Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Preon1 on July 11, 2003, 08:39:51 AM
-
Wow, you'd think that American papers would carry something like this. Apparently, the US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security thinks that international waters now fall under the jurisdiction of the CIA. Even I'M starting to get uncomfortable with the "cowboy diplomacy" of the current administration.
Ofcourse, maybe the brits misquoted or took something out of context... ...doubt it.
London Times
July 11, 2003
US Plans To Seize Suspects At Will
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
AMERICA appeared to be at loggerheads with Britain and other allies yesterday after it declared that it had the authority to intercept any suspect ships and aircraft in international waters and airspace.
“We are prepared to undertake interdictions right now and, if that opportunity arises, if we had actionable intelligence and it was appropriate, we would do it now,” John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said.
He was speaking after a meeting in Brisbane of the new Proliferation Security Initiative, whose 11 members include Britain. Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit.
British diplomatic sources were taken aback by Mr Bolton’s interpretation. A Foreign Office spokesman said: “All 11 participants agreed that any action that might be taken would have to be consistent with international law.”
However, Mr Bolton, a Washington hawk, said that the countries had reached an agreement that in itself authorised the US to take action on the high seas and in international airspace. “There is broad agreement within the group that we have that authority,” he said.
The Brisbane meeting, which agreed to hold military exercises to train for interceptions, was also attended by Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.
The US initiative was launched after an attempt to stop Scud missiles being shipped from North Korea to Yemen failed for legal reasons. Mr Bolton said the US might seek a UN Security Council resolution to add further weight to the action.
The International Maritime Organisation said the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation was being reviewed. The US had proposed a new power to board ships on the high seas. It was “pretty contentious”.
-
Mr Bolton said the US might seek a UN Security Council resolution to add further weight to the action.
WHY? really why? The U.S do what they feel like anyway...
-
Preon1:
Well, you could characterise the U.S. interpretation as cowboy diplomacy, I guess. I'd characterise it as sensible precaution together with other measures now being implemented, in many many international ports and other countries. Like pre-shipment registration and tracking of container cargo. Or, the fact that all foreign crew lists are required to be sent to the U.S. 96 hours before they get here, which puts them in international waters. Should that be stopped as well?
Ocean going terrorism is one of our biggest vulnerabilities and since we are an avowed target, we have the right to protect ourselves. Your concern about cowboy diplomacy might be valid if you really think the U.S. will willy nilly start boarding and seizing ships at sea. do you think that and if so, why?
Really curious about your thoughts.
-
Like pre-shipment registration and tracking of container cargo. Or, the fact that all foreign crew lists are required to be sent to the U.S. 96 hours before they get here, which puts them in international waters. Should that be stopped as well?
Are those in breach of any international law or treaty? Nope.
-
"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """
thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.
-
This sounds a lot like the reason we went to war...................
in 1812.
-
Preon1, that is most curious, and I wonder also about what Mr. Bolton means by
the countries had reached an agreement that in itself authorised the US to take action on the high seas and in international airspace. “There is broad agreement within the group that we have that authority,”
Authority from where? From whom? So this 11-member commitee granted itself authority? On the otherhand, I don't recall any mention of seeking or needing international approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the USN routinely stopped merchantmen in international waters and bound for Cuba, in order to search for nuclear-capable missiles. As the US has stated, any nation has the right to reasonable actions in self-defense (even pre-emptive, if the threat is grave enough)...you just better be right, and prepared to apologize and make restitution if you're wrong. I also believe international law should be observed when ever possible.
I guess I have a problem primarily with use of the word "authorized" by Mr. Bolton. We are in a war, a war on terror, to use an overused phrase. As such, authority is neither sought nor needed. If he had simply stated that the 11-member nations had agreed to take this action in mutual self-defense (which it sounds like they didn't), rather than try to spin it as somehow having authority (which implies we are subservient somehow to some international body), then it would at least come across as more honest.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This sounds a lot like the reason we went to war...................
in 1812.
IIRC we won that war! And we'll win this one also.
:D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Are those in breach of any international law or treaty? Nope.
What international law allows you to force seaman to be identified while still in International Waters? You say it isn't a breach. Okay, then, if that act is okay, then what is the difference in boarding a vessle that we have intelligence on that says it might pose a threat. We are not pirating that vessel, are we?:)
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
IIRC we won that war! And we'll win this one also.
:D
Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.
I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.
A W is a W. Just ask W!
-
“We are prepared to undertake interdictions right now and, if that opportunity arises, if we had actionable intelligence and it was appropriate, we would do it now,” John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said.
Kewl, all they gotta do is invent some more intel and do what they want to do. Just like the intel about WMD. If they keep poking in blind corners they just may come up with something. Or maybe not.
-
What international law allows you to force seaman to be identified while still in International Waters?
What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?
We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """
thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.
The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).
Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?
We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.
I haven't changed my or any other tune. I am tone deaf but thanks for forcing me to bring my disability up so that you and others can ridicule me with it. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?
We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.
Seriosuly Dowd, See
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by john9001
"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """
thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).
Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!
Now, think about a ship, that was destined for the U.S. with a legit cargo but which was hijacked and a nuke put aboard and we had intel about that hijacking. Do you really think we need to ask someone for permission to take care of it or does any other country for that matter, if they are the target.? Likewise, what if a ship that wasn't going to the U.S. was hijacked, and we got intel that it was hijacked and a nuke put aboard to blow up something in the U.S. Do you seriously think that ANY country in the world that had the wherewithall would hesitate to take care of it? Intl law is a series of treaties is all. Ther is no International Constitution or Magna Carta. It's just agreements between two or more countries. If we deem it in our best interest to break a treaty for national security, we must do so, just like the UK or France, or must also do so.
Sorry the world isn't Utopia yet. Maybe someday.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).
Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!
As I understand it, 14 USC 89 only applies to "any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States." ie only those vessels flagged in the US.
"Under admiralty law, the ship's flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship's crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/admiralty.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/admiralty.html)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.
I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.
I think niether of you two know the slightest thing about the war of 1812 or that it actually lasted for over three years. If you don't even know the history between your neighbour then how do you expect to understand a country ten thousand miles away?
Five major invasion attempts by Ameican forces over a three year period which all failed. The last battle on Canadian soil took place on Aug 1 1814 in Lundy's Lane and it was the bloodiest of them all and by the end of the fighting the Americans forces had retreated leaving their dead and wounded behind to rot on the battlefield.
A few weeks later Washington DC was invaded and somewhat burnt to the ground, you probably don't even know how the name "White House" came aboot, eh. ;)
Sounds like a winner... oh btw did you know it was a signed Republican declaration of War that was opposed by congress, somethings never change.
carry on poindexter...
-
So how long before someone like Libya says whats good for the goose is good for the gander and decides to 'intercept' foreign ships at will.
And does this legitimize North Koreas actions in international waters.
I think you yanks are treading on thin ice on this one.
While I backed the war in Iraq, remember no WMDs have been found to date. Now is not a good time to legitimize what many would consider piracy.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So how long before someone like Libya says whats good for the goose is good for the gander and decides to 'intercept' foreign ships at will.
And does this legitimize North Koreas actions in international waters.
I think you yanks are treading on thin ice on this one.
While I backed the war in Iraq, remember no WMDs have been found to date. Now is not a good time to legitimize what many would consider piracy.
Yes what happens when North Korea decides to search US flagged vessels outside it's waters...or China decides to search Taiwanese vessels..or even Japanese vessels in international waters for "illegal" weapons?
Tronsky
-
JOIN THE NAVY!
(http://cts.usal.es/~axis/pirate_disney.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.
I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.
Perhaps using an example of a smaller nation fighting off a larger one seen as an opressor is not the best example to use.....however I think the outcome will be the same - the side that lasts the longest and has the ability to take the most casualties will win, the loser will in the end leave.
Pretty much the way it's always been - personally I think that one of the qualifications for running a country is undergraduate degree in modern history, if it's a super power you're running then a degree in both ancient and modern would save everyone a lot a grief.
-
Originally posted by Torque
I think niether of you two know the slightest thing about the war of 1812 or that it actually lasted for over three years.
you probably don't even know how the name "White House" came aboot, eh. ;)
Sounds like a winner...
Sounds like a whiner to me. Torque, you really torqued me off. I'm telling W that I have intelligence that says Canuckians, and you specifically, have WMDs. Since Canuckian practice is to let every terrorist in the world come to Canada to get to the US, that ought to be justification enough for a redux of the 1812 exercise.
Oh, and the White House is called that because it isn't green or purple, or red, or brown!
Oh, and don't you know that MT is right! Sheesh!:rolleyes:
:D :D :D
Tsk tsk tsk.
We were kidding dude!. Get a clue dude!
Dude!
-
Track the suspect ships while they are in international waters using satelites, predators Pc3's or whatever and grab them as soon as they reach someones waters if that country will allow.
It may cost more but you don't step on anyones toes.
When i was active in the navy we did it all the time and still do.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Track the suspect ships while they are in international waters using satelites, predators Pc3's or whatever and grab them as soon as they reach someones waters if that country will allow.
It may cost more but you don't step on anyones toes.
When i was active in the navy we did it all the time and still do.
Is it 12 miles or 200 miles. I foreget? Does it depend on who you ask? Isn't 12 miles the Internaitoanlly recognized boundary but some,say up to 200?
-
For us this is our responsibility: 200nm
Bluezone..
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00000/Kystvaktens_ansvarsomr_633a.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
For us this is our responsibility: 200nm
Bluezone..
(http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00000/Kystvaktens_ansvarsomr_633a.jpg)
Hey, can I use that in the Diplomacy game.
I can kick em all out of the North Sea!
-
lol, sure :D