Russia is casting around for legal measures it can use against Greenpeace. To any reasonable person the accusation of piracy is ludicrous. Russia has come to it because there is no other charge over which it can claim jurisdiction.
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Russia has ratified and is in force, the criminal jurisdiction of a coastal state operates only within its territorial sea of up to twelve miles. Beyond that it may have an exclusive economic zone of up to two hundred miles, and a continental shelf may extend even beyond that; but within those zones the rights of coastal states are limited to jurisdiction over economic activity and mineral exploitation.
The Russians appear very aware of the legal position. When the Greenpeace activists were first arrested, I heard on BBC World Service radio here in Accra a Russian government spokesman say the vessel appeared to be towing a seismic buoy. Greenpeace explained it was a survival pod. But the point is, if it had been a seismic buoy, that would have been an economic activity which the Russian government is indeed entitled to regulate, so it was s thought out pretext (though I have no doubt a dishonest one).
Obviously the argument that they were engaged in unlawful economic activity may have justified the original arrest but quickly falls. What else is left? The seas above the exclusive economic zone are part of the High Seas – a fact often misunderstood. The only criminal activity on the High Seas over which a state other than the flag state of the vessel can claim jurisdiction is piracy. So if the Russians want to bring charges, it is piracy or nothing.
Of course any sensible government would opt for nothing, and accept that demonstrations happen. The Russian government is not sensible in that sense, and would far rather throw away the international kudos gained over Syria, than admit for one second that Putin is not in complete macho control of absolutely everything.
The stupid thing about all this is that Russia has every legal right to be drilling for oil in the Arctic, a great deal of which is rightly within Russia’s exclusive economic zone. The Russians have the right to drill, and Greenpeace have the right to protest about it.
What this is not, is piracy. Greenpeace were not intending to steal or damage any rig, vessel or cargo, or to commit violence. They were just protesting. The definition of piracy in UNCLOS is quite clear:
Article 101
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).
Plainly this is not piracy.
I wouldn’t try to donate to all of them, John. But I got a heck of a kick in the teeth when Amnesty employed Suzanne Nozzel, and there have been all sorts of suggestions made here about what Amnesty is and is not. I had been a member since I was 21.
Apparently I can’t put my faith in Greenpeace either. It gets depressing.
I follow Clive Stafford Smith on Twitter, and I’m aware of Reprieve. But I’m wondering if it’s reasonable to throw mud at Oxfam, Red Cross, WWF, Avaaz, etc. Surely they can’t all be fronts for spooks – or creaming off money to line their own pockets.
Dreolin I am starting to think the bigger the charity the more open to infiltration and siphoning off of donations it becomes. Tony Blair’s charities are big. Tim Spicer’s private army charity makes donations to Help for Heroes to encourage more donations to these mercenaries.
@ Emmpey,
Q: …why arent Greenpeace warning the world about Fukishima?
R: What is that word again? Chaqua… Chopah… Oprah… Checkmate?
@ MJ,
Q: Assembling is not the same as manufacturing. Putting together a flatpack from Ikea does not make you a furniture-maker.
R: That assertion won you 1+ fan. Gosh, do I love sharp minds this early in the morning or what?
@ Dreoilin,
Sometimes it takes a molehill to understand a mountain. The NYT, WaPo, LAT and BBC are fadng shadows of outlets I used to trust without even thinking twice… Then I did…
Dreoilin: you should certainly think twice about WWF. A German TV documentary from 2011 uncovered a lot of stuff, summary here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13305:shock-documentary-wwf-and-industry-the-pact-with-the-panda
Daniel Rich: cheers!
Question to fellow forum members:
I am of the opinion that ‘public interest’ trumps privacy/secrecy. We [ordinary citizens, aka ‘the grey masses’] have a right to be properly informed and deduce our own conclusions based upon unbiased sources and information [I’m really going off the rails now, ain’t I?].
Again [and very personal], I’m stumped [time and time again] to see/hear the reasons as to why I shouldn’t get a particular piece of information.
Sandy Hooks has been mentioned on this site a few times and it looks like [to me] there’s a serious rift between various sides.
What’s the forum’s opinion on this piece of news Newtown Police Ordered To Make Public 911 Tapes From Sandy Hook. They refuse.
As per usual, I don’t take any side/s, I’m just curious.
Thanks.
There is a line of thinking, Dreoilin, that sez that humanitarian charities are essentially the West’s vanguard in key trouble-spots. Whether this is to say that the entire outfit is suspect, or there are some corporate/state agents “smuggled” in with the good guys, I’m not sure.
I daresay at the very least these organisations can provide some useful intelligence to those who would misuse it.
It’s an excellent device, the White Widow, I gotta say that. It reminds us, just when it was needed, of who the true enemy is. It underscores the legitimacy of the War on Terror by validating an earlier AQ-style attack (7/7) just when Ghouta had threatened to unravel the whole narrative. Now, exposing the real nature of “our” relationship (what is the base but the original CIA database of operatives!) with AQ elements has been safely submerged again. Very clever.
Thanks MJ, and everyone.
Shocking stuff about the WWF.
Addressing the UN General Assembly, Obama stressed that President Assad staying as head of the Syrian state is not an option, saying it would create violent space for extremists to operate.
Anti-war activist Brian Becker believes Washington is just looking for a pretext to push through a military solution to the conflict.
Whilst this is a Huge Fkn understatement… Brian Becker on good form here –
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2013/09/us-wants-bully-un-overthrowing-assad
Anyone who didn’t watch Channel 4 News this evening might not have heard this
“Exclusive: Channel 4 News learns the alleged leader of the Nairobi shopping mall attack was born a Christian in Kenya and is a former member of the country’s special forces.”
http://www.channel4.com/news/kenya-terror-westgate-leader-named-exclusive
“A second man [has] been named by Channel 4 News sources.
“Known as Khadhab, he is a Somali national who worked in an Islamic bookshop in the Nairobi suburb of Eastleigh. He was arrested and imprisoned in Somalia, and it is alleged he was tortured by the CIA while in custody there.”
In intelligence circles Dreoilin the ‘Nairobi shopping mall attack’ is known as a squirrel; as in “ooh look, a squirrel.”
If that Samantha Lewthwaite was involved in the attack it looks like she got clean away. Would you Adam and Eve it?
A loss for mankind, but a win for the US.
Fifty-one countries voted against the so-called ‘Israeli Nuclear Capabilities’ measure and 43 states voted for it in what was viewed as a victory for the United States, which opposed the initiative. LINK + LINK
“No matter how many battles you win, you need a final victory to end the war.”
Yes, Mark.
So we have 67 people dead, and possibly dozens more bodies under the rubble, for “ooh look, a squirrel.”
It occurs to me that torture has little or nothing to do with acquiring information. But a lot to do with ensuring a supply of ‘terrorists’, which in turn ensures a never-ending “war on terror”.
If anyone tortured either of my sons, they’d have another white widow on their hands. Albeit I’m not a widow, and I’d run out of puff fairly fast these days.
“Russia has enough evidence to assert that homemade sarin was used on August 21 in a chemical attack near Damascus, the same type but in higher concentration than in an Aleppo incident earlier this year, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov said.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36348.htm
“Russian news agency Interfax rebutted earlier reports on Wednesday made by Western news agencies that claimed that a deal between the United States, Russia, France, China and Britain on wording of the draft resolution on destruction of chemical weapons in Syria had been reached.
“The alleged report claiming that five Security Council agreed on the main part of the resolution on Syria is not true. The Russian delegation was extremely surprised by the appearance of such information,” a source from the Russian delegation told Interfax.”
(Link above)
@BrianFujisan – Brian Becker is affraid to say the word AIPAC. It’s Israel which wants a pro-USrael regime change in Damascus.
Clare Short, former British MP and secretary of state for International Development has claimed on her blog that the US-lead war on Syria has nothing to do with “achieving democracy and dignity but to overthrow the regime in order to weaken Iran and Hizbullah.”
“It is deeply hypocritical of Obama, Cameron and the rest to demand action on the use of chemical weapons because it is a breach of international law when they will take no action as Israel continues to breach international law in its behaviour in the occupied territories. On this we have the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the highest authority in the international system on international law, which makes absolutely clear that Israel is in grave breach of international law in the occupied territories. The US and the UK constantly denounce Russia for making impossible Security Council authorised military action against Syria when the US, almost always supported by the UK, constantly blocks any action whatsoever to try to restrain Israel’s breaches of international law in the occupied territories,” said Short.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/19/clare-short-syria-is-under-attack-to-weaken-iran/
“Whistleblowing and Immunity in Ireland”
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/09/whistelblowing-and-immunity-in-ireland/
I see that Jonathan Sugarman reads and comments on the above site.
Iran, Russia agree to build new nuclear plant [a cluster of four, actually].
Obambi and Mcwhine have snubbed Vlad as a man not fit to lead the Russians. Is this Putin’s way of giving both men the middle finger [in acting, not ‘pledging’]?
Iran After Ahmadinejad
A Chatham House discussion – On the record i.e. NOT Chatham House secrecy rules:
Primer:
Shahram Chubin is based in Geneva, focuses his research on nonproliferation, terrorism, and Middle East security issues. He was director of studies at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland, from 1996 to 2009.
At the Herzliya 14th conference (member Dr. Dov S. Zakheim) on Iran’s Nuclear Posture.
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/eng/?CategoryID=444
Dr Chubin: And let me tell you in advance what my conclusion is. I argued that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, or at least an option, but we don’t know which. I don’t think this will make Iran more aggressive, but you cannot be sure. And there are two reasons for that, of course. One is the nature of the regime, and the other is the impact the acquisition of nuclear weapons would have on the behavior and the goals and the attitude of that regime. As I said, Iran is of special concern for those two reasons – the nature of the regime and the impact the weapons would have on its behavior and goals.
Chatham House – nerve center for the War on Terror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DAETcYhyoDk
am still posting Nairobi updates on page 4 of previous thread, incl policewoman interrogated for hours after saying her NIS brother warned her not to go to the Mall Saturday.
Dreoilin,
“It occurs to me that torture has little or nothing to do with acquiring information. But a lot to do with ensuring a supply of ‘terrorists’, which in turn ensures a never-ending “war on terror”
**************
Yes indeed Dreoilin.
The British angle as you see but a good factual report. Note the metal cages.
Brits Held In Russia Over Oil Rig Protest
Six Britons are are being held in Russia along with several other Greenpeace activists over an Arctic oil protest.
http://news.sky.com/story/1146853/brits-held-in-russia-over-oil-rig-protest
The BBC finished the day as it started it ….
‘Iran’s nuclear weapons programme’
‘the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran’
In 2012 they broadcast
‘The Iranians delight in the latest advances in their nuclear programme.’
‘Iran has announced new developments in its nuclear weapons programme’
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1380238575.html .
Whereas Gilad Atzmon does not hold back.
Now’s The Time To Strip Israel of its WMDs
By Gilad Atzmon
September 26, 2013
The Israelis are not very impressed with Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Israel’s delegation to boycott his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday and later denounced Rouhani’s address there as “a cynical speech that was full of hypocrisy.”
But Israel seems to be alone this time. Both the United States and other Western nations appeared to warmly welcome the new Iranian president at the UN.
/..
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36350.htm
Netanyahu’s speech to the UNGA is awaited!
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.549160
This should be an interesting dilemma for those Israelis with dual American nationality.
‘Why are Americans giving up their citizenship?
The number of Americans giving up their citizenship has rocketed this year – partly, it’s thought, because of a new tax law that is frustrating many expats.
Goodbye, US passport.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021
Daniel Rich 26 Sep, 2013 – 10:24 pm. Public interest in law does not mean what people may at first think, certainly not what I first thought it meant, that is, in the interest of the public. In fact it means quite the opposite in law. You might think that it is in the public interest for the public to know whether the conflicting evidences regarding the moving of Dr David Kelly’s body at the scene of death, but a delegation of doctors, medical professionals who have collectively seen many corpses from all kinds of deaths, has been refused access to photographs of the body, because it is not considered to be in the ‘public interest’. These photographs will not be available to the public until 2073 when many of us may no longer be alive.
Public interest in law means more what authority considers should be in the public domain. All kinds of arguments are used the favourite being that the request has not been made by a ‘properly interested’ person. You might think that a highly-qualified medical professional like Dr David Halpin, who occasionally contributes to this blog, might be considered a properly-interested person. You would be wrong.
Another favourite argument for why there cannot be an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly is because it might cause upset to the family. This is the most ridiculous of arguments. The purpose of an inquest, a requirement in law though not observed in this case, is to see that the interests of the dead person are considered. It is not unknown, in fact it is not uncommon, for a family member to be responsible for another’s death, though I’m not suggesting this in the Kelly case. The upset to family argument is really clutching at straws.
It might seem like I have gone off at a tangent, which perhaps I have, but because I was not aware of what ‘public interest’ actually meant before acquainting myself with the Dr David Kelly case, and now I do I see it is another sham phrase meant to deliberately designed to mislead. So when you hear on the news that certain information has been released in the public interest the question to be asked is what did they not release?
” . . . and now I do I see it is another sham phrase meant to deliberately designed to mislead.” Yes. Should read “. . . and now I do I see it is another sham phrase deliberately designed to mislead.”
Oddie
Had a look at page 4 of previous thread….cheers for updates
it all looks like genuine info, hope they leave the Pregnant policewoman alone now.
I can see this one already getting out of hand – as management controll opp