On Whose Authority?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Dec 20, 2003.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    link

    What the hell is going on here? What authority does the US have to interfere with private enterprise in international waters?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    war on terror, man. when americans are scared, international law doesn't matter.
     
  3. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    What, scared of a little dope? :(
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    i'll be interested to see if there's any substance to the claims that the drug shipments had "direct links to al qaeda".

    i think you know the point i was making -- since 9/11, bush has used terror as an excuse to do anything he damn well pleases, international law be damned.
     
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    I can't believe I'm providing a link to the National Review but this thread got me thinking and I did a search and found this very interesting article.

    and this very interesting passage:
    That last bit sounds an awful lot like piracy.
     
  6. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #6
    Does anyone here have a link to these "international Laws" we keep hearing of? I am just curious. Both sides keep using this phrase, but I am not aware of an international constitution, or international bill or rights...

    I am aware of a bunch of treaties we signed, I guess it is a compilation of those treaties...

    Just wondering...
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Yes, treaties and things like the UN Charter. If you look at our own Constitution you will see how it views treaties.

     
  8. Code101 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Location:
    Ut
    #8
    Re: On Whose Authority?

    What do you care? We stopped +9 Million in drugs that would have gone to Osama that could have funded attacks on the US and UK.

    Who's side are you on? We have to stop terrorists! Instead of showing your hate for the US, President Bush and your own PM who I think is a good man, think of how to stop terrorism.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    Re: Re: On Whose Authority?

    Perhaps removing tony and gw from office would be the first step in stopping terrorism. The next would be drastically reducing the west's dependence upon oil but I fear that you and your ilk would find that conservation is a commie plot to destroy western civilization. Oh, well, the death of the US constitution seems not to matter when it comes to "fighting terrorism"
     
  10. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Re: Re: On Whose Authority?

    Without a mandate, it's piracy, just like the Iraqi adventure was mass murder.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Wow, we really are throwing around some awfully strong charges here aren't we? Mass murder, piracy, treason... Let's not let this get out of hand.

    I wouldn't mind hearing more about "international law" either. Any maritime lawyers out there?
     
  12. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #12
    There is a "UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". link It sets out rules for coastal rights, sailing rights, fishing rights, it's all in there. The US and several other first-world nations have not signed on to it because of one section that declares that resources extracted from the seabed of international waters are property of all nations and should be divvied up equally. We found this stipulation to be unfair to our economic rights, so we never signed on to the treaty. What we have done, however, is say "our law of the sea is exactly what is written down in the Convention, except for the bit about sharing." So we generally follow what it says.

    Now about boarding vessels, the congress declared in the 90's, I think, that US law can be pursued anywhere on the face of the planet. It was in relation to a ship being boarded by us in SE Asia somewhere, and the ship owners sued saying we had no authority. Whether this makes any sense or not is up for debate, but it is our policy.
     
  13. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    So in theory everybody in the world is subject to US law? Wow! Were they consulted? How do you define arrogance?
    I think we have hit on the nub of the problem - indeed, many problems - right there.
     
  14. Juventuz macrumors 6502a

    Juventuz

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    Binghamton
    #14
    Where was your outrage when France seized the Manutea in international waters?

    Where was your outrage when North Korea seized the USS Pueblo in international waters?

    Where was your outrage when Canada seized Spanish fishing vessels in international waters?

    Where was your outrage when Australia seized the Tampa in international waters?

    Of course since it's the US seizing illegal drugs it's bad. What right does the US have in interfering with a "private enterprise".
     
  15. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    How do you know that any of us were not outrage at each of these incidents? Most of us are trying to figure out what law if any governs these types of problems. I would prefer that my government operates within the structure of the law. That doesn't seem to be such an outrageous idea. I have no problem with seizing boats that are smuggling drugs. And I don't have a problem especially if they really are al Qaeda operations. I would like to know just what is the legal basis for the action however. If there is no mandate, this seems like a slam dunk in the Security Council if Bush could see his way to involving other nations.
     

Share This Page