Sea Shepherds Get Tagged as "Pirates" - Remain Idiots at Sea

The up-to-now almost consequence free "international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization" Sea Shepherd International, better known on these pages as "Idiots at Sea" (see e.g, here), have a court decision identifying them as "pirates".

Which, in the great scheme of things, shouldn't be too surprising to the SSI, as it is a label they have long applied to themselves, see here, albeit as "pirates of compassion."

Did the 9th Circuit get it right? I think so. You can read about other views at Lawfare's Ninth Circuit Calls Sea Shepherd Actions “Piracy” and the links therein.

Oh, and "Captain" Watson - well, he is already on the run with two Interpol "Red Notices" against him (see Sea Shepherd leader arrested - attempted murder), as the SSI crowd seeks funding to find him a "safe haven":

There are two active Interpol Red Notices issued against Captain Watson at the request of Costa Rica and Japan. Underlying these notices are non-lethal acts in defense of marine life suffering from illegal shark fishing and whaling operations. The warrants are politically motivated.

You know, "attempted murder" is almost always "non-lethal" - otherwise the charge would be "murder."

Frankly, I have been surprised that the pursuit of this organization has not included charges of terrorism. Of course, that probably wouldn't go over well with some of the famous people who fund this piracy - since it could result in the seizure of their assets as supporters of terrorism (see here). Former Secretary of State Clinton suggested nabbing the assets of Somali pirates under some theory of law - one that could be applied to the assets of Sea Shepherds International, I suppose.

I wonder if SSI could be considered a "criminal enterprise?"

Even better is the possibility of civil law suits against SSI and its funders . . .

Paul Watson, Chief Idiot of the SSI, is unimpressed with the 9th Circuit ruling, as set out in 'Pirate' ruling irrelevant: Sea Shepherd:

SEA Shepherd founder Paul Watson has described a US judge's opinion that he is a "pirate" as one-sided and irrelevant.

Never heard the winner of a legal case complain like that.

The SSI press release on the ruling can be found here:

Clearly, this is a bad decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, but not unexpected,” said Scott West, Director of Intelligence and Investigations for Sea Shepherd U.S. “But it’s an opinion; everyone has one. We happen to agree with Judge Jones' very well articulated and reasoned opinion on the matter,” he stated.

“Beyond that, the vitriolic and grandstanding manner in which the Ninth Circuit rendered its opinion makes us seriously doubt their qualifications for making a just decision. This court is part of the problem, not the solution. Not only is there no room for such a biased and unprofessional legal opinion, they somehow have the audacity to throw a highly respected, honored judge — one of their own — under the bus in order to side with foreign interests. Is this a decision of an American court or have we somehow mistakenly landed in Japan?” West added.

Among other things, it brings up the "court of public opinion" always the last gasp of a loser. By the way, Scott West is an idiot - an appellate court opinion is not just like the opinion of the guy sitting on a bar stool next to you.

Publicity Seekers Get Stopped by Israeli Sea Blockade

Dignite/Al Karama off some shore somewhere

After only getting 10% of their 10 boat publicity "flotilla" (that's 1 boat) to sail toward Gaza, international publicity seekers were stunned to find out that Israel means it when it announces that it is continuing to enforce a sea blockade off Gaza as reported in Israeli navy surrounds Gaza-bound French yacht. Even better, the boat seems to be suffering some sort of communication blackout so that international publicity seeking whining cannot be heard or seen live:

Israeli warships on Tuesday surrounded a French yacht carrying pro-Palestinian activists as they neared the coast of Gaza in a bid to breach the Israeli blockade, an organiser told AFP.

Organisers said Israeli navy vessels had surrounded the Dignite/Al Karama in international waters, some 40 nautical miles off the Gaza shoreline, at around 0630 GMT and all communications were cut shortly afterwards.

News that Israel had stopped the ship was roundly denounced by Gaza's Hamas rulers, who decried it as "a new act of Zionist piracy."

"The boat is surrounded by at least three Israeli ships and since 9:06 am (0706 GMT) all the communications have been jammed. We can't get in touch with them by phone or by Internet," French organiser Julien Rivoire told AFP by phone from Paris.

In a separate statement, the organisers urged the French government "to take its responsibilities and to protect the passengers, and to call on Israel not resort to violence."

The Israeli military confirmed it had made contact with the boat, which is carrying 16 people, including three crew members and three journalists.

"The Israel navy is currently in a dialogue with the activists on board the Al Karama in an attempt to dissuade them from continuing on their route into an area under a maritime security blockade," a statement said.

"The Israel navy will allow the organisers and passengers to re-route at any point, prior to the boarding of Israel navy soldiers."

Activists on board the ship were told they will not be allowed to reach Gaza under any circumstances and advised to change course for the Egyptian port of El-Arish, an Israeli military source told AFP.

"They contacted the boat and said: 'We won't let you reach Gaza under any circumstances, but you can head for El-Arish if you want,'" he quoted the naval commandos as saying.

The international political effort and the other efforts (see also here) leading up to the sailing of this one boat and the non-sailing of the other 9 has been interesting to watch. For those of you unfamiliar with the "law" of blockade, read this from the San Remo Manual setting out the appropriate blockade rules for parties to an armed conflict:

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

So, the question you have to ask yourself is, "Are Israel and Hamas-governed Gaza in a state of armed conflict?"

The FreeGaza.org side of the sage of the sailing of Dignité :

It is in large part because the Dignité commenced its voyage from a French port and the French government refused to interfere with this civilian human rights initiative that the ship continues its mission. The Dignité and its passengers – from France, Canada, Greece, Sweden, and Tunisa – represent a flotilla that was delayed by acts of sabotage and by an egregious act of complicity by the Greek government with Israel’s human rights violations and policy towards Gaza that the International Committee of the Red Cross determined to be “collective punishment.” But they also represent the steadfastness and determination of the flotilla movement to sail until the blockade is broken. The idea that Freedom Flotilla II could be stopped misunderstands the nature of this non-violent movement and its strength of purpose.

Despite most of the ships being unable to leave Greek ports, the flotilla nonetheless managed to highlight the vicious nature of Israel’s policy towards Gaza. Israeli leaders showed their willingness to use intimidation, lies, economic blackmail, threats of violence, and sabotage to stop boats that Israeli military officials admitted would not be carrying weapons. This clearly demonstrates that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is not based on “security”, but is meant to punish the Palestinian people, denying their freedom and keeping them cut off from the rest of the world.

A blockade by definition is designed to "cut off" an armed adversary from the rest of the world, except as provided by the San Remo Manual.

It should also be noted that Egypt has opened its border to Gaza thus mooting much of the "cut off from the world" argument.

Israel's Blockade of Gaza and the Battle of Media Coverage

So, in another effort to gain media coverage both sympathetic to the population of Gaza and, of course, for themselves, members of Code Pink are apparently setting out on a mission with the intent to demand protection from the U.S. government (meaning the U.S. Navy) as they attempt to force the well-known Israeli sea blockade of Gaza.

Let's start with this - Code Pink stages pro-Gaza rally at State Dept. (highlighting and blue comments are mine):

The American ship Audacity of Hope, part of the Freedom Flotilla II, will depart from Greece with 50 passengers in late June headed for Gaza. In total, the flotilla will include roughly ten boats carrying 1,000 passengers, and will set sail on June 25. They are billing their voyage as a sequel to the Freedom Flotilla, which was intercepted by Israeli authorities on its way to Gaza last May in an incident that resulted in nine deaths.

Code Pink staged a small press conference on Thursday morning outside the State Department's C Street entrance that featured speeches by Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, who will be a passenger on the flotilla, former CIA analyst and passenger Ray McGovern , activist and flotilla passenger Missy Lane, Palestinian-American lawyer Noura Erekat, and Gazan activist Amer Shurrab.[Got to get those names spelled correctly - it's all about them]

This year's flotilla occurs in a drastically altered atmosphere as compared to last year's. The Israelis have eased restrictions on some goods and Egypt has opened up the Rafah Crossing. Regardless, the activists at the State Department stressed that the people of Gaza still live under harsh conditions and need international advocacy.[This trip is totally unnecessary but we still want the publicity]

Benjamin, naturally dressed all in pink, said she is hoping that the American presence aboard the flotilla will lessen the risk of a violent encounter with the Israel Defense Forces, and called on the State Department to express its support. [Oh Bulls***, Ms. Benjamin is really hoping for a media rich "confrontation" with the IDF - otherwise, why bother?]

"We, as Americans, who are going on the boat that is a U.S. flag ship, that is carrying U.S. passengers...this is the time for our State Department to come forward and say ‘we recognize our responsibility to U.S. citizens and we will put pressure on the Israeli government to make sure that no harm comes to our citizens,'" she said.[Last time I looked, the U.S. government has virtually no responsibility to do anything for citizens who are stupid enough to put themselves in harm's way intentionally or bail them out once they are deep into it. I'd be more impressed if the "flotilla" was sailing into Somali pirate waters to protest the treatment of women in Somalia. More impressed, but not any more inclined to suggest that the U.S. government do a damn thing about it.]

Just a reminder, it's my view that Israel has a perfectly legal right to blockade Gaza under the conditions that exist between the Gazans and Israel.

In support of my view, I offer some information on blockades from part of an earlier post:

There is that the magic word "blockade."

As you may recall, Israel has interdicted ships attempting to carry supplies into Gaza. As noted in an earlier post, this seems to be a legal blockade of Gaza. There is an interesting piece by a Israeli legal scholar Ruth Lapidoth, The Legal Basis of Israel's Naval Blockade of Gaza, which lays out the argument that the blockade of Gaza is perfectly legal under international law.The piece cites the San Remo Manual as setting out the appropriate rules for parties to an armed conflict:

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Professor Lapidoth finds that these rules applied to a blockade of Gaza.

Idiots at Sea: "Sea Shepherds" Continue to Act Dangerously -This Time in the Med

Endangering human lives while violating numerous laws, the Sea Shepherd idiots now attack fishermen off Libya, as set out here:

The Federation of Maltese Aquaculture Producers said it was shocked to hear about two Maltese seamen were injured in "a vicious and unprovoked attack by the Sea Shepherds".

"At around 15.00 today the Steve Irwin attacked an Italian tug boat (Cesare Rustico) towing cages belonging to fish & Fish Limited. The tug was sailing in company with the Maltese flagged Rosaria Tuna as a support vessel. The fish had been caught legally by a number of purse seiners operating according to ICCAT regulations, and subsequently purchased by the Maltese farming company. Contrary to what has been stated by the Sea Shepherds the vessel Tagreft was not present," the federation said.

"The Steve Irwin approached the convoy with the intention of freeing the fish in the cages despite it being clear that the fish was caught legally. Though it was also obvious that the crew of the vessels would have resisted such a move it was an unequal struggle. The Steve Irwin was initially constructed as an offshore patrol vessel for the United Kingdom with a displacement of nearly 900grt. It is equipped with a helicopter and instruments designed to overpower fishing boats. On the other hand the tug and the support vessel are small boats each having a displacement of around 150 grt."

The federation said it was not true that those on the Steve Irwin acted in self defence.

"On the contrary those on board assailed the two vessels specifically to tear the cage and ruin the catch. They used rubber bullets to subdue the crew. They threw bottles, acid, ammonia and other stuff at the crew. They didn’t care that their actions were exposing people to danger. They didn’t care that the fish were caught legally. They in fact think they are above the law and can do as they like. They are more than irresponsible. They are armed, dangerous and bent on causing harm to private property."

The federation said it expected the intervention of the Maltese authorities. "Nobody has the right to take the law in his hands. This is a fundamental precept of our way of life and it is certainly not going to be unlawful threats and activities by so-called environmental activists that is going to change it."

As usual, the SS has a different version, but since they lie so routinely, there is no point in quoting them here. Go to the link to see how they attempt justify their dangerous antics. Photos show SS vessel engaging in dangerous action against smaller fishing tug and a SS diver damaging a fishing net.

If those were my nets, I'd be shooting.

Yes, the photos are from the SS site. Nice of them to provide more proof of their reckless behavior.