Russia versus Greenpeace 210


Russia is casting around for legal measures it can use against Greenpeace.  To any reasonable person the accusation of piracy is ludicrous.  Russia has come to it because there is no other charge over which it can claim jurisdiction.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Russia has ratified and is in force, the criminal jurisdiction of a coastal state operates only within its territorial sea of up to twelve miles.  Beyond that it may have an exclusive economic zone of up to two hundred miles, and a continental shelf may extend even beyond that; but within those zones the rights of coastal states are limited to jurisdiction over economic activity and mineral exploitation.

The Russians appear very aware of the legal position.  When the Greenpeace activists were first arrested, I heard on BBC World Service radio here in Accra a Russian government spokesman say the vessel appeared to be towing a seismic buoy.  Greenpeace explained it was a survival pod.  But the point is, if it had been a seismic buoy, that would have been an economic activity which the Russian government is indeed entitled to regulate, so it was s thought out pretext (though I have no doubt a dishonest one).

Obviously the argument that they were engaged in unlawful economic activity may have justified the original arrest but quickly falls.  What else is left?  The seas above the exclusive economic zone are part of the High Seas – a fact often misunderstood.  The only criminal activity on the High Seas over which a state other than the flag state of the vessel can claim jurisdiction is piracy.  So if the Russians want to bring charges, it is piracy or nothing.

Of course any sensible government would opt for nothing, and accept that demonstrations happen.  The Russian government is not sensible in that sense, and would far rather throw away the international kudos gained over Syria, than admit for one second that Putin is not in complete macho control of absolutely everything.

The stupid thing about all this is that Russia has every legal right to be drilling for oil in the Arctic, a great deal of which is rightly within Russia’s exclusive economic zone.  The Russians have the right to drill, and Greenpeace have the right to protest about it.

What this is not, is piracy.  Greenpeace were not intending to steal or damage any rig, vessel or cargo, or to commit violence.  They were just protesting.  The definition of piracy in UNCLOS is quite clear:

Article 101

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).

 Plainly this is not piracy.

 


210 thoughts on “Russia versus Greenpeace

1 5 6 7
  • fedup

    What sort of argument would you like, Fedup? “Yoo cum ‘ere and fookin’ say that pal… I’ll noc yoo fookin’ teef out.”

    The most sensible talk so far!

    Listen I put up with dimwits all day long and in my time I let rip, that is my prerogative and I like to fucking exercise it.

    Don’t fucking start; “the elaborate delivery mechanisms based on mandatory collaterals, to admire the succinct probabilities offered by the opportunity for discourse”.

  • Daniel Rich

    @ Glenn_uk/A Mode,

    I firmly believe in trying to understand our past/history. Not because it contains answers to all my questions, but it does tell me how this planet deals with catastrophic events/impacts, regardless whether they are/were man-made or not.

    Archeologists have shown me layers in the Earth’s soil that point at mind-blowing devastation, as in “These layers are devoid of a singular sign of blossoming life…’, yet here we are today, very much disagreeing on everything [not you and me] we possibly can disagree on.

    I had a pigeon English conversation with a Thai fisherman over a decade ago on a beach on an island, and it went like this [brushed up version]:

    “Say, old chap, isn’t that a tree stump out there?” [pointing at the remnants of it about a 100 yards offshore.]

    “Yes, it is. That was a palm tree, sir.”

    Utterly impressed I went on, “My goodness. What are the odds of a tree being able to grow all the way out there?”

    The man smiled. “It’s not that hard. That’s where the beach used to be 15 years ago.”

    As I said earlier, I do not take sides. I am not your friend and I am not your enemy. I am into facts, logic, sensible reasoning and truth finding/detection. I may have many character flaws and other moral shortcomings, but I hope that my thirst for honesty still stands unscathed amongst the ruins of what used to be the mind of an innocent child.

    To those of you who bring sledgehammers to a 4-men-hog-tossing competition: Oink!

    I’m not out here to lecture anyone. I’m out here to listen and exchange information [on a platform that allows many different voices to be heard]. For that, I am very, very thankful.

  • A Node

    glenn_uk (27 Sep, 2013 – 9:45 pm) mocks …..

    “It’s always astonishing to me that people are more than happy – demand, even – the products of science when it suits them for, say, keeping aeroplanes from unscheduled hard landings. Medical science from stopping many miserable deaths at an early age. Communication technology to allow TV, “Internets” etc., and producing just about everything that has taken us out of the jungle days.

    Yet when it comes to climate science, suddenly it’s all – in a quite unprecedented manner – become woolly, corrupt, subject to uninformed opinion and can be discounted.

    The main reason for this “skeptic” approach to the science of climate change, is because these skeptics are the paid shills of those with a vested interest in the status quo (albeit a temporary one), and useful idiots who find it much more agreeable to go along with the denial.

    What’s most alarming about the stupidity of climate change deniers, is that they really think a fossil-fuel based economy is going to last indefinitely! But then – thinking through a process is not much of a priority for these unscientific dupes who prefer mumbo-jumbo and wishful thinking to harsh reality.”

    …. or with insults removed …..

    “People who support manmade climate change are scientific.
    People who question manmade climate change are unscientific and can be discounted.”

  • Daniel Rich

    @ Someone,

    Q: “As I understand it, which I hope is incorrectly, Fukushima has the prospect, if the wrong events occur, of essentially eliminating Japan as a country.”

    R: I have to violently object against such unprecedented libel, because…

    Can someone get that TEPCO dude to STFU!

    To be honest with you, sometimes I cannot believe my eyes. I look out of my window, right now, and see a beautiful blue sky, it’s like 90 F. outside, Sakurajima huffs and puffs some more ash over our heads and roughly 700 miles to the NE, this monstrosity rears its ugly head. Fortunately, the Japanese government and the 6 major players that control all the news outlets have us look at the newly decorated room’s wallpaper. It’s a bit like back in the US, where a 6 ton Elephant is raping a 800lbs gorilla and ‘we’ have to applaud Piece Peace Prize Fighter Obombi, for ‘bringing peace to the ME [chuckle].

    Well, we all know what it feels like when mobs come rushing out to steer debates in their favorite direction [cough].

  • glenn_uk

    Jeez, it’s all about conspiracies with you, eh fedup?


    Just read this thread, science is not about questioning and asking for proof, and testing and retesting. Science is what the Mr. scientists says!

    That – just the quote from you above – shows that you have zero understanding of the scientific method. Zero. None. Zilch.

    Science is not based on empty assertion – take a look at this for a short primer:

    The scientific method

    If there’s something there you’d like to argue with, let me know – I’d be happy to discuss. Seriously, very happy. We can use that as a basic for any other concerns you have about science and scientists – there is little point in discussing it otherwise.

  • glenn_uk

    A Node: Which approach would you prefer, when it comes to (say) aircraft design & maintenance, for your particular journey? One which follows the scientific method, or that which scoffs at the entire notion of science (as with your climate change denying champions)? Try to be honest.

  • fedup

    That – just the quote from you above – shows that you have zero understanding of the scientific method. Zero. None. Zilch.

    Glen you have fucked about one too many times!

    Now go argue with yourself! I fucking care not one jot for your drivel.

    You are just scoring cheap points and frankly I have far more interesting preoccupations than getting into a tit for tat with a pratt. So fuck it Global is warming and skies are falling and you can hate everyone!

  • glenn_uk

    Fedup: Fine. Yet another lazy halfwit cannot be bothered to try to even start learning how to understand a subject, before ranting and raving (not to mention – gosh! – swearing – how bold!) about it.

    I’ll try to live with the disappointment.

  • A Node

    glenn_uk 27 Sep, 2013 – 11:56 pm

    “A Node: Which approach would you prefer, when it comes to (say) aircraft design & maintenance, for your particular journey? One which follows the scientific method, or that which scoffs at the entire notion of science (as with your climate change denying champions)? Try to be honest.”

    I have no difficulty being honest.
    I would like my aircraft to be designed according to scientific method, but I would insist that the designer’s scientific credibility is not decided by a shouting contest. If there were competing theories on how best to design my plane, I would request that I am allowed to hear both sides explain their scientific reasoning. If I was given lots of information about one side of the arguement but found it difficult to hear about the other, I would be frustrated. If I was ridiculed for questioning this bias, I would be suspicious.

  • BrianFujisan

    Ben

    I fear that if we depart the Mortal Coil anytime soon(ish)

    Then we will be doing so by MANufactured Chemical, and atomic means, almost everything left that survives will be so altered, as to not be natural to the earth. Thank goodness the Oceans are deep

    Here’s that mega man of science

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8GA2w-qrcg

  • Chris Jones

    @Glenn- “What’s most alarming about the stupidity of climate change deniers, is that they really think a fossil-fuel based economy is going to last indefinitely! But then – thinking through a process is not much of a priority for these unscientific dupes who prefer mumbo-jumbo and wishful thinking to harsh reality”

    I’d have to disagree with your premise on this one Glenn. What you’re portraying is a polarised and over simplified take. ‘Deniers’ is a bizarre choice of a word to describe someone who has a different viewpoint you don’t agree with. Also it is very odd to assume that people who don’t believe the man made global warming narrative somehow has to be an advoctae of fossil fuels and non renewable energies. It is possible to like green energy and not believe all the hype force fed to us for the last 20 years about man made global warming. Do you really believe what Al Gore, Blar,Cameron,Sorros, Maurice Strong and the bankers who are mostly behind this? Have you seen quotes such as the Club Of Rome’s that said that they decided to come up with global warming as a means to gain tighter control of the world and its resources?

    I have to add – Fedup’s occassional profanity is refreshing and strangely invigorating – Its well crafted profanity with a hint of class and an aroma of intelligent disdain. If it was a wine I would swirl it in my mouth and say I tasted a hint of blackberries, young appples, a dash of vanilla and ground pepper..

  • Tony_0pmoc

    [Mod/Jon: Tony, your lengthy notes about your pub, the band, your family etc. are lovely, but this is not the place for it. Feel free to contribute to the topic, though!]

  • BrianFujisan

    Ben

    Carlin is Sharp

    Great points on geological timescales…

    more than enough time for there to be millions of years old ex civilizations, inside the Hymalya’s, or deeply buried in other tectonic movements,

    And on Galaxy wide timescales – The fermi Paradox, Where are they.

    Ben, cheers for the Escape From current human antics

  • guano

    Travelodge supply RT formerly Russia Today TV in the small basket of channels available to us tradesmen working away. Is one propaganda antidote to another, I ask myself, all publicity, good publicity. Buy Sarin. Rid unwanted neighbours from your area, can be used by government or opposition forces. Do they want to familiarise the UK public with the prospect of war?

    Russia’s grey leaden hand which crushed Muslim Grozny into ruins has now bulldozed Syria into Zombiedom. Tales of daring-do under the Arctic Ocean are better publicity for the New World Order than Ziombie destruction of a pluralistic Muslim country.

    The Kurdish are being deeply deceived that the US will allow the mujahideen a sedgment of Syria as a khalifah, and they are turning their attention to grabbing power in the East rather than fighting Assad. It was Political Islam that helped the British to dismantle the Ottoman khalifah. Are we to believe that the Zionist New World order is going to put it back again?

    Folly on folly. Stupidity on stupidity. Betrayal on betrayal of Muslims and Islam. Fedup. Forget about the Israeli ziofuckwits. The Muslim ziofuckwits Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and Shi’a Islam are doing their job for them, paid for by Saudi and Qatar, Cowardly and Sucker, in their air-conditioned cities, and by the blood of totally innocent human beings.

  • glenn_uk

    A Node spake thusly:

    I have no difficulty being honest.
    I would like my aircraft to be designed according to scientific method, but I would insist that the designer’s scientific credibility is not decided by a shouting contest. If there were competing theories on how best to design my plane, I would request that I am allowed to hear both sides explain their scientific reasoning. If I was given lots of information about one side of the arguement but found it difficult to hear about the other, I would be frustrated. If I was ridiculed for questioning this bias, I would be suspicious.

    Oh come on. Planes have been designed thousands of different ways – they are not just bigger or smaller versions of each other. You have not studied a single one of the thousands of types in service. Just like you’ve never studied the trains, types of track, every last bit of the road-car – the composition of the tyres, the compound of rubber used in the brake hoses – or everything that you use and depend your life upon on a daily basis.

    “If there were competing theories in how best to design my plane”, indeed. There are more competing theories than you could shake a stick at. You might well be blissfully unaware of them, granted!

    This is the heart of the libertarian “Self Made Man” BS. That you’re Davey Crockett, and made every last thing for yourself. You didn’t. Everything you need to live with has a dependency on things being done, tested, working properly in a controlled manner – and that happens to be the scientific manner, because everything else tends to cost a lot of lives. Even – nearly all the time – when you’re totally unaware of that fact. Even (sigh) when you scoff at the very concept.

    Question it – sure! Please, please do so – that’s what the entire principle of science relies on! But for God’s sake, don’t denounce it on the basis of total ignorance, which is the approach “skeptics” bask in when it comes to climate change denial.

  • glenn_uk

    @Chris Jones: With every respect, it’s not a matter of “belief”. That very notion betrays a huge misunderstanding in the way a scientific approach arrives at the most probable explanation of observable phenomenon.

    No understanding that science arrives at is determined by a belief system – it can only advance that explanation that currently meets all known facts.

    No, I have not heard that this entire notion of GCC was cooked up in the Club Of Rome. It would be most remarkable if you could provide actual evidence that it was. But even if some despicable cadre of banksters, politicians, Illuminati etc. did cook it up, the truly amazing thing would be that their theory stood the barrage of scientific testing for the last few decades!

    You’re an intelligent person, Chris. How can you believe that this is all cooked up, just because some groups have seen an angle to make money off it? Don’t you recognise that _even more_ money is to be made by the “business as usual” crowd – they’re currently cashing in as never before!

    There’s money to be made on the principle of the internal combustion engine. Heck, a very large part of the economy generated over the past number of decades is based on it. One might say vast fortunes, even the whole financial system turns on it and the oil that fuels it.

    Therefore, the internal combustion engine is a hoax that simply needs to be exposed. Maybe you, Fedup et al can fill in the gaps for that argument – it has far more weight than your GCC money-grubbing expose, after all.

    *

    Sure, Fedup’s blow-out profanity “fuck-fests” are just wonderful – if only the rest of us could liberate ourselves thus.

  • Jemand

    Glenn_uk, you have been very patient and very effective in defending scientific reasoning. Fedup is quite funny, … but not ‘haha’ funny. I suspect his anger is sourced from his frustration at trying to understand a complex concept and trying to reconcile it with his emotional needs – thereby resulting in internal conflict that has no prospects of an emotionally agreeable solution.

    On the matter of scientists and GCC, scientists are people too and some are prone to the same errors as non-scientists. There are those who misspeak, those who seek attention, wealth, glory – but they do not represent other scientists although the public bunch them all together as if they belong to a political party. Scientists often disagree with each other. Not just in their work but also in their conduct and personalities. It is wrong to confuse scientists (the people) with science (the body of human knowledge and the processes that produce it) – that would be like confusing musicians with music.

    The single most problematic issue of GCC is prediction and the mistake of *some* scientists in making hard predictions of an immensely complex system without regard to the consequences of getting their predictions wrong. The public, stirred up by a cynical media, is very arrogantly unforgiving of scientists who make failed predictions. A good example is the criminal convictions of scientists in Italy for failing to predict the severity of a subsequent earthquake – which takes us back to the good-old-bad-old days of witch trials.

    I appreciate how many people do not understand the argument for man-made GCC. None of us can completely understand all the scientific details without becoming climate scientists in the process. But we don’t need to understand everything to validate our confidence in the theory. 

    Some details should, however, be understood to get a grip on the essential issues. Like the size of the biosphere which is vastly smaller than what popular images of the earth imply. And of overlapping cycles of natural effects that produce irregular net fluxes in different parts of the globe. Or the idea that massive amounts of carbon, released from geological stores, needs to go somewhere in the biosphere with a measurable impact on climate systems. And, of course, the idea that plants like CO2 and will absorb excess amounts in a world that has been rapidly deforesting over the last 100 years.

    It’s amazing how people scorn science as if there were any alternative to it.

  • A Node

    glenn_uk 28 Sep, 2013 – 3:34 am decrees

    “Oh come on. Planes have been designed thousands of different ways – they are not just bigger or smaller versions of each other. You have not studied a single one of the thousands of types in service. Just like you’ve never studied the trains, types of track, every last bit of the road-car – the composition of the tyres, the compound of rubber used in the brake hoses – or everything that you use and depend your life upon on a daily basis.

    “If there were competing theories in how best to design my plane”, indeed. There are more competing theories than you could shake a stick at. You might well be blissfully unaware of them, granted!

    This is the heart of the libertarian “Self Made Man” BS. That you’re Davey Crockett, and made every last thing for yourself. You didn’t. Everything you need to live with has a dependency on things being done, tested, working properly in a controlled manner – and that happens to be the scientific manner, because everything else tends to cost a lot of lives. Even – nearly all the time – when you’re totally unaware of that fact. Even (sigh) when you scoff at the very concept.

    Question it – sure! Please, please do so – that’s what the entire principle of science relies on! But for God’s sake, don’t denounce it on the basis of total ignorance, which is the approach “skeptics” bask in when it comes to climate change denial.”

    which, shorn of its condescension =

    “You, A Node, are not a climate scientist, your opinion is based on ignorance.
    I, glenn_uk, for unspecified reasons, am to be considered an expert.”

    and reduced to its essence =

    “I am right and you are wrong.”

  • Mary

    Back to Nairobi et al.

    Good piece by Marina Hyde in the Guardian.

    The ‘white widow’, like the black, looms larger in the imagination than in fact
    Samantha Lewthwaite is ‘world’s most wanted’ despite any hard evidence. How Clouseau-like we must seem to al-Shabaab
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/27/white-widow-samantha-lewthwaite-al-shabaab

    ‘That Ms Lewthwaite should already have been immortalised as the “white widow” is not wholly surprising. The infantilising position of much of the media is that the British public couldn’t possibly understand or be interested in such a trivial event as a massacre that held the world’s eyes for days, unless it is bowdlerised into something with catchy names. The white widow is a newly hatched relative of that old media staple, the black widow – AKA any woman involved in any sort of violent crime, ever.’

    ~~

    PS New thread about climate change on
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/09/gaia-and-all-that/
    in case you missed it.

  • Rehmat

    @Jemand

    Henry Kissinger is man of many talents. Some people have claimed him to Beast 666 while the ‘Islamophobe’ Christopher Hitchens. in book “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” – has said that Henry Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap and torture”.

    Henry got to Jewish Lobby’s nerves when in 2012, he predicted the end of Israel within next ten years.

    http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/26/henry-kissinger-no-israel-in-10-years/

  • Mary

    All 14 now charged with ‘piracy’.

    Russia charges Greenpeace activists with piracy

    Greenpeace challenges Russia arrests
    Help held Greenpeace crew plea
    Greenpeace activists detained in Russia Watch

    Fourteen Greenpeace activists, including at least four from the UK, have been charged with piracy by the Russian authorities.

    They were among a 30-strong crew on a Greenpeace ship that was protesting against oil drilling in the Arctic.

    The group was arrested last month after two of the protesters tried to board an oil platform owned by the Russian state-controlled firm Gazprom.

    Greenpeace has called the charges “irrational, absurd and an outrage”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24362817

    ~~~

    Do you heave when you see the name of Gazprom on the backboard when Arsenal give a press conference? Gazprom=Usmanov of course.

    http://www.usm-group.com/company_alisher-usmanov.html

    Revolting. Look at the gold desk ornaments. Probably solid and not gilded. He has a thing for valuable possessions and the Russian state looks after them.

    http://rt.com/art-and-culture/rostropovich-art-collection-returns-to-russia/

    Craig’s previous entries ref Usmanov.
    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=usmanov

  • Emmpey

    The ancient Greeks and Egytians knew that the Earth was spherical, this knowledge was passed on to the Arabs, and then made it’s way back West after the Dark Ages, during which time it became a heresy.

    We live in the same environement today, there are many things known which are kept secret from the masses such as ‘free’ energy, i.e. using the vast amount of electromagnetic energy (mega terawatt hours) generated by the Earth – which Tesla exploited with ease, and is the primary reason that his papers are still held by the USG at the highest classification level, not least because exploiting this natural phenomena has many military/geopolitical applications.

    Every house, train and car could be powered directly by the largest electrical dynamo known to science. Solar panels and wind turbines etc. are touted as ‘renewable’ energy to hide the world from the fact that there is ‘unlimited’ energy available but humanity is deigned not to be worthy so we must continue polluting the Earth and keep paying for it. Unlimited free energy would spell the end of the whole sociogeopolitical matrix and the nexus that control it.

    Tesla was a peerless pioneer of electrical phenomena, he invented most of the electrical technology that is still used to this very day, including the alternating current electrical distribution grid, AC motors and many other fundamental electrical technologies, with remarkably little improvement in design even more than 100 years later. His knowledge of the nature of electricity is almost supernatural.

    When talented scientists start making inroads into certain areas they are quickly spotted at Uni and taken out of general circulation by being assigned to lucrative ‘government projects’ where they usually have to sign away ownership of research and are subject to official secrets. If they refuse the can often end up dying in rather unusual ways (ways that usually have a dark meaning known to associates), think about the spate of deaths amongst some of the worlds leading genetic biology researchers who many beleive were gathering evidence on the man-made pandemics being manufactured by the drug companies in order to sell their vaccines, which they already had stocks of in abundance.

  • todd

    So you mean I can board a UK platform any time I want and nothing will be done to me?
    Thats great news!!!

    Just because its done against Russia doesnt make it right.

    Its like those idiots that stormed a church and scared old ladies (cowards come in all sexes). I keep wondering if you went to another city that has terrorist fears like Tel Aviv and were to do the same in a synagogue, if they would be treated differently.
    How about the punkers enter a mosque in Saudi Arabia and do the same? Would they be treated better? Would they even make it out alive?

    Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    interestingly enough, Greenpeace constantly refuses to address how weaponry like depleted uranium damages the planet and people (the long term studies on Iraq arent exactly secrets).
    heck, did you seen any of them at Fukushima?
    Of course not…

  • Ken Waldron

    BBC Doctor audio reconstructed.

    Well, despite the differing backgrounds in the video, I wondered, so I had a brief analysis done on it, result and comments which I copy fyi here:

    “Here’s the full sentence reconstructed:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/z0d4xgvjplwkyot/fullsentence.mp3

    It IS one sentence…you’ll notice the background noise jumps on the switchover: thats due to the effect of compression on the audio, one piece has been compressed more heavily which has raised the noise floor.
    Note that the sentence lines up perfectly despite that, which points to the fact that the section about chemical weapons was actually edited out the first time round, even though she has said it, and the napalm edited out for the later.”

  • For the return of Habba and Free Speech

    Yesterday’s news about the protestors being held without bail under Russian piracy law really just demonstrates how the law within Russia really is just another of Putin’s playthings. Any reasonable person reading the Russian piracy law would say that it could not be applied in this case as the oil rig is not a ship and the protestors were not seeking to climb on board for personal gain ………….. but since this action might have an impact on the personal gains of Putin and his friends then the law can be interpreted however they want.

    Perhaps the UK and governments should threaten to boycott the Winter Olympics until the current regime guarantee to uphold the letter of their own laws – without such an undertaking how can they take any guarantees of the competitors safety as having any validity whatsoever.

1 5 6 7

Comments are closed.