Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenpeace rejects latest ramming claims (Good video clips of GP hitting Japanese ship)
The Daily Telegraph ^ | Jan 12, 2006

Posted on 01/11/2006 6:44:28 PM PST by proud_yank

GREENPEACE has rejected fresh claims from Japan that activists harassing a whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean were responsible for a collision between two ships.

Video released by The Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research

Video released by Greenpeace Oddly enough, this link wouldn't open

The Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was involved in the collision with the Japanese whale processing ship Nisshin Maru on Sunday, putting a 1.5-metre dent in the Sunrise's bow and bending its forward mast.

Japan has released a video in a bid to prove Greenpeace targeted its ship.

The Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research said the video showed the 1,000 tonne Arctic Sunrise moving steadily forward before hitting the 8,000 tonne Nisshin Maru, whose movement was impeded by another whaling vessel nearby.

But Greenpeace maintains the larger ship was at fault.

"They've certainly got balls of steel, those guys," Greenpeace expedition leader Shane Rattenbury said from the group's second vessel, Esperanza.

"Having been on the bridge of the Arctic Sunrise at the time of the incident, I know there was no way we were responsible.

"Even the photo Japan put out the other day, if you look closely there's a wake in front of our ship because we were actually in reverse at the time."

Greenpeace's Australian chief executive Steve Shallhorn said an investigation would prove Japan was at fault.

"According to international maritime law, the starboard vessel, the Arctic Sunrise had the right of way," he said.

"We fully expect official investigation to concur with the Greenpeace version of the event."

The crew of the Arctic Sunrise plan to repair the vessel when it eventually docks in Fremantle or South Africa, and Greenpeace is considering a damages claim against Japan.

Also this week, Greenpeace ships – currently operating about 4,000km south west of Perth – received a rare radio transmission from the Japanese whaling fleet.

But the message, translated by Greenpeace interpreters, was hardly an olive branch.

"All the responsibility for any accidents that originate in dangerous obstructive actions lie with you," said Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, the head of Japan's scientific whaling program who is on board the Nisshin Maru.

"We strongly demand that Greenpeace cease your obstruction of our legitimate survey and leave the survey area immediately."

Arctic Sunrise captain Arne Sorensen accused the Nisshin Maru of deliberately damaging his ship and delivered a blunt reply.

"You are a disgrace to the Kyodo Senpaku fleet. You have discredited the Institute of Cetacean Research. You have dishonoured yourselves," he said.

Mr Rattenbury said it was the first time the whaling fleet had radioed Greenpeace during the current confrontation, and only the second time ever.

Japan plans to catch 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales this southern summer for what it insists is scientific research.

Conservationists maintain it is a commercial operation.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Japan
KEYWORDS: arctic; envirowackos; greenpeace; ratviolence; whaling
More video footage, from another angle Some footage of their inflatables as well in this clip.

More links and info Here

Greenpeace's side of the incident, with video clip Oddly enough, their video footage doesn't reveal a whole lot. Hmm...Imagine that. Also, if you look closely, you see no wake off the Japanese research ship.
1 posted on 01/11/2006 6:44:33 PM PST by proud_yank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: proud_yank




8 January 2006.- Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists throwing ropes and hooks near the Nisshin-Maru’s propeller to sabotage it. One rope and a buoy are already in the water.
2 posted on 01/11/2006 6:46:49 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode for some reason.


3 posted on 01/11/2006 6:48:45 PM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
8 January 2006.- Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists throwing ropes and hooks near the Nisshin-Maru’s propeller to sabotage it.

Uhmmm....I don't know much about maritime law, but can't you do something to stop another vessel from sabotaging your ship? Like, ohhhhhhhhh...shoot at the marauding ship?

4 posted on 01/11/2006 6:51:29 PM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Enviro terror by any other name...


5 posted on 01/11/2006 6:53:20 PM PST by xcamel (Exposing clandestine operations is treason. 13 knots make a noose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

I'm no expert on maritime right of way issues, but I think generally a ship that seeks out another ship with the intent to immobilize or damage it would generally be considered the responsible party in an ensuing collision.


6 posted on 01/11/2006 6:54:58 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

We thought they were pirates so we sank them. Oh, it was Greenpeace? No can read Engrish. Solly! More like Greenwar, no?


7 posted on 01/11/2006 6:55:23 PM PST by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Enviro terror by any other name...

Naww...They're just reeeaaaallly committed to their worthy cause!
8 posted on 01/11/2006 6:55:43 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

It would be funny if the hooks got wrapped around the props and it yanked the inflatable underwater.


9 posted on 01/11/2006 6:56:24 PM PST by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: randog
Uhmmm....I don't know much about maritime law, but can't you do something to stop another vessel from sabotaging your ship? Like, ohhhhhhhhh...shoot at the marauding ship?

Shoulder fire missiles anyone? Hell, that close you outta be able to lob a flaming 55-gal drum of fuel onto the decks of the GP Fagship.
10 posted on 01/11/2006 6:57:50 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

They need to sink their ships and leave the envirowhackos for the sharks.


11 posted on 01/11/2006 6:59:11 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
We thought they were pirates so we sank them. Oh, it was Greenpeace? No can read Engrish. Solly! More like Greenwar, no?

It would be funny if the hooks got wrapped around the props and it yanked the inflatable underwater.


ROFLMAO and PIMP!!! You're on a roll tonight RWA!
12 posted on 01/11/2006 6:59:53 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: randog
Uhmmm....I don't know much about maritime law, but can't you do something to stop another vessel from sabotaging your ship? Like, ohhhhhhhhh...shoot at the marauding ship?

I would think trying to disable a ship would be considered piracy. Wouldn't the Japanese be within their rights to break out the harpoon gun, assuming they didn't have anything better on board.

13 posted on 01/11/2006 7:00:22 PM PST by magslinger (At the end of the day the only truly educated people are autodidacts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: girlangler

PING!


14 posted on 01/11/2006 7:01:08 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Piracy!


15 posted on 01/11/2006 7:03:23 PM PST by SmithL (Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Lift up your gates and sing, Hosana in the highest! Hosana to your King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

I don't know much about ships but that Greenpeace boat looks just like the one from King Kong.


16 posted on 01/11/2006 7:06:09 PM PST by keat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault; dead; randog; 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
I'm no expert on maritime right of way issues, but I think generally a ship that seeks out another ship with the intent to immobilize or damage it would generally be considered the responsible party in an ensuing collision.

68-69TGYC, can you offer any insight as to the rules of defending your ship in an instance like this? What are the international waterway laws with something like this?
17 posted on 01/11/2006 7:06:53 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Gee, wonder what would happen if they dropped the anchor on the reasearch boat into that inflatable boat??????


18 posted on 01/11/2006 7:10:11 PM PST by Arrowhead1952 (I never got a job from a person on a government program.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

One Mk-48 ADCAP; no more problem.


19 posted on 01/11/2006 7:12:35 PM PST by WardMClark (Semi-Notorious Political Gadfly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
Image hosted by Photobucket.com sena ALL their sorry arses to DavyJonesLocker!!
20 posted on 01/11/2006 7:16:49 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank; Right Wing Assault; dead; randog

I'm by any means an "expert" on international law,
BUTit appears that the Greenpeace vessel was,
without a doubt, in the wrong.

I hope the Skipper of the Greenpeace vessel is prosecuted.


21 posted on 01/11/2006 7:17:46 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Have you said Thank You to a Service Man or Woman today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Its a big Ocean out there. Two ships who dont want to hit each other would allow a great deal of room to the other ship. Now we all know the Japanese ship didnt want to get close to Greenpeace. There is no way the Japanese skipper saw the Greenpeace ship and went over to it. Greenpeace is at fault just for placing itself close enough to get hit.



22 posted on 01/11/2006 7:25:51 PM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
8 January 2006.- Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists throwing ropes and hooks near the Nisshin-Maru’s propeller to sabotage it. One rope and a buoy are already in the water.

To me that act constitutes piracy on the high seas. And while I'm no maritime lawyer I suspect that the whalers would have been well within their rights to scuttle the dingy and its occupants.
23 posted on 01/11/2006 7:37:15 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: festus

I am really surprised that they wouldn't have taken more action than they did. Those dinghies were swarming around like mosquitos. Be a shame if something happened to fall off the ship onto them.


24 posted on 01/11/2006 7:54:59 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
I don't know about maritime law, but it's very clear from this video that the Greenpeace ship revved its engines and went forward toward the whaler. Watch the wake at its bow.
25 posted on 01/11/2006 8:00:39 PM PST by jennyp (PILTDOWN MAN IS REAL! Don't buy the evolutionist's Big Lie that Piltdown was a hoax!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists

Is it Greenpeace or the Sea Shepherds? The last I heard, Greenpeace had divested itself of any relationship with the Sea Shepherds because the latter was "too violent".

The Sea Shepherds leader Paul Watson (brief bio-Paul Watson co-founded Green Peace in 1972, leaving the organization 1977 because he felt its original goals were compromised. That same year he started Sea Shepherds to continue direct action tactics to defend marine wildlife. He is professor of Ecology at Pasadena College of Design and also teaches ecology at UCLA. He is author of Sea Shepherd: My Fight for Whales and Seals and Ocean Warrior.

"http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/WATP001.shtml"

26 posted on 01/11/2006 8:08:17 PM PST by Sarajevo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

How do these clowns get a ship?

I hate to say it but the French were right. Send a couple a "fish" their way.


27 posted on 01/11/2006 8:11:47 PM PST by Freedom_Fighter_2001 (When money is no object - it's your money they're talking about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

Bring the guns up to the deck.

Load with grapeshot.


28 posted on 01/11/2006 8:46:03 PM PST by Noumenon (Liberal activist judges - out of touch, out of tune, but not out of reach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

I hate greenpeace as much as anyone, but if you look at the clouds as a guide to detect the movement, it is obvious that the front of the whaler is moving laterally to the left, effectively running into the bow of the greenpeace ship. Anyone notice?


29 posted on 01/11/2006 9:16:41 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch ("Toleration" has never been affiliated with the virtuous. Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog

Actually, I think you can just treat these Greenpeace folks the same way you'd treat any other pirate or sea harrier.


30 posted on 01/11/2006 9:45:05 PM PST by A Balrog of Morgoth (With fire, sword, and stinging whip I drive the RINOs in terror before me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dead
Intentional ramming isn't specifically mentioned in the Navigation Rules, but there is no such thing as absolute right of way. From Navigation Rules, Rule 17, Action by Stand-on Vessel, paragraph (b): "When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall [my emphisis] take such action as will best avoid collision." In other words, even if the greenpeace vessel initially had the right of way, they are required to manuever if that is the only way to avoid collision. Right of way does not allow one to continue on until collision and then say it was the other vessel's fault.
31 posted on 01/11/2006 10:45:20 PM PST by GATOR NAVY (Back at sea on my sixth gator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch

I wondered that too, and it is tough to make out. But the GP ship had plenty of room to get out of the way (by turning the other direction), and the wake off his bow shows that he was moving toward the Japanese ship. If they didn't want a collision, why wouldn't they have turned the other direction?


32 posted on 01/12/2006 9:39:07 AM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank
Taken from a Maritime Law Buddy of mine after I gave him this link
this is very interesting. those greenpeace bastards just can't stop stirring up trouble. the captain of the greenpeace vessel is correct in saying the starboard vessel has the right of way. BUT, there is also a law that says the vessel with less maneuverability has the right of way. in this case, the whaling ship was much bigger, and also had another large vessel immediately to port, leaving no place for it to go. that's like me coming up on the right side of a containership with my 23 foot boat and hitting it and then saying the 800 foot containership should have yielded to me. also, in the article the greenpeace dude says there was a wake in front of their ship because they were in reverse. the japanese video proves that that is bull%^&*, and anyone that knows anything about boats will be able to tell. he was intentionally moving forward the whole time, as evidenced by the bow pressure wave in front of the greenpeace vessel. the greenpeace captain even admitted he "maintained his course and speed." lastly, anyone in this kind of situation is to do everything possible to avoid a collision. the greenpeace vessel clearly knew there was danger of a collision and just kept going. they could have turned right and at least rubbed rails as opposed to t-boning the other vessel. to me it seems clear that the greenpeace duchebags thought they had one little law on their side, and were going to make a stand and show those damn japanese whalers a thing or two by hitting their ship and then telling the whole world how nasty and ugly the whalers really are...
33 posted on 01/12/2006 12:09:58 PM PST by fhlh (Polls are for strippers and liberal spinsters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhlh
the greenpeace duchebags thought they had one little law on their side, and were going to make a stand and show those damn japanese whalers a thing or two by hitting their ship and then telling the whole world how nasty and ugly the whalers really are...

LOL, however a liberal judge will 'resolve' that issue pretty quick I'd imagine.

Thanks to your buddy for the info!
34 posted on 01/12/2006 12:28:15 PM PST by proud_yank (Aspiring CEO of a multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, at Article 101, contains a definitions of piracy, as follows:

Article 101
Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).


35 posted on 01/12/2006 12:39:13 PM PST by surely_you_jest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson