• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What does the US think it is ordering Spanish naval units to board a N. Korean ship in international water.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 4644
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 4644

Honestly, I know there is a "war" on, but it seems to me that the US is DESTROYING the very thing we SAY we cherish--the rule of law. When is George Bush going to be indicted for war crimes? How far can we go without destroying that which we seek to preserve. Years ago, attacking international shipping was grounds for an immidiate declaration of war.
 
Read into it and you will find out that the Spanish frigate was patrolling the waters when it flagged down the ship, fired warning shots, etc... for suspicion. The US didn't get involved until after the spanish ppl boarded the ship and found scuds- then they told the United States, being the great allies they are 🙂
 
the US alerted the Spanish ship of the N. Korean ship, the Spanish then acted, then the US people showed up
 
They only stopped them after they painted over the NK flag on the boat. If you don't fly a flag identifying a country then you are unregistered and can be considered a pirate. Being that you have no flag you have no nation backing you as their property and you have no protection. Rule of the sea is fly a flag or be considered a pirate. Suspect pirate ships are routinely stopped and boarded around the world by many nations.

Stopping the boat was wrong if it was flying a flag, according to the article they weren't though so they become free game under international conventions about sea vessels.
 
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

Verbatim BTW. This is international maritime law. No laws were broken. ANY warship could have boarded this vessel since it does not show a flag state.

FYI: Articles 95 and 96 define a warship and immunity of warships. See below:

Article95

Immunity of warships on the high seas

Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.


Article96

Immunity of ships used only on government non-commercial service

Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.



-PAB
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Honestly, I know there is a "war" on, but it seems to me that the US is DESTROYING the very thing we SAY we cherish--the rule of law. When is George Bush going to be indicted for war crimes? How far can we go without destroying that which we seek to preserve. Years ago, attacking international shipping was grounds for an immidiate declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Attacking international shipping is considered piracy. This is otherwise see above post for comment, see below post for statute.

Article101

Definition of piracy

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).

-PAB
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Honestly, I know there is a "war" on, but it seems to me that the US is DESTROYING the very thing we SAY we cherish--the rule of law. When is George Bush going to be indicted for war crimes? How far can we go without destroying that which we seek to preserve. Years ago, attacking international shipping was grounds for an immidiate declaration of war.
Click to expand...


Segan, Why didn't you bother to do even a little research before making such a fool of yourself?

1) There was already a thread on this subject and guess what, the legality of the search had already been established.

U.S. Explosives Team Searches North Korean Ship Carrying Dozen Missiles

2) A major news outlet had posted opinions on the legality of the search.
Law allows search, but does not address seizure of cargo

International law allows nations to stop and search vessels carrying no flags, law experts said. But such laws do not clearly outline a nation's authority to indefinitely hold the vessel, or to seize cargo that is not outlawed.

Under a 1982 international convention that established the Law of the Sea Tribunal at the United Nations, a nation is justified in boarding and searching a ship if the vessel appears to have no nationality, said John Norton Moore, University of Virginia law professor.
...
U.S. international law experts agreed, saying that such identifying markers -? or absence of one -- are the determining factor in establishing authority.

"If there's no flag, there's essentially no nationality ?- it's fair game," said John Norton Moore, law professor at the University of Virginia and director of that school's Center for Oceans Law and Policy.

"They (U.S. authorities) have not violated any law," added Daniel Pinkston of the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "The ship was not carrying the flag, so it's open game. Any nation can legally board and seize the ship."

The absence of a flag raises the question of whether the vessel was really headed toward Yemen, said the University of Virginia's Moore.
------------

The Spanish ship and the US followed the law.

You are lucky there is no law against making moronic posts full of lies and distortions. There would be grounds to indict you.
 
I should also mention that if the US was seizing the missles (which it was well on it's way to do, this was around, i dunno, 10:10), that would be illegal.
 
An unidentified ship was stopped and boarded... suspicious cargo was identified..... When the nation of origin requested the release of the ship and cargo... IT WAS RELEASED and THE CARGO WAS LEFT INTACT....

What the ferk is your problem with that?

Do you know ANYTHING about maritime law?
 
Originally posted by: Insidious
An unidentified ship was stopped and boarded... suspicious cargo was identified..... When the nation of origin requested the release of the ship and cargo... IT WAS RELEASED and THE CARGO WAS LEFT INTACT....

What the ferk is your problem with that?

Do you know ANYTHING about maritime law?
Click to expand...

Hehe, apparently not much. However, you have to admit that its a *fairly* minor technicallity that was used to board the ship. However, law is about technicality--thus, I grant that the US didnt do anything "wrong".
 
Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Have you read the Geneva Convention?

-PAB
Click to expand...

g.w. has done so much against it already including declairing war on something that isn't a country, and taking prisoners but not calling them prisoners of war
 
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Have you read the Geneva Convention?

-PAB
Click to expand...

g.w. has done so much against it already including declairing war on something that isn't a country, and taking prisoners but not calling them prisoners of war
Click to expand...

which is totally separate from this issue.
 
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Have you read the Geneva Convention?

-PAB
Click to expand...

g.w. has done so much against it already including declairing war on something that isn't a country, and taking prisoners but not calling them prisoners of war
Click to expand...

Why don't you link to the convention and point out to us the parts that Bush has ignored or violated.

 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Originally posted by: Insidious
An unidentified ship was stopped and boarded... suspicious cargo was identified..... When the nation of origin requested the release of the ship and cargo... IT WAS RELEASED and THE CARGO WAS LEFT INTACT....

What the ferk is your problem with that?

Do you know ANYTHING about maritime law?
Click to expand...

Hehe, apparently not much. However, you have to admit that its a *fairly* minor technicallity that was used to board the ship. However, law is about technicality--thus, I grant that the US didnt do anything "wrong".
Click to expand...
Painting over the flag you're flying under is hardly considered a minor technicality. Not to mention the false manifests on board.
 
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Have you read the Geneva Convention?

-PAB
Click to expand...

g.w. has done so much against it already including declairing war on something that isn't a country, and taking prisoners but not calling them prisoners of war
Click to expand...

Apparently you're another one who cannot read the Geneva Conventions, specifically the articles dealing with unlawful combatants. Further, despite the ignorant cries of foul, no U.S. court decision has yet contradicted the position of the U.S. government with regard to the detainees at Gitmo.

As for the misguided oblique comment referring to al-Qai'da, the U.S. also had a "war" against a non-nation state group in the 19th century, the Barbary pirates. Try reading history -- it's an enlightening exercise.
 
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: eakers
Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
Have you read the Geneva Convention?

-PAB
Click to expand...

g.w. has done so much against it already including declairing war on something that isn't a country, and taking prisoners but not calling them prisoners of war
Click to expand...

Apparently you're another one who cannot read the Geneva Conventions, specifically the articles dealing with unlawful combatants. Further, despite the ignorant cries of foul, no U.S. court decision has yet contradicted the position of the U.S. government with regard to the detainees at Gitmo.

As for the misguided oblique comment referring to al-Qai'da, the U.S. also had a "war" against a non-nation state group in the 19th century, the Barbary pirates. Try reading history -- it's an enlightening exercise.
Click to expand...

You're ruining my fun, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top