ProudKangaroo
Gold Member
Offline
The Sandstorm is coming 🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵
Posts: 21378
Meeanjin (Brisbane)
|
Frank wrote Today at 5:24pm: ProudKangaroo wrote Today at 4:45pm: Frank wrote Today at 4:30pm: 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. Lethal force still falls under the various guidelines, conventions and laws that make the second strike they did a war crime. The fact that nobody would know this happened if Trump wasn't so desperate for a distraction and public praise while at the same time trying to prove he actually cares about stopping drugs in the face of him pardoning the Silk road operator and the foreign president both convicted of very high level drug distribution charges makes this even more ridiculous... The incompetence as always is off the charts. As usual, Trump is going for optics over substance and we can now add defending war crimes to the list of horid acts his devoted supporters are forced to do. As if defending the rape and abuse of children wasn't bad enough, now you're defending war crimes too... Nonsense, teapot. You are having hot flushes, as usual. The war crimes angle is bollocks. These were neither uniformed state combatants nor civilians in registere, flagged legal boats. These were drug smugglers and adjudicated (dontcha love that word?) narco terrorist, named specifically. Their mothraship was not on the kill list so it was not engaged. Every single president has authorised the elimination of foreign terrorists. No trial, no bollocks, just a missiie. Slick Willy, Dubya, Sainted Bazza, all did it. And now Trump. But you little yapping mutts are having hot flushes only when Trump does it becsuse you have hotflushes about WHATEVER he does. You are totally deranged, mentally, emotionally, morally deformed and crippled. I believe the Admiral. I don't credit any of your or creepy slanderous creep's yapping. But yapping on you will. You only wheel out the teapot and all that abuse and insults when I'm over the target, scoring direct hits. The level of abuse and disrespect you show always correlates to how defeated you know you are. Every time. So, shall we execute Trump for his treason with Russia, his rape and abuse of children, his insurrection and unconstitutional acts against the peopel of the US, 'No trial, no bollocks, just a lethal injection'? Or would you prefer to be a hypocrite?
|
Forum
Pages: 
Trump blows terrorists out of the water (Read 8955 times)
