gringorio - 2-25-2016 at 08:58 PM
Anyone else following Sea Shepherd's Operation Milagro?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s2j8EDklyU
fandango - 2-25-2016 at 09:10 PM
Yes, I've been following their operation.
I'm sending them a link to russ' recent photos. Maybe they can move south for a while.
Cisco - 2-25-2016 at 10:21 PM
June 9, 2015 7:19 PM
"Sea Shepherd Conservation Society agreed to pay $2.55 million to Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research on Monday as part of a settlement to resolve
a long-standing legal battle over the anti-whaling group’s tactics against Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic.
The settlement came the same day the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Sea Shepherd’s appeal of a federal court’s finding that the group was in
contempt of a court order to stay clear of Japanese whaling ships.
The activist group’s tactics at sea include throwing smoke bombs at Japanese whaling ships and using metal-reinforced ropes to damage propellers and
rudders. The question is whether those tactics—which typically take place in international waters—amount to piracy, and whether a U.S. court can order
those activities to be stopped if they take place outside its jurisdiction.
Sea Shepherd believes it can’t, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court upheld that it can. Now, thanks to the settlement, Sea
Shepherd will be giving millions of dollars to an organization it has tirelessly battled against in a fight to save the whales.
“Sea Shepherd believes that it complied with the Ninth Circuit injunction and does not agree with the holding that it was in contempt,” said Claire
Loebs Davis, Sea Shepherd’s legal counsel. “This settlement resolves the issue of damages resulting from those contempt findings and allows us to put
this issue that we have been litigating for more than two years finally behind us.”
The settlement stems from an ICR lawsuit filed in 2011 against Sea Shepherd and its founder, Paul Watson. The court originally denied the ICR’s motion
for an injunction against Sea Shepherd. But in December 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, which meant Sea Shepherd and Watson had to stay
at least 500 yards from Japanese whaling ships in the Southern Ocean.
The court also determined that Sea Shepherd’s actions amounted to piracy under international law. That charge has been disputed by some legal experts,
because the group’s actions did not involve the pursuit of monetary gain.
Sea Shepherd’s U.S. operation has maintained that it was not in contempt because it halted all of its involvement in the Southern Ocean after the
injunction, but the group did transfer ownership of one of its boats to Sea Shepherd Netherlands. Because that boat was later used in the
organization’s Southern Ocean campaign, the court ruled Sea Shepherd was indeed in contempt of the injunction."
http://news.yahoo.com/sea-shepherd-pays-millions-damages-jap...