven't done anything illegal being illegally detained by a repressive regime and held pending trial on charges the regime's own leader thinks are nonsense?
Click to expand...

You are effectively claiming that climbing on someone else's property is not illegal because of where that property is - even though it is there legally. I do not agree - and I am no fan of Russia or many of the ways it operates. The two are separate and unrelated. Also why I made the Somalia suggestion - bet they are not gonna be seen anywhere near that. They show off where they can endanger others and where they think it is safe for them to- just attention seekers (I'm running out of ways to say that).....
 
gumboot said:
I think you'll find Greenpeace's protest efforts against drilling in the Arctic has been going on for a while. The Arctic Sunrise set out on this particular voyage before the Ghouta chemical attack happened.
Click to expand...

I know it has.

Are you saying that Greenpeace have not developed into a rich lobby group?

There is a reason why they have lost charitable status in many countries.

They will have a PR firm.
 
fuelair said:
You are effectively claiming that climbing on someone else's property is not illegal because of where that property is - even though it is there legally. I do not agree - and I am no fan of Russia or many of the ways it operates. The two are separate and unrelated. Also why I made the Somalia suggestion - bet they are not gonna be seen anywhere near that. They show off where they can endanger others and where they think it is safe for them to- just attention seekers (I'm running out of ways to say that).....
Click to expand...



If you review this thread you'll find that I think Russia was perfectly within their rights to arrest the two people who climbed on board the rig, and charge them with whatever appropriate Russian crime (trespass, criminal nuisance, interference with the operation of an oil rig, whatever...)

I'm talking about the other twenty eight people who never climbed on board the rig nor attempted to do so.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Just commenting on my own experience at the pointy end.
Click to expand...

Those at the pointy end don't know everything that's going on.

If naval vessels routinely boarded flagged vessels in international waters with impunity, and if that really was legal, nations wouldn't bother to secure hundreds of maritime treaties that grant them the authority to do exactly that.
 
I would imagine those at the pointy end know more about what "actually" happens in real life.

Than those spouting some imagined sea code, based on law
 
At the end of the day Greenpeace stupidly tried it on with Russia.

You can spout laws all you like, but it was a rather dumb thing to do in the current climate.
 
gumboot said:
If you review this thread you'll find that I think Russia was perfectly within their rights to arrest the two people who climbed on board the rig, and charge them with whatever appropriate Russian crime (trespass, criminal nuisance, interference with the operation of an oil rig, whatever...)

I'm talking about the other twenty eight people who never climbed on board the rig nor attempted to do so.
Click to expand...

Accomplices are not immune from being arrested and prosecuted in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Getaway drivers get charged and convicted of robbery and even murder even though they didn't actually steal anything or kill anyone. Probably the most famous case that I can think of is Charlie Manson who was originally sentenced to death for a murder that he was miles away from. He is still rotting in a prison over 40 years later for it.
 
gumboot said:
Evidently not.




I'm sorry, did you just call international law "imaginary"?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that was incorrect - I do not question your knowledge of maritime law as it is not a field I need to know (if it becomes such, I will). On the other hand, I do suspect the breech/honoring may apply. Often!!!
 
No matter what Greenpeace or anyone else does, exploratory drilling in the Arctic is going to go ahead, as will production. If ice continues to break up earlier, more shipping will follow high latitude routes too. This seems unavoidable.
The best course of action is to work through the legal systems of the nations involved and through international law (insofar as it exists) to establish high standards of drilling practice.

Let's face it, the northern passages are about to become economic reality. We have to adapt to the consequences.
 
"We have to adapt to the consequences."

thats gonna be very hard. the longer we ignore AGW the harder it gets.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Accomplices are not immune from being arrested and prosecuted in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Getaway drivers get charged and convicted of robbery and even murder even though they didn't actually steal anything or kill anyone. Probably the most famous case that I can think of is Charlie Manson who was originally sentenced to death for a murder that he was miles away from. He is still rotting in a prison over 40 years later for it.
Click to expand...

Your problem here is that the accomplices never entered Russian jurisdiction (the oil rig). It's akin to the US covertly snatching members of Al Qaeda all around the world and dragging them off to Guantanamo Bay. It's a gross violation of international law, and a gross violation of the sovereignty of the nation from which the person was taken.

From a legal perspective, the rig is Russian territory and the Greenpeace ship is Dutch territory.
 
cullennz said:
At the end of the day Greenpeace stupidly tried it on with Russia.

You can spout laws all you like, but it was a rather dumb thing to do in the current climate.
Click to expand...



All of this is true. None of this changes the fact that what Russia did was illegal.

Having studied plenty of history, I'm very familiar with what happens to small countries when big countries decide they can do whatever they want. As a citizen of a small country, I therefore have a keen interest in the international community holding big countries accountable for violations of the law.

So when big countries break the rules I'll speak out against them, and I encourage all citizens of small nations to do the same, as the alternative isn't worth thinking about.

I also spoke out against the US's illegal extradition of Al Qaeda suspects from all over the world. That doesn't mean I think Al Qaeda should have been allowed to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
 
gumboot said:
Your problem here is that the accomplices never entered Russian jurisdiction (the oil rig). It's akin to the US covertly snatching members of Al Qaeda all around the world and dragging them off to Guantanamo Bay. It's a gross violation of international law, and a gross violation of the sovereignty of the nation from which the person was taken.

From a legal perspective, the rig is Russian territory and the Greenpeace ship is Dutch territory.
Click to expand...

And providing transportation for the original offenders arguably makes them accomplices to their (as you yourself have agreed) illegal activities worthy of prosecution. This was at a minimum inside Russia's EEZ. I've read conflicting reports on whether or not the rig was actually inside territorial waters or not so I'll default to it being in the EEZ which has never been disputed.

They never left the EEZ after the incident (this has never been disputed as far as I can find online) and thus are no different than a getaway driver who gets caught and convicted. What you are missing is that who flags the ship doesn't matter when it is seized. That gets worked out later in maritime courts if it goes that far. A car registered in another country gets no protection if they are involved in a crime either. What is undisputed is that they brought the offenders to the rig and intended to bring them back on board when they had completed their "Mission".

I'm sorry to inform you that civilians, no matter their cause, are not immune from the consequences of their actions, even at sea.

Mess with solid economic assets in a nations EEZ at your own risk is the lesson to be taken away here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom