SAN FRANCISCO - Their supporters call them heroes. The Japanese government calls them terrorists.
Late Monday, the United States' largest federal court labeled them pirates.
In doing so, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals castigated Paul Watson and members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society he founded for the tactics used in their relentless campaign to disrupt the annual whale hunt off the dangerous waters of Antarctica.
You don't need a peg leg or an eye patch, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.
The same court in December ordered the organization to keep its ships at least 500 yards from Japanese whalers. The whalers have since accused the protesters of violating that order at least twice this month.
The ruling overturned a Seattle trial judge's decision siding with the protesters and tossing out a lawsuit filed by a group of Japanese whalers seeking a court-ordered halt to the aggressive tactics, many of which were broadcast on the Animal Planet reality television show Whale Wars.
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones had sided with Sea Shepherd on several grounds in tossing out the whalers' piracy accusations and refusing to prohibit the conservation group's protests. He determined the protesters' tactics were nonviolent because they targeted equipment and ships rather than people.
The judge also said the whalers were violating an Australian court order banning the hunt and so were precluded from pursuing their lawsuit in the United States.
The appeals court called Jones' ruling off base and took the rare step of ordering the case transferred to another Seattle judge to comply with its ruling Monday. The appeals court said Jones had misinterpreted the Australian ruling, which didn't address the protesters' actions.
The district judge's numerous, serious and obvious errors identified in our opinion raise doubts as to whether he will be perceived as impartial in presiding over this high-profile case, Kozinski wrote.
Clearly, this is a bad decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, but not unexpected, said Scott West, Director of Intelligence & Investigations for Sea Shepherd U.S. But it's an opinion; everyone has one. We happen to agree with Judge Jones' very well articulated and reasoned opinion on the matter, he stated.
Beyond that, the unprofessional and grandstanding manner in which the Ninth Circuit rendered its opinion makes us seriously doubt their qualifications for making a just decision. This court is part of the problem, not the solution. Not only is there no room for such a biased and unprofessional legal opinion, they somehow have the audacity to throw a highly respected, honored judge - one of their own - under the bus in order to side with foreign interests. Is this a decision of an American court or have we somehow mistakenly landed in Japan? West added.
Charles Moure, an attorney representing Sea Shepherd, said he would ask an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit to reconsider Monday's ruling, including Jones' removal from the case.
They are killing whale in violation of an Australian court order, Moure said.
We will continue to use the courts and the law to overturn these rulings, said Moure. We have a long, hard fight ahead of us but Judge Jones was correct when he said Sea Shepherd is working in the public interest for the greater good.
Sea Shepherd has the court of public opinion on its side, backed by thousands of supporters worldwide, something the Japanese whale poachers will never have. The organization is prepared to take on these challenges, believing that in the end, justice will prevail and Judge Jones' courageous opinion will become the law of the land, he concluded.