Anonsequitur comments

AP, My understanding is that the whaling fleet had refueled without interference from SSCS, north of 60 degrees as they promised.

Will the underwriters for the Japanese whaling fleet approve of them using the ships to apparently ram SSCS ships as a means of conflict resolution? I know my vehicle insurer would never approve, my coverage could be revoked, and/or premiums raised substantially if I was shown to have used my vehicle to ram another that was "blocking" my attempt to fill at a petrol station. I could be prosecuted for assault for driving in such a reckless manner as to endanger lives and property.

It seems the responsible reaction to perceived illegal refueling obstruction of SSCS, is to withdraw from foreseeable violent confrontation that risks lives, property, and the environment and to report their action to the appropriate authorities.

OA,

SSCS USA says they are in full compliance with the US 9th Circuit injunction. Command of SSCS' operation was transferred to SSCS Australia, their ships are Dutch, and Australian flagged, sailing in Australian/International waters on the other side of the world. SSCS ships are crewed by members from more than 20 different countries, and captained by an Indian, Swede, Chilean, and Canadian.

My understanding is that SSCS USA has ceased funding the anti-whaling operation, Paul Watson, has resigned his command position, and assumed "observer status," and receives no pay.

Does US law have jurisdiction outside its territory, over non-US citizens, and non-US organizations?

Thanks, USIJ2, for your RAS/bunkering explanation, and ICR video.

For arguments sake, lets stipulate that SSCS MV Bob Barker(BB) was illegally interfering with Nisshin Maru(NM) bunkering with tankship Sun Laurel(SL).

There appears to be video shot from multiple wide-angle vantage points from SSCS ships BB, and their small patrol boat(RHIB) which seems to show the NM ramming the BB from astern , and in the act, colliding with the SL, which reportedly damaged its lifeboat davit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKBq0S6AsxY

It would appear in this engagement, that the BB was already alongside the SL, when the NM steered a course to forcibly push the BB aside.

Again, stipulating to BB IMO/UNCLOS violations regarding RAS, is there any violations committed by the NM for apparently ramming the BB to push it aside? What responsibility is there for the NM to avoid collision with its own tankship, SL? What safety protocol would permit the NM crew to hurl flash bang grenades onto both the decks of the BB, and SL? Is there any sanction of the NM for directing its water cannon to disable engine of the BB?

Why didn't the NM withdraw, in-order to de-escalate the conflagration, and risk of collision? If I'm at a petrol station, waiting for a vehicle ahead of me to clear the way for me to fill, and they do not, I have some simple options to consider. Thoughts about my vehicle insurance, motor vehicle regulations, and my own sense of safety, would preclude any violent act that involved ramming the "belligerent" vehicle blocking me, and colliding with the filling station apparatus risking fire or explosion. The much safer and prudent action would be to report "belligerent" motorist to the authorities, then drive to another filling station.

In this video, Paul Watson, also reports that the SL, a non-ice class tankship, violates IMO regs for sailing in ice at 12kts without a searchlight.

The ICR, and SSCS both edit their videos, and present their photos to win in the court of public opinion. SSCS accuses ICR of splicing their video make it appear the BB is ramming the SL. ICR tries to depict the BB ramming the SL, and NM.

If it is the case that Sea Shepherd(SS) was illegally blocking the Nisshin Maru(NM) from bunkering, is there any IMO, UNCLOS, or other sanctioned body that would grant the NM the right to forcibly "push" the SS aside? SS claims that the NM crew hurled flash bang grenades onto their deck, and directed their water cannons into their smokestack and flooded their engine compartment, and rammed them from astern, and port.

In the interest of safety of all ships and crews concerned, if SS positioned itself alongside the oil tanker Sun Laurel(SL) impeding safe bunkering, isn't the prudent action for the NM to withdraw until SS has vacated the scene and conditions are safe to bunker, instead of engaging in any act that could be construed as combative or violent?

Would the insurers or underwriters for the NM, and whaling fleet approve of any operations that knowingly and forseeably result in a collision and risk of life or property?

Video and photos provided by SS appears to show the NM colliding with both SS, and SL, hurled flash bang grenades onto the SS, and SL decks. The lifeboat davit seemed to be damaged by the collision with the NM.

My understanding is that the SSCS fleet communicated to the whaling fleet that they wouldn't impede bunkering north of 60 degrees, and that they honoured that. Apparently, the NM bunkered north of 60 degrees without interference from SS, then returned to the Southern Ocean to continue whaling.