• Russia 'seizes' Greenpeace ship. 29 arrested at gunpoint.
    134 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Apache249;42252741]How is it being a Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel in the vicinity of a boarding operation by small boats with limited range not a valid suspicion?[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if it's a valid suspicion or not. The russian cost guard still does not have jurisdiction on international waters and it's plain rude not to inform the host country.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42252649]once again no proof was brought forward that the members of its crew intruded on the rig. considering they didnt tell the dutch government, YES its an unprovoked attack. why are we suspending international law for the russian military? do you really hate greenpeace that much that youre willing to pervert the course of justice to hold a bunch of people in jail with no [b]trial or due process?[/b][/QUOTE] and how exactly do you propose they are brought to trial? asking them nicely to come and pay for their crime?
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252767]and how exactly do you propose they are brought to trial? asking them nicely to come and pay for their crime?[/QUOTE] yes [editline]21st September 2013[/editline] or getting the dutch government to prosecute them
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42252775]yes [editline]21st September 2013[/editline] or getting the dutch government to prosecute them[/QUOTE] what if they don't come? Or what if they don't go back to the Netherlands? Yup, some pirates just got away with their crime.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252767]and how exactly do you propose they are brought to trial? asking them nicely to come and pay for their crime?[/QUOTE] im sorry if international law isn't effective enough for you, but russians arent allowed to drag citizens of another country to court against their will. they can ask for extradition. and do you feel the same way about assange? what about refugee seekers? i think its disgusting to think this way.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42252764]I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if it's a valid suspicion or not. The russian cost guard still does not have jurisdiction on international waters and it's plain rude not to inform the host country.[/QUOTE] The way I see it, this operation would fall under the category of the Russian Coastguard protecting a Russian oil rig. It wasn't at risk from a military threat, so I don't see any reason their coast guard shouldn't have been involved. It's one of the coast guard's duties to provide maritime security.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252784]what if they don't come? Or what if they don't go back to the Netherlands? Yup, some pirates just got away with their crime.[/QUOTE] too fucking bad, they arent pirates they are a legitimate organization that flies under the banner of the netherlands.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252767]and how exactly do you propose they are brought to trial? asking them nicely to come and pay for their crime?[/QUOTE] They're a legitimate organization sailing under the Dutch flag. If they want to stay sailing under the Dutch flag they'll have to respond to a legitimate request and stand trial.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42252787]im sorry if international law isn't effective enough for you, but russians arent allowed to drag citizens of another country to court against their will. they can ask for extradition. and do you feel the same way about assange? what about refugee seekers? i think its disgusting to think this way.[/QUOTE] and how do you ask for extradition of people you haven't seen the face of, or have the name of? while they're creeping around your property in your EEZ [editline].[/editline] I doubt it'd go well if Russia asked for 29 greenpeace members from NL without specifying which ones
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252767]and how exactly do you propose they are brought to trial? asking them nicely to come and pay for their crime?[/QUOTE]So let's abduct them in [I]international waters[/I] instead and not even inform their government, brilliant fucking idea. Funny how people support that kind of blatantly illegal behaviour when Greenpeace are at the receiving end of it, but the US policy of abducting suspected terrorists through extraordinary rendition starts a shitstorm.
[QUOTE=Apache249;42252791]The way I see it, this operation would fall under the category of the Russian Coastguard protecting a Russian oil rig. It wasn't at risk from a military threat, so I don't see any reason their coast guard shouldn't have been involved. It's one of the coast guard's duties to provide maritime security.[/QUOTE] [B]Because a coast guard doesn't have jurisdiction in international waters[/B].
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42252802][B]Because a coast guard doesn't have jurisdiction in international waters[/B].[/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42252802][B]Because a coast guard doesn't have jurisdiction in international waters[/B].[/QUOTE] so how do you defend property in international water?
[QUOTE=Apache249;42252791]The way I see it, this operation would fall under the category of the Russian Coastguard protecting a Russian oil rig. It wasn't at risk from a military threat, so I don't see any reason their coast guard shouldn't have been involved. It's one of the coast guard's duties to provide maritime security.[/QUOTE] because this was a direct-order from the russian president
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252812]so how do you defend property in international water?[/QUOTE] With a navy.
[QUOTE=Apache249;42252810]Source?[/QUOTE]Just google it you lazy sod; it's not exactly arcane knowledge. Ships in international waters are under the jurisdiction of the country whose flag they fly under.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252796]and how do you ask for extradition of people you haven't seen the face of, or have the name of?[/QUOTE] is this really a hard concept dude whats the legal basis to extradite someone if you dont know who they are?
Considering the U.S. shoots at boats that come too close to their own, I'd count them lucky they weren't killed when they attempted to board.
[QUOTE=Flapadar;42252784]what if they don't come? Or what if they don't go back to the Netherlands? Yup, some pirates just got away with their crime.[/QUOTE] what if? if you have to break the law to uphold it then the law is meaningless
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42252878]what if? if you have to break the law to uphold it then the law is meaningless[/QUOTE] So it's meaningless when police get engaged in a pursuit and have to speed in order to catch up?
no because police are legally allowed to do that when they have their sirens on
It's pretty much common sense... "Don't fuck with the Russians"
[QUOTE=thisispain;42252720]umm theyre being held against their will without a trial. they might not be in a building called a jail, but they are in a stage of bondage.[/QUOTE] We call that an 'arrest'. It's that step between being free and being on trial. Just because a trial hasn't been scheduled yet doesn't mean it won't happen. While you are correct that it is normally considered illegal to enforce law in international waters, most nations [URL="http://www.uscg.mil/international/affairs/publications/mmscode/english/chap3.htm"]follow a principle[/URL] of hot pursuit. If the Greenpeace activists committed a crime against Russian citizens, they should claim pursuit as a jurisdictional justification. Also, the notion that a coast guard does not enforce law in international waters is totally wrong. Have a look through the link I provided above, it's specific to the US but the practices described are common. [editline]20th September 2013[/editline] In fact, let me quote relevant passages from US policy: [quote] Article 3.33 Piracy. (A) General. It is unlawful to engage in piracy. Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (1) [b]any illegal act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation[/b], committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private vessel or a private aircraft, and directed: (a) [b]on the high seas[/b], against another vessel or aircraft, or against persons or property on board the other vessel or aircraft; or, (b) [b]against a vessel, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any country[/b];[/quote] By the US definition, the Greenpeace activists are pirates. So, where does the jurisdiction for enforcement end for pirates? [quote](C) Seizure of a Pirate Vessel or Aircraft. [b]On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any country, the Maritime Force may seize a pirate vessel or aircraft, or a vessel or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.[/b] A seizure may only be carried out by vessels which are clearly marked and identifiable as being under the authority of Maritime Force.[/quote] In international waters. By the US standards what Russia did was completely legitimate. I can't speak for Russian law or anyone else's, but their actions are hardly out of the ordinary.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42247894]there is nothing inherently wrong with GMOs[/QUOTE] While that may be true, but the amount of secrecy floating around GMO food doesn't make me want to put it in my mouth. I'm fine if others want to indulge in it, but I would prefer not to.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42253077]We call that an 'arrest'. It's that step between being free and being on trial. Just because a trial hasn't been scheduled yet doesn't mean it won't happen. While you are correct that it is normally considered illegal to enforce law in international waters, most nations [URL="http://www.uscg.mil/international/affairs/publications/mmscode/english/chap3.htm"]follow a principle[/URL] of hot pursuit. If the Greenpeace activists committed a crime against Russian citizens, they should claim pursuit as a jurisdictional justification. Also, the notion that a coast guard does not enforce law in international waters is totally wrong. Have a look through the link I provided above, it's specific to the US but the practices described are common. [editline]20th September 2013[/editline] In fact, let me quote relevant passages from US policy: By the US definition, the Greenpeace activists are pirates. So, where does the jurisdiction for enforcement end for pirates? In international waters. By the US standards what Russia did was completely legitimate. I can't speak for Russian law or anyone else's, but their actions are hardly out of the ordinary.[/QUOTE] [B]A seizure may only be carried out by vessels which are clearly marked and identifiable as being under the authority of Maritime Force.[/B] This is NOT the coast guard. Also relevant bit from the link you send: [quote]THE U.S. COAST GUARD [B]The U.S. Coast Guard is authorized to enforce, or assist in the enforcement of, all U.S. Federal laws applicable on, over, and under the high seas and waters [I]subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[/I][/B] These include laws which provide for the U.S. Coast Guard to exclusively act, and those which the Coast Guard enforces primarily for some other Federal agency. Generally, the Coast Guard must determine on a case-by-case basis whether it has jurisdiction. Besides determining whether it has the domestic authority to assert jurisdiction, it often must also determine whether an assertion of jurisdiction is consistent with international law. In many cases involving a foreign vessel, the Coast Guard decides whether it has jurisdiction over the vessel and its personnel based on three elements: the activities of the vessel and personnel, the location of the vessel, and the nationality of the vessel.[/quote] [editline]mkay[/editline] After a bit more research my first point may or may not be false. I'm not entirely sure right now. Second point still holds, the US coast guard has no jurisdiction in waters not under US jurisdiction and therefore have no jurisdiction in international waters.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42253686][B]A seizure may only be carried out by vessels which are clearly marked and identifiable as being under the authority of Maritime Force.[/B] This is NOT the coast guard.[/QUOTE] Seriously? You are quoting regulations from a website entitled 'uscg.mil'. Who do you think those regulations apply to, and what do you suppose the Coast Guard is organized under? (Spoiler: the Coast Guard, and the military, respectively) [QUOTE=mobrockers;42253686]Also relevant bit from the link you send: ... Second point still holds, the US coast guard has no jurisdiction in waters not under US jurisdiction and therefore have no jurisdiction in international waters.[/QUOTE] Go back and re-read. Notice in particular: [quote]To ensure this principle of the freedom of the high seas, international law generally prohibits, [B]with certain carefully delineated exceptions[/B], any nation from asserting jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas. Thus, unless one of the few exceptions is applicable, a vessel on the high seas is said to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state.[/quote] The passage I originally quoted was describing one such exception. Pursuing a ship that committed crime on your territory is an exception. Pursuing a vessel that has committed acts of piracy is another. Being in international waters does not mean a vessel is completely immune to the legal authority of all nations except the flag nation. You've also glossed over the rest of the block you quoted, which makes it quite clear that location is only one component in establishing jurisdiction. International waters are not a no-man's land where no nation can enforce its laws.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42253825]Seriously? You are quoting regulations from a website entitled 'uscg.mil'. Who do you think those regulations apply to, and what do you suppose the Coast Guard is organized under? (Spoiler: the Coast Guard, and the military, respectively) Go back and re-read. Notice in particular: The passage I originally quoted was describing one such exception. Pursuing a ship that committed crime on your territory is an exception. Pursuing a vessel that has committed acts of piracy is another. Being in international waters does not mean a vessel is completely immune to the legal authority of all nations except the flag nation. You've also glossed over the rest of the block you quoted, which makes it quite clear that location is only one component in establishing jurisdiction. International waters are not a no-man's land where no nation can enforce its laws.[/QUOTE] No crime was committed on Russian territory by that greenpeace ship.
[QUOTE=Stroma;42248086][URL=http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html]l[/URL][URL=http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs]o[/URL][URL=http://rt.com/news/monsanto-rats-tumor-france-531/]l[/URL] [URL=http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/11/15]o[/URL][URL=http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html]k[/URL][/QUOTE] Everyone who has rated you dumb has no idea what they are ingesting and dont really care because half of the artificial and super sweeteners have damaged their brains to the point of no return. Ie: High fructose corn syrup, Aspartame, Splenda. Its so naive to believe that Splicing genes has no ill effects. Im still waiting to see some actually studies that say GMOs are in fact 'good for you'. Or actually have a higher yield to organic crops. Prove me wrong. I bet you cant do it.
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42253904]No crime was committed on Russian territory by that greenpeace ship.[/QUOTE] Forcibly boarding a foreign vessel or installation in a special economic zone is widely regarded as a bad move.
[QUOTE=crazyjames;42253957]Everyone who has rated you dumb has no idea what they are ingesting and dont really care because half of the artificial and super sweeteners have damaged their brains to the point of no return. Ie: High fructose corn syrup, Aspartame, Splenda.[/quote] Since when did artificial sweeteners do that? People are complaining about the flavour additive MSG but that's harmless as well. [quote]Prove me wrong. I bet you cant do it.[/QUOTE] That's because it's impossible to "prove somebody wrong". The burden of proof lies on you to prove that GMOs are bad for your health.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.