Sea Shepherd crew need to make a couple of papier mache panzerfausts and stand on deck with them....(Sorry HMIE just spent the week visiting and I am hysterical)
The "containers of acid" thing is overstating a bit, they used to use butyric acid as a contaminant, which is a relatively mild substance, but you'd think they were flinging hydrochloric or something. It's an irritant and can burn in high concentrations if left on skin but you've got more dangerous stuff in your bathroom. (this didn't stop japanese authorities from reporting that a crewmember had been badly burned, but they could never actually produce any evidence of it)
Sea Shepherd say they've stopped using it as they were fed up of the lazy reporting. Mind you, they always insisted it was harmless and just "rotten butter" which also isn't really true.
According to the US Appeal Court, Sea Shepherd are.
There has to be financial reward for it to fall within the definition of piracy. The US Appeal Court might well have used emotive language and made facetious comments about peg legs and eye patches, but they failed to provide evidence of a financial reward motive by the Sea Shepherd.
I wouldn't get too hung up by what a handful of American judges appointed by the likes of George Bush have to say.
Piracy does not require financial reward according to the US Dept of Defence...
[i]An illegal act of violence, depredation (e.g., plundering, robbing, or pillaging), or detention in or over international waters committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft.[/i]
[i][b]Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.[/b][/i]
I guess all they had to prove was that there was violence, that it was in international waters, that it was done for private ends (protest) and that it was private ship against ship.
Having said that, it will have zero effect, as Sea Shepherd US have immediately severed links from Sea Shepherd Aus so the US ruling has no effect on the Aus operation. (unless there is a funding issue caused by the split)
Well it's interesting to see that the US military have redefined piracy, although I'm not really anymore impressed than their redefinition of illegal kidnappings as 'extraordinary rendition'. I reckon it's probably more practical to rely on definitions provided by English dictionaries, rather than the US Department of Defense, otherwise terms such as 'video piracy' would become meaningless.
EDIT : On rereading the US military definition, I'm not entirely convinced that it's much different to what I offered ie, could the qualifying "for private ends" not be construed as suggesting economic gain ?
I suppose they'd argue it's not done for private ends (well, tbh they'll argue whatever they think might work, then change their story tomorrow 😉 )
When you ram ships; hurl 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.
Well, with the exception of rotten butter, which contains butyric acid in the same way as orange juice contains citric acid, apples contain ascorbic acid, and vinegar contains acetic acid, he's just described the actions of the Japanese whaling fleet.
It also matters not one jot, as the southern ocean is well out of the jurisdiction of any American court.
I suggest people read the decision (which is a bit ropey in parts - reliance on a dodgy oneoff Belgian decision and a seriously questionable example of an adverb), which answers half of the points raised above:
It appears that they would rather I didn't:
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<Error>
AccessDenied
<Message>Access Denied</Message>
<RequestId>70664F8326F6819B</RequestId>
<HostId>
Xf4w+JETVjMLkApMR/RYPagb6ncVnwxGWzN46l/kzF40E0aSG830fpCSsciwtA05
</HostId>
</Error>
It also matters not one jot, as the southern ocean is well out of the jurisdiction of any American court.
Not sure that this will bother our colonial cousins should they have the mind to interfere, they do seem to be high sheriff of everywhere.
