Jasin wrote Yesterday at 3:32pm:


Quote:


The evidence that these people are that seems dubious at best. Still people floating in the ocean are no threat.

Supporting this means supporting them doing the same in return. I don't think anyone should want that.

Jasin wrote Yesterday at 3:57pm:


No, they do not.

Summary executions are illegal.

The government can't deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Moreover, there is zero evidence to suggest that these people who were murdered had drugs or guns with them.

Jasin wrote Yesterday at 3:32pm:


1.  Then why did Trump release two drug smugglers on those boats and send them back to their Homes to have another go?

2.  Brady made it known that those drugs on that boat were headed via a mothership to Suriname, no connection with smugling into the USA.

Quote:


Dumb.  If that was really the case, why did Bradley not wait for that September 2 boat (with the original two survivors  subsequently murdered after FOUR missiles) not wait until it got to the mothership, and then blow them all out of the water?

Quote:


Yes, it's not as though Trump would ever release a Drug Lord from prison, especially anyone who was supposed to spend the rest of his life in a US jail.  That would be an incentive, yes?

Quote:


How about a real deterrent?  Congress does what Trump decides to want and passes Legislation allowing the Government to lace Government produced cocaine etc with cyanide.  Laced drugs are put on then streets with ample warning given to Citizens.

Win win.  Kill two birds with one stone.  The criminal users are killed (and the herd improved via Darwin) and the market for the drug smugglers dries up.

You up for that you moron?  If not, why not?

 

Jasin wrote Yesterday at 3:57pm:


He has not twisted anything.  He posted facts.

Quote:


And, the users by choice also forfeit any 'legality' the moment they get out of bed to go buy drugs.  They are no less a criminal than the mules are.

Quote:


And how would that happen?  US Cops are mind readers now are they? 

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 4:07pm:


The investigations haven't finished yet.

It'll be a slow process, but Pisshead Pete will eventually pay for him crimes.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 4:10pm:



It would be good if the USA recognised it?   





usually refers to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN's main judicial body settling disputes between states, but also to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; both crucial international courts are based in The Hague, Netherlands, at the Peace Palace, though the ICC has its own building nearby.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Role: Settles legal disputes between UN member states and gives advisory opinions on legal questions.
Founded: 1945, began work in 1946.
Location: Peace Palace, The Hague.
Parties: States.

International Criminal Court (ICC)
Role: Investigates and prosecutes individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity).

Founded: 2002, Rome Statute.
Location: The Hague, Netherlands.
Parties: Individuals (not states).

Under which country's flag were these boats sailing?  Er.... they were sailing unflagged.
Oh?! Meaning?



A ship in international waters is required, under the United Nations Conference of the Law of the Seas (“UNCLOS”) to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If a ship does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A ship in international waters that is not flying a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. These ships have absolutely no national or international protections, and no immunity from interference by other states. You cannot commit a war crime against them.

UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:

A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.

Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.

War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law. Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an armed conflict.

Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.

Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.

No flag: no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.

Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.