Try to scale a Russian oil platform? You might be a Pirate

[Siege]

Scaling a Russian oil platform, as it turns out, just might not be piracy after all. The original charges have been replaced with 'hooliganism'. I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with the fact that earlier this week the Dutch government took the case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, no sir, nothing at all indeed.

All through the development of this sad story I've given the Russian government the benefit of the doubt, but right now I can't help feeling they're behaving like the international equivalent of an angry toddler who's not getting what he wants: this isn't about law and order so much as it's a particularly obnoxious attempt to look tough or send a message or whatever. Yes, Russia, we all think you're very hard and intimidating what with the holding a bunch of activists on tenuous charges and such. Now can we please act like adults for a minute and resolve this nonsense in a timely manner?

[Lagmonster]

Hooliganism still carries a possibility of seven years in prison, which would be just fine by me. I would vigorously protest any outcome in which the trespassers are released without consequence.

[Siege]

I think it's patently idiotic to even consider locking activists up for seven years if they did nothing worse than scaling an oil platform to hang up some banners. A civilized way to settle that sort of thing would a stern talking to and a one-way trip out of the country for the protestors, followed by fining Greenpeace for trespassing and making a nuisance of themselves. Given that this is Russia, a place where you can get locked up in a work camp for years for disturbing a church service, I suppose a degree of repressive daftness is to be expected, but I'm still hopeful that in the end the activists will simply end up being unceremoniously tossed out of the country. I'm not usually a big Greenpeace supporter but if I have to choose between them and Russia's ham-fisted handling of this case and their draconian ideas of justice I'll pick the protestors any day of the week.

[Lagmonster]

I'm actually somewhat sure that they will be released, following at least a minimum amount of threatening (which amounts to the 'stern talking to' you referred to).

My problem is that grappling and scaling an oil rig in the middle of the ocean under any circumstances isn't quite the same as wandering onto a supermarket's front curb to waste your breath yelling at content suburbanites; it's incredibly dangerous behaviour that could, and quite possibly will at some point, result in someone getting killed. I think that's a fair place to draw the line and refuse further tolerance, Russia or no Russia.

Frankly, from the video in the first Al Jazeera link, I'd say the fact that they were repelled with water cannons and not bullets to be admirable enough all things considered.

[Thanas]

Frankly, from the video in the first Al Jazeera link, I'd say the fact that they were repelled with water cannons and not bullets to be admirable enough all things considered.

Nobody deserves to be shot for activities which have never in the history of mankind have resulted in death.


Now, on to other idiotic comments:

Only a nitwit would consider "ramming ships in the arctic is bad because people might get hurt, because it is the freaking arctic" to be same as "damaging property is bad".

Good thing I never claimed that. I even underlined the part I was focussing on. Maybe I need to enlarge it because you missed the underlined part, so lets reiterate. I used the modest example of damaging propellers. You know, that part I kind of underlined. Which is a more minor point and thus more comparable so you couldn't weasel out and go, hur hur you think ramming ships is the same as damaging crops. Oh wait.

You know, I did not reply to this at first because only a nitwit would think that disabling ships propulsion in icy waters with plenty of drift ice is not life threatening, especially considering sea sheppard has graduated to steel prop foulers, plus Nylon and metal shards which can do much more damage than simple rope.

I am however claiming GP uses violence against easy targets because they are too cowardly to go against bigger ones.

The whole area of Greenpeace confronting the French, Japanese, German and Spanish security apparatus in the past and still continuing to do so (google castor) makes this statement to be wrong. In this very thread we have them confronting the Russians, for god sake. What Greenpeace in general does not do is committing violence against humans.

1. Didn't you read GP memo? Its the potential consequences. Certainly the potential consequences for crops with higher yield are great in a world where there are people starving.
2. Nor is crippling but not sinking the ship either, when a rescue ship can be dispatched. Oh wait, you ignore the part about damaging propellers and focus in the part about ramming, and forget that GP consider both so bad that its a line they won't cross.

Only a nitwit would consider immobilizing a ship in dangerous waters to be the same as destroying crops that might or might not to be used industrially in the future or no. One carries immediate, real consequences for ship and souls, the other does not. Considering it takes several hours for a rescue ship to arrive I find your statement to be dubious at best.

[Lagmonster]

Frankly, from the video in the first Al Jazeera link, I'd say the fact that they were repelled with water cannons and not bullets to be admirable enough all things considered.

Nobody deserves to be shot for activities which have never in the history of mankind have resulted in death.

Lots of people feel that way. And plenty do not, particulary those charged with protecting hazardous or restricted work locations. Which is why I said that it was admirable that the crew acted with restraint given the threat posed by the trespassers.

It's wrong, however, to say that these people endangered no lives. Deaths on oil rigs occur all the time (a 7 times higher fatality rate on US offshore operations, according to the CDC). These people were placing themselves directly in harm's way just by being there, let alone attempting to access whatever parts of the rig tickled their fancy. And the crew had no way of knowing if they were going to go A.L.F. on them and deliberately or accidentally sabotage something, or otherwise endanger the crew themselves with their antics.

[Thanas]

It's wrong, however, to say that these people endangered no lives. Deaths on oil rigs occur all the time (a 7 times higher fatality rate on US offshore operations, according to the CDC). These people were placing themselves directly in harm's way just by being there, let alone attempting to access whatever parts of the rig tickled their fancy. And the crew had no way of knowing if they were going to go A.L.F. on them and deliberately or accidentally sabotage something, or otherwise endanger the crew themselves with their antics.

The Russian response happened with helicopters after they had already scaled the platform and were not engaged in any threatening activities and after a significant lapse of time had passed. Nor did they attack Oil workers. Any claim to the contrary lacks evidence.

[Lagmonster]

The Russian response happened with helicopters after they had already scaled the platform and were not engaged in any threatening activities and after a significant lapse of time had passed. Nor did they attack Oil workers. Any claim to the contrary lacks evidence.

You're not addressing the risk inherent in their illegally breaking into a hazardous and regulated work environment where even working there responsibly, with gear and training, still carries an enhanced risk of death, and leaping straight to the argument that they were lucky and/or smart enough to ensure a best-case outcome. My retort to that boils down to, 'big fucking deal'.

What they did is precisely the same as any kind of daredevil stunt; the mere fact that one survives and doesn't manage to injure any bystanders or damage any property in the process does not mean the activity was any less risky; it just means that they were lucky that day. They are still responsible for the risks they undertook, and that should be what their punishment is based on.

[Thanas]

I am not addressing the risk because as I have already claimed that by the time the Russians acted there was no danger and because you have yet to justify shooting people for trespassing. By the same argument anytime somebody poses a risk for others he could be shot.

[Lagmonster]

Siege said that Russia's response was needlessly harsh, and I replied that given the risks I thought the response was fairly restrained. You've pointed out that there were circumstances involved that meant the criminals had demonstrated that they could be taken in peacefully, but I obviously thought that they should consider themselves lucky they weren't immediately deemed a danger and attacked. I think the most reasonable thing would be to add, "the moment they started scaling the platform, when nobody knew what their intentions were" to that.

Frankly, I personally think that the inherent risk to people by what *could* happen if you let someone get access to certain hazardous locations, more than justifies treating trespassers to those places as a potential danger even if there's a chance they could just be delusional or foolish (read as: Greenpeace, both of these, constantly). Consider the most extreme case, such as a power plant. Certainly, in hindsight it may turn out trespassers are just nitwits looking to spray-paint an anti-pollution slogan on a wall or have a swim in the radiation containment pool or some such, and I would prefer that such an event ends without anyone being hurt, but I would entirely excuse the first responders on scene if they elected not to take any chances when they discover some moron wandering defiantly around the facility.

[mr friendly guy]

Now, on to other idiotic comments:

This should be good. Oh wait.

You know, I did not reply to this at first because only a nitwit would think that disabling ships propulsion in icy waters with plenty of drift ice is not life threatening, especially considering sea sheppard has graduated to steel prop foulers, plus Nylon and metal shards which can do much more damage than simple rope.

You sure the reason you did not reply to this wasn't because you mistook the part about disabling the ship with ramming it even though that part was fucking underlined. Couldn't have anything to do with that could it?

The whole area of Greenpeace confronting the French, Japanese, German and Spanish security apparatus in the past and still continuing to do so (google castor) makes this statement to be wrong. In this very thread we have them confronting the Russians, for god sake. What Greenpeace in general does not do is committing violence against humans.

Do they use violence against the Japanese in their confrontations? Nope. In fact they go out of their way to protest against it. Way to miss the point Thanas. GP preaches peace and behaves non violently against opponents who are stronger. When confronting opponents like a small farming family growing GM crops who are weaker they use violence. They fact they get up to protest doesn't make them brave.

So I ask you again. What would you label someone who only uses violence against foes which don't fight back, but then preaches pacifism when it comes to those that can fight back?

Only a nitwit would consider immobilizing a ship in dangerous waters to be the same as destroying crops that might or might not to be used industrially in the future or no. One carries immediate, real consequences for ship and souls, the other does not. Considering it takes several hours for a rescue ship to arrive I find your statement to be dubious at best.

Holy Strawman Batman. No one is saying both have their consequences in the same time frame. I am saying its irrelevant for this ethically, since both are bad. Even if it takes a rescue ship several hours, there is the Sea Shepherd ship. In 2009 Sea Shepherd offered to help look for a Japanese Whaler which had fallen overboard. If warring factions can accept being taken POW from an opposing side, than whalers can accept the humiliation of being rescued by Sea Shepherd.

[Siege]

Hijack a foreign-registered vessel in your EEZ? You might be a raging illegal douchenozzle!

Dutch ask sea tribunal to order Russia to release Greenpeace 'Arctic 30'
Netherlands raises case of detained activists and journalists with International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

The Netherlands has asked an international court to order Russia to release 30 people detained during a Greenpeace protest against oil drilling in the Arctic.

The Dutch government made the request at a tribunal that Russian officials refused to attend on Wednesday.

Liesbeth Lijnzaad, a representative of the Dutch government, said Russia had "violated the human rights" of the activists who tried to climb onto Russia's first offshore Arctic oil rig in September, detaining them for seven weeks "without grounds".

Russia has said it does not recognise the case, accusing the activists and their ship, the Dutch-registered Arctic Sunrise, of posing a security threat. Prosecutors charged the 30 people with piracy, but lessened the charge to hooliganism, which carries a maximum jail term of seven years.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said they are not pirates but has faced growing criticism over what is seen as Russia's heavy-handed treatment of the case.

"The dispute is worsening," Lijnzaad told the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the German port of Hamburg.

Countries have no right to seize vessels belonging to third countries in their exclusive maritime economic zones, she said.

The Dutch hope the tribunal will rule by mid-November, securing the provisional release of the 30 activists who have been denied bail in a case that has strained relations between Russia and European countries, particularly the Netherlands.

A tribunal spokeswoman said no date had yet been set for a decision but that it could come around November 21.

Full article at the link. This is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg referred to earlier in this thread. Lijnzaad is extraordinary professor Practice of International Law and the head of the International Law division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so I suspect she knows what she's talking about. Moreover the fact the Russians didn't even bother to show up to me speaks volumes about how much they actually think their case is justified. Who's the pirate here, exactly? 'Cause illegally seizing ships, holding their crews on flimsy to nonexistent grounds and refusing to show up in court when challenged sounds pretty damned piratical to me.

[Thanas]

You know, I did not reply to this at first because only a nitwit would think that disabling ships propulsion in icy waters with plenty of drift ice is not life threatening, especially considering sea sheppard has graduated to steel prop foulers, plus Nylon and metal shards which can do much more damage than simple rope.

You sure the reason you did not reply to this wasn't because you mistook the part about disabling the ship with ramming it even though that part was fucking underlined. Couldn't have anything to do with that could it?

This is nonsensical, you cannot claim one side to be as worse as the other if you conveniently exclude the worst tactics of one side.

Do they use violence against the Japanese in their confrontations? Nope. In fact they go out of their way to protest against it. Way to miss the point Thanas. GP preaches peace and behaves non violently against opponents who are stronger. When confronting opponents like a small farming family growing GM crops who are weaker they use violence.

Against objects. Not humans, nor are they putting humans at risk.

They fact they get up to protest doesn't make them brave.

Yes it does. Anybody who takes a stand against someone greater than him is being brave.

Holy Strawman Batman. No one is saying both have their consequences in the same time frame. I am saying its irrelevant for this ethically, since both are bad. Even if it takes a rescue ship several hours, there is the Sea Shepherd ship. In 2009 Sea Shepherd offered to help look for a Japanese Whaler which had fallen overboard. If warring factions can accept being taken POW from an opposing side, than whalers can accept the humiliation of being rescued by Sea Shepherd.

I am totally sure "no violence against humans" is the same as "maybe we might offer help if something bad happens". No matter how much you claim equivalence here, disabling a ship in icy waters is completely different than destroying crops. And no amount of fudging on your side will make the two even. Also, LOL at your idea of "no risk cause the water is totally not freezing nor has nobody ever gotten killed by drift ice".

Full article at the link. This is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg referred to earlier in this thread. Lijnzaad is extraordinary professor Practice of International Law and the head of the International Law division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so I suspect she knows what she's talking about. Moreover the fact the Russians didn't even bother to show up to me speaks volumes about how much they actually think their case is justified. Who's the pirate here, exactly? 'Cause illegally seizing ships, holding their crews on flimsy to nonexistent grounds and refusing to show up in court when challenged sounds pretty damned piratical to me.

Don't worry, I am sure some people will go to great lengths of stating the Russian case for them.

[Siege]

It gets better!

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia criticised the Netherlands before talks with the Dutch king on Friday, accusing it of “inaction” in not preventing a Greenpeace protest at a Russian Arctic oil rig in which 30 people were arrested.

Hours before President Vladimir Putin and Dutch King Willem-Alexander were due to meet in Moscow, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the Netherlands was to blame because the Greenpeace icebreaker involved was registered in Amsterdam.

The September 18 protest, off the Russian Arctic coast against oil drilling there, has strained relations between Moscow and The Hague and the remarks by the ministry’s spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, are unlikely to improve the atmosphere.

Lukashevich told a regular ministry briefing that the “provocative action” by Greenpeace, in which some of the activists tried to scale Moscow’s first offshore oil rig, the Prirazlomnaya, “grossly violated” Russian law.

“The whole situation, to a large extent, is caused by inaction of the Dutch state … when it was clear the vessel entered the Russian economic zone on purpose to knowingly carry out unlawful actions,” Lukashevich said.

I'm reasonably sure the Russian Foreign Ministry is well aware that making sure ships out at sea don't break random laws anywhere on the planet isn't within the regulatory purview of a flag state on grounds of it being, y'know, utterly impractical to enforce that sort of thing. It's also pretty bad form to make an accusatory statement like this during an official visit by a nominally friendly head of state, but whatever, we'll let that slide because let's be frank, either this continuing insistence on unhelpful inflammatory statements is some kind of cultural habit I don't understand or it's positioning ahead of the talks between the Russian and Dutch foreign ministers tomorrow. In neither case would it be helpful to respond with anything but the kind of eye-rolling normally reserved for particularly annoying six-year-olds. I mean, what's next, is someone going to bang a shoe on a desk?

[mr friendly guy]

This is nonsensical, you cannot claim one side to be as worse as the other if you conveniently exclude the worst tactics of one side.

Good thing I never claimed that then. I haven't directly said whether Sea Shepherd or Yellowpeace had the worse tactics. I am pointing out GP objects to some of SS tactics when they do the same, ie the tactic of destroying possessions. Your response is to go, but SS also use other tactic x,y,z, why aren't you bringing them up wah wah.

Against objects. Not humans, nor are they putting humans at risk.

This was addressed earlier. It puzzles me why you keep on pushing this argument when its at best tangential to mine. So let me spell it out for you again. Your argument would only make sense if GP does what it does because it believes its ok to target objects but not humans. That can explain why their targets just happens to occur when not enough people are there to defend it. Of course my explanation that they are chicken shit also explains it, but if GP did believe what you claim, I would have to acknowledge that its difficult to differentiate between the two competing hypotheses.

Only one problem. GP doesn't believe that as I proved by linking to their own speech. I had given you too much credit and assumed that was the gist of your argument. Apparently your argument was even more stupid. Its now turned out GP aren't cowards because their actions are less immoral. Does that even need to be addressed. Except by laughing that is.

Yes it does. Anybody who takes a stand against someone greater than him is being brave.

So is the converse true? Is GP cowardly for terrorizing a small farming family when they raided their GM crops in the middle of the night? I highly doubt a small family is greater than those GP activists. Or you going to engage in more Yellowpeace apologism for my amusement.

I am totally sure "no violence against humans" is the same as "maybe we might offer help if something bad happens". No matter how much you claim equivalence here, disabling a ship in icy waters is completely different than destroying crops. And no amount of fudging on your side will make the two even. Also, LOL at your idea of "no risk cause the water is totally not freezing nor has nobody ever gotten killed by drift ice".

Yeah you're right. Crops can save millions of lives, while the number of people on a whaling ship doesn't even come close. No amount of fudging on your side will make the two even. Thanks for playing.

[Siege]

New development:

Russia releases Greenpeace detainees on bail

Eleven out of 30 people arrested on a Greenpeace ship while protesting against Arctic oil drilling have left prison on bail in Russia.

There were joyful scenes as family and friends greeted detainees in the northern city of St Petersburg, where they had their court hearings.

A further 15 have had bail approved and are awaiting formal release.

Hearings for three others have still to be held, while one had his application for bail denied.

All 30 still face possible trial on charges of hooliganism over the protest at an Arctic offshore oil rig owned by the Russian company Gazprom.

There has been a rapid change in the Russian authorities' position, the BBC's Daniel Sandford reports from St Petersburg.

But for some reason - perhaps linked to next year's Winter Olympics in Russia - prosecutors suddenly stopped opposing bail, and the judges started setting the campaigners free, our correspondent says.

It is still unclear if they will now be allowed to leave Russia.

This comes on the same day President Putin said that Greenpeace's "goals are noble but its methods wrong". "The President emphasized that the state should not be cruel but it must ensure that everyone complied with certain rules. Vladimir Putin also admitted that the state should be lenient," sayeth Voice of Russia (the world's most trusted news source ever).

Over the last couple of days a number of other members of the Arctic Sunrise's crew have been released on bail. A provisional order by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (you know, that case of international law the Russians refused to acknowledge was even going on because they were so doggone sure they were in the right) is expected on the 22nd of November, i.e. tomorrow. I'm sure the Russians' actions have nothing at all to do with that, though.

[Siege]

The Tribunal's just ruled by a vote of 19 judges to 2 that the Russian Federation shall immediately release the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all persons who have been detained upon the posting of a bond by The Netherlands in the amount of 3,6 million euros in the form of a bank guarantee and that the Russian Federation shall subsequently ensure that the vessel Arctic Sunrise and all occupants be allowed to leave the territory and maritime territories of the Russian Federation.

That settles that, then.

[Borgholio]

Russia could just ignore the ruling. I wouldn't put it past them.

[Siege]

Oh there's no doubt in my mind that they will huff and puff some more. This isn't over yet. I was referring to the question posed in the title of this thread. As far as I'm concerned the tribunal's ruling has settled definitively that what Greenpeace did is not piracy, it's not even hooliganism -- it's petty vandalism at worst. And also the Russians are a bunch of massive cocks, but we all knew that already.

[Thanas]

So to recap - what the Russians did was completely illegal, what Greenpeace did was not piracy and anybody who defended the Russians can go and blow the tribunal.

Good. The conduct of the Russians got what it deserved.

[Lagmonster]

How many people do you think actually supported Russia for reasons relating to legality, versus honestly wanting to see an opportunity exploited to damage Greenpeace as an organization?

[Thanas]

I don't know and I don't care. What matters is that they are wrong.

Apparently the new spiel of the Russians is to claim that they only ratified the protocol regarding the Court in part, which - according to them - allows them to cherrypick what ruling they like.

I am sure that is going to fly.

[Thanas]

Update:

Surprise surprise, Russia now openly defies the court order.

Now where are those guys who said Russia is just trying to uphold the law?

[Irbis]

Given that this is Russia, a place where you can get locked up in a work camp for years for disturbing a church service

You were saying?

Surprise surprise, Russia now openly defies the court order.

What Germans do with ecology groups held in their country on bail with pending charges?

Why, they don't let them leave Germany.

If only these pesky Russians would follow leading EU trends! Oh, wait

[Thanas]

Given that this is Russia, a place where you can get locked up in a work camp for years for disturbing a church service

You were saying?

You don't know how the German criminal code works, do you? It is the maximum sentence, which is never ever meted out to first time offenders. They will get a fine.

Surprise surprise, Russia now openly defies the court order.

What Germans do with ecology groups held in their country on bail with pending charges?

Why, they don't let them leave Germany.

If only these pesky Russians would follow leading EU trends! Oh, wait

Yes, especially after that international court ruled Germany's detention of activists to be illegal....oh wait.