ddpalmer what if you were a whale would you be working for the IWC.

Kenya shoots poachers because their laws allow such actions.

The Japanese are whaling in international waters under a legal permit issued under an international treaty. The Japanese are breaking no law.

For those who like to desperately read into things:

“Sea Shepherd Does Not Condone the Use of Firearms

Reports that Sea Shepherd supports shooting Japanese whale poachers are inaccurate.

“The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never used firearms and has no intention of using firearms against illegal whalers,” said Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd president and founder. “We are proud of our record of never causing an injury to any person in our entire history. We may be aggressive, obstructive, and we may damage harpoons, nets, and longlines used by poachers, but we have never, and will never, injure a human being.”

The reports originated from statements made by Mr. Ady Gil, who said that elephant poachers are shot in East Africa for illegally killing elephants and speculated that whale poachers deserved to be shot also.

Mr. Gil is a supporter of Sea Shepherd, and as an individual, he is free to express any viewpoint he so wishes. However, Mr. Gil does not speak for Sea Shepherd or serve as a representative or spokesperson in any official capacity. Therefore, any opinions expressed by Mr. Gil are his own personal opinions and not the opinions of Sea Shepherd.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an anti-poaching organization specializing in opposition to illegal activities that exploit marine wildlife species. The organization has a policy of nonviolence and working within the boundaries of international conservation law. In its 33-year history, Sea Shepherd has never inflicted any injuries to any person nor has any Sea Shepherd activist ever been convicted of a felony crime.”

>>”And including this past summer, August of 2009, the F-B-I invited Paul Watson, as the guest of the Department, to conduct seminar classes to teach U.S. Federal Agents including officials and recruits at the F-B-I Academy in Quantico.
Look it up.”

Hmm…

I can only find this statement from Paul Watson

“If we have engaged in a single act of terrorism then we should be charged with a crime. The fact is that we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted. I was invited to give a lecture at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico,”

The first part is clearly false. Paul Watson has been convicted and sentenced to prison in Norway.

We know from Canadian court records that he has a criminal record

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii18935/1999canlii18935.html
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal
R. v. Watson
Date: 1999-11-17
Gushue, J.A.

“(1) The appellant already had a criminal record;”

But is the second part false as well? I don’t see any independent corroboration of this claim. I recall a movie where a criminal (Frank Abagnale Jr) later worked with the FBI. Is this something similar? Or did this ‘lecture’ take place in a bar in Quantico? The only reference I can find with this comes from Watson, and we all know how reliable his statements are.

Somebody help me out. Did some misguided FBI trainer really invite Watson over? Or is he blowing hot air?

Re-posting here to insure that all will see:

ddpalmer asked: “Care to give an example of me redefining a word?”

Certainty, since there are many, but let’s start with your usage of the word “terrorist”. This word is commonly misused by the pro japanese poacher supporters. Frankly, I find their use of the word “terrorist” to describe the SSCS so “DRAMA QUEEN”.

When a word is misused like that, it’s very unfortunate since it greatly diminishes the value or strength of the word. When people use words that are clearly an exaggeration in reference to what they are describing, it merely demonstrates a desperate overtone to their argument and reveals that their rants lacks proof to back up their point. If you’ve watched Jerry Springer, you know what I’m talking about.

Now, if you were to consider all of the actions committed by the “japanese whale poachers” and the “Sea Shepherd”, the only group that committed an act of violence, that stands out and appropriately deserves the “terrorist” label,…And the winner is…the “japanese whale poachers”…for their deliberate act of colliding and sinking the Ady Gil vessel. This was indeed a violent act.

So my point is simply this; If the word “terrorist” continues to be used to describe a group of people that are merely non-lethally trying to prevent another groups actions, soon anyone who eggs and/or tee-pees a home, or a sports fan who throws a bottle or a can onto a playing field, will be considered a terrorist…and when that happens…we will have to come up with a better word to describe Al-Qaeda.

Another thing I would like to point out; Where there’s a comedian, there is laughter, where there’s a teacher, there is learning…and where there are terrorists, there is terror. Please show me one example of a japanese whale poacher who has expressed or has shown signs of being terrorized by the Sea Shepherd’s actions. I’m sure you could find many that have been annoyed or frustrated, but terrorized, I don’t think so.

I look forward to your rebuttal of rationalizations…

JAPANESE WHALERS NOW RULED IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Pro-whaler extremist “agni” wrote: “Nobody can state the treaty or principle of customary international law that makes it illegal”=FALSE. This is a false statement by the extremist killer sympathiser identified as “agni”.

The violations of international law are well-known, and have been published, again and again, and stand. What “agni” has done here is simply make a post, and then before allowing any time for responses, declared himself victor. Sorry, but violations of international law by Japanese Whalers do not go away simply because you post something and then a short time later without allowing time for respondants, go and self-declare yourself victor, or simply take examples of the violations and self-deny them using contrived excuses. Especially, when these items are already published and well-known.

NOW, to debunk your latest, and destroy yet another of your attempts, rendering yet another of your so-called “arguments” defunct and unusable…

1. CITES is INTERNATIONAL LAW.
At this point you can no longer regurgitate any concocted excuse claiming federal or non-international jurisdiction. You are now forced to admit we are dealing with international law and any of your excuses regarding this are now rendered unusable.

2. CITES is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

3. CITES sets the rules regarding illegal destruction of, and sales of, illegal endangered species.

4. Japan is a signatory to the CITES Treaty. This means they are bound by it.
At this point, you can NO longer concoct any excuse that the Japanese Whalers can slip out of this. Japan signed it. This means they are contractually clamped to obeyance of the treaty. You now have no loop hole, excuse, objection, claim of non-jurisdiction, or false claim of exemption. Japan itself is now bound by this. By signing it on the dotted line, this overrules, and supercedes any other items. Including the ICRW, international waters, disputed territories, etc. All of those excuses are now rendered VOID.

5. The CITES Treaty sets forth a list of species that are protected, and any violation of this is a violation of INTERNATIONAL LAW. In *ADDITION* to the IUCN RedList, the CITES treaty contains within its body the declarative that ANYTHING listed as a “Protection Stock” by the IWC is also covered by the CITES treaty.
Note at this point you CANNOT attempt the use of non-listing on the IUCN RedList. So before you try it, sit back down. Because that element has already been defeated. One more time, IN ADDITION to the IUCN Redlist, the CITES treaty states that ANY species listed by the IWC is ALSO considered protected under international law. If you attempt the false RedList ploy you are already defeated.

6. The CITES Treaty states, that ANY species listed as a “Protection Stock” by the IWC in Table 1 Paragraph 10(c) is declared protected. Paragraph 10(c) provides the definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Observing said Tables of the Schedule document, Table 1 clearly lists the whales in contention, including minke, fin and humpback whales. And it states that all of them are Protection Stock. Keep in mind, that it does NOT declare anything about the location. It is known that whales migrate. Globally. Thus, this is NOT included in the language of CITES. Note that even Japan officially considers even the minke whale to be threatened. And Japan’s signature on the Treaty binds them to this. It does not matter where they are, if they are listed in the Table as a “Protection Stock” they are protected under the LAW!

7. The Japanese are killing species that are listed as Protection Stocks, and therefore they are in violation of Internationl Law!

Now, please mail your $1000 donation to The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, WASHINGTON, USA. Put it in your own name so that everyone can see your voluntary and willing support of SSCS.

In addition, this will be required as proof of you committing to your word, otherwise you will be yet again revealed as farce who has reneged and without such you will be exposed in your failure to keep your word.

(Note, not that anyone even expects you too. The expected result is that you will, as usual, attempt to concoct more debunked excuses, or “loop holes” in order to worm yourself out of it.)

-

Also note, Japan has expressly, in writing, also targeted endangered FIN whales (against the CITES Treaty, International Law), and humpback whales (also a protected stock, a violation of the CITES Treaty, International Law) and also received official CONDEMNATION of this via their JARPA II plan by the IWC, and including the IWC’s scientific committee.

In addition to this, investigations have confirmed that endangered species meat has been found ON SALE for ingestion within Japan.

Investigators from the EIA investigation agency conducted undercover operations wherein samples of “whale meat” were purchased from markets all across Japan. The samples were then scientifically analyzed using DNA analysis.

The results of the DNA analysis not only showed that the DNA in the meat samples being sold by Japanese whalers and their sales outlets contained endangered and/or threatened whale species, it ALSO revealed highly endangered
BLUE WHALE meat! Blue Whale meat has been declared illegal since the 1960′s! What this means, is that any and all claims of meat samples coming from previously harvested (pre-cites, pre-moratorium) sources are now declared False! It means that the meat cannot have been “frozen” and then thawed out, this would mean that they are claiming to have kept a Blue Whale in a warehouse since the last century, and selling meat to Japanese people unfit for human consumption that has been sitting around over 49 years! Since the actual refrigeration units and even said refrigeration technology were not even available at that time in the previous century, this means the Japanese Whalers have killed, disseminated, and poached illegal blue whale meat recently. And they are now caught, as the DNA analysis has now identified the species, even down to the specific whale line, and has caught the Japanese Whalers in yet more extreme violations of international law.

Again:

LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL

THE JAPANESE WHALERS HAVE BEEN RULED IN BREACH OF INT’L LAW.

The unlawful breaches of other nation states’ sovereign territory has already been confirmed. The Japanese Whalers admitted it themselves, as did the Institute for Cetacean Research. This was all stated before, so User “Mick” doesn’t read/understand very well.

In addition, the breaches have been recorded and documented by the New Zealand AIRFORCE.

And the whalers are also caught on video and photographic plates by the Oceanic Viking, a security ship belonging to the NAVY that was deployed to shadow the Japanese Whaling Fleet.

And in addition the transgressions of the Japanese Whaling Fleet have been documented by the United States Coast Guard cutter “Polar Sea”. And all of it has confirmed and corroborated via GPS.

So, the user Mick, by supporting a tiny sect of extremist killers engaged in the Japanese Whaling fleet, over the New Zealand Airforce, means that “MICK” is now cheering a foreign faction of killers and AGAINST the people of New Zealand and the AirForce.

Statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand: “One would hope that the fact that this season has been so ghastly for the Japanese whaling fleet might give cause for some reflection on whether they ever come back here again.” -PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND

Mick has also now set himself against the military of the United States of America. In addition, recall that the U.S. State Department is AGAINST the Japanese Whaling Fleet, so by cheering a tiny sect of whalers over the United States, Mick has now positioned himself as an ANTI-AMERICAN.

PRESS RELEASE:
“United States State Department Forcibly Opposes Japanese Whaling”

-Richard Boucher
Spokesperson
Undersecretary for Public Affairs
WASHINGTON D.C.
UNITED STATES DEPT of STATE

Mick is also siding against the allied NAVY, and instead cheering a small sect of illicit slaughterers who attempt to get you to believe the tenuous and dubious position that their act of killing whales and selling its tainted whale meat for the intent of ingestion by human children in exchange for money equals “scientific research”.

Mick would rather believe and tout a tiny group of known whale poaching falsifiers than affirm the breaches documented by the official militaries of 3 allied nations. This sets Mick as an ANTI-AUSTRALIAN as well as a supporter of extremist fanatic killers.

CABINET MINISTER Stephen Smith:
“We sent the Oceanic Viking down there last season to get video and photographic evidence which will be available to us to use in an International Court..We’ve made the strongest representations over the last 12 months from Prime Ministerial level down.” – Statement of Foreign Cabinet Minister STEPHEN SMITH in Tokyo with Joel Fitzgibbon, the Defence Minister, at the meeting of international Foreign and Defence Ministers.

Note: the Oceanic Viking is a security research vessel dispatched by the NAVY, which surveilled and took photographic and video evidence of the actions of the Japanese Whaling vessels, and gathered evidence against the Japanese Fleet for use against the Whalers in the International Court of Justice.

Mick is also an ANTI-JAPANESE extremist.

Recall that whale meat is laced with Methyl Mercuric toxin. It also contains chemicals of the DIOXIN group, and heavy metals such as cadmium. This comes from Japanese Researchers themselves, in Japan, and has also been affirmed by Japan’s Ministry of Health. These items, when ingested, cause organ damage, and ingestion of whale meat causes human families to give birth to children with birth defects.

The Japanese Whalers are obtaining whale meat, which contains Methyl Mercury and have intentionally pushed it to be served for human ingestion into Japan’s childrens’ school lunch program.

96% of Japan’s people DO NOT EAT or HAVE NEVER EATEN whale meat. So supporting whalers is NOT supporting Japan (the nation), nor is supporting whalers supporting Japan’s people, or children. A Pro-Whaler is only “FOR” merely the tiny little group of highly nationalist whale killers. Any and all pro-whalers are actually AGAINST the majority of the 128 million good people of Japan, and simply cheer a pack of killers whose actions have actually lead to the HUMAN DEATH of Japanese citizens.

Any individual siding WITH the whalers is advocating the mass-human-poisoning of hundreds and thousands of Japanese children.

The pro-whaling individual “Mick” is against the U.S., against the AIRFORCE, against the NAVY, against NZ, ANTI-JAPANESE, and a supporter of acts leading to the mass-poisoning of thousands of human children.

http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml#VII

“2. Any State may, on depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, enter a specific reservation with regard to:
(a) any species included in Appendix I, II or III; or
(b) any parts or derivatives specified in relation to a species included in Appendix III.
3. Until a Party withdraws its reservation entered under the provisions of this Article, it shall be treated as a State not a Party to the present Convention with respect to trade in the particular species or parts or derivatives specified in such reservation. ”

http://www.cites.org/eng/app/reserve_index.shtml
Reservations entered by Parties in effect from 13 September 2000

So whaling is not illegal under CITES.
Try again.
Think how much that $1000 will benefit the SSCS.

http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/International-legal-experts-urge?id_mot=10

An international panel of independent legal experts convened in London has issued a detailed report challenging the legal status of Japan’s whaling operations, particularly the taking of endangered sei and humpback whales.
The expert panel also recommends actions to be taken against the government of Japan for its violations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Today’s report, dubbed the London Report on Illegal Whaling, comes as the government of Japan prepares to launch its whaling fleet into international waters later this week. Its dramatic findings add to a growing body of legal opinion sharply critical of Japan’s relentlessly expanding whaling operations. Since an international ban on commercial whaling was first imposed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986, Japan has argued its ongoing whaling is conducted for “scientific” purposes.

The London Report finds Japan’s current and proposed takings of humpback and sei whales as well as other whale species “are for primarily commercial purposes” and “plainly constitute international trade”. Japan has previously announced it intends to kill more than 1,400 whales within the next year including 50 sei whales and 50 humpback whales, a species protected from commercial hunting for more than 40 years.

http://www.stopwhaling.org/atf/cf/%7BC7E2199F-3FE3-487F-90AC-8FF4FBB61804%7D/UNLAWFULJAPANESESCIENTIFICWHALING.PDF

In an effort to resolve the debate, an international panel of independent legal experts came together in 2006 to examine the issue as it relates to international law.

The panel found that Japanese scientific whaling is in fact “unlawful” under international law, and contravenes key international conventions – a dramatic finding that opposes Japan’s long-held stance that it has the legal right to commercially hunt whales in the name of scientific research.

In its final report, delivered in Paris on May 12, 2006, the panel concluded that:

1. “Scientific whaling” does not meet the requirements of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and does not therefore fall within the exemption laid down in its article VIII.

2. There is strong evidence that “scientific whaling” is in violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling laid down in paragraph 10(e) of the schedule.

3. Such whaling constitutes an abuse of rights afforded by article VIII of the ICRW.

4. “Scientific whaling” raises serious questions of compliance with articles 64, 65, 87, 116, 117,119, 120, 240, 241 and 251 of the U. N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and/or may constitute an abuse of rights contrary to article 300 of that Convention.

5. “Scientific whaling” raises serious questions of compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna,and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

6. “Scientific whaling” as conducted in particular by the government of Japan, is not consistent with the requirements of paragraph 30 of the schedule to the ICRW, nor with requirements of article VIII of the convention.

7. The following aspects provide strong evidence that such whaling by Japan is unlawful:

• The recent adoption of its JARPA II program has not allowed the IWC Scientific Committee time to review and comment on the results of the earlier JARPA program, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 30 of the ICRW schedule;

• As noted by a number of scientists participating in the work of the IWC Scientific Committee and others, the government of Japan is conducting “scientific whaling” on an increasingly commercial scale and for apparently economic and commercial purposes.

Such whaling contravenes the prohibition on commercial whaling agreed by the parties at paragraph 10(e) of the schedule to the convention;

• The government of Japan has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the IWC Scientific Committee that its special permit whaling:

• Has been authorized in special circumstances;

• Meets critically important research needs;

• Fulfils criteria set out in the guidelines for review of special permits established by that committee in relation to objectives, methodology and the effects of catches on stocks;

• Takes adequate account of the development of alternative non-lethal research techniques;

• Does not jeopardize the conservation of whales in sanctuaries, including those classified internationally as endangered and vulnerable.

8. The government of Japan has failed to cooperate with the IWC by consistently refusing to withdraw or restructure its “scientific whaling” programs as requested by the Commission on numerous occasions, most recently by resolution 2005-1.

9. A resolution adopted by the majority of the IWC that purported to determine that such “scientific whaling” is lawful, would not be capable of altering the legal obligations arising under the ICRW in relation to the prohibition on commercial whaling and the conditions under which scientific whaling may be conducted, nor would such a resolution be capable of altering the scope of legal obligations arising under other relevant international acts or instruments, and would therefore be
without legal effect in altering the rights and obligations of the parties to the ICRW;

10. Any party who considers that another party has breached its obligations under the ICRW would be entitled to bring claim of state responsibility under the conditions laid down in Article 48 of the
(2001) International Law Commission´s draft on state responsibility.

We just await the Government with the balls to take legal action against Japan.