Our long history of violating international law continues…
It’s not piracy. I’m enforcing my arbitrary sanctions against Warner Bros.
I’m not a legal expert, but if what Lawrence Atkin-Teillet said is based on strict technicality, then by all definition it’s “not violating the law”. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with this doesn’t matter, because for anyone who even has an inkling of awareness and knowledge of international laws and legal philosophy, is that there is no enforcement. Even in a different reality where someone says that US confiscating a ship is piracy, if it there is still no enforcement then in its spirit it’s now a law. Most “international laws” are more like guidelines. Both the US invasion of Iraq and Russian invasion of Ukraine are illegal as deemed by the UN. Both weren’t punished in any case.
The reality is that there is no such thing as “law” on the international level, because something is a law if it’s strictly enforceable and violators are punished. But none are punished. We are in a ruderless ship with different big boys trying to wrestle the helm from one another while the rest of us are drowning. We’re all just monkeys in suits pretending to be “civilised” and above animals.
No no, he’s right. It’s privateering.
i insist on seeing the missiles letters of marque!
Of course most privateers were also pirates and vice versa, but in the strictest and most literal sense, yes that is privateering
What’s the difference?
Edit: never mind someone explained it in this thread already.
deleted by creator
So if you read a meme like this, read the thread, learn the truth to it, meme is BS, you’re supposed to downvote OP in this instance yeah?
Blowing up boats without Congressional approval, ie. Authorization of Use of Military Force violates the US Constitution.
Executing a second strike on people that are in the water violates international law (it’s a war crime) and US military law. And the US Constitution.
Boarding a ship that you have an arrest warrant on is completely legal. If this happened without the strikes that preceded it, it probably wouldn’t make the news.
This is the action they want to be asked a lot of questions about, because this action was actually legal. They do not want people asking about the second strike back in September, since that was a war crime. They know people have non-existent memories now, so if they do an action that’s legal (but maybe controversial) they can make people forget the illegal action in the past. So by trying to make controversy about the thing they want to be asked questions about, you’re actually doing exactly what they want.
The response they don’t want is “yeah sure, you arrested a ship, whatever… but what about that second strike?”
Boarding a ship that you have an arrest warrant on is completely legal.
Was the ship in US waters?
How dare you not take an Authoritarian dictatorship’s side just because Trump is bad? Sanctions don’t matter! All hail IRGC and Maduro! /s
Yeah, the enemy of my enemy is still a fucking asshole :P
Piracy - independent actors, not state sponsored.
Privateering - independent actors, state sponsored.
Act of war - state actors, state sponsored.
Going rogue - state actors, not state sponsored.
Sanctions are in the toolkit right next to war. The difference is with sanctions you don’t kill anyone.
Mao Tse-Tung: Hey, we’re officially a state actor now, because we control the state of China.
Entire Western world: NO YOU FUCKING DON’T! IT DOESN’T COUNT UNLESS I SAY IT DOES!
Words have meanio, and in this case the word doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.
But yes, piracy is committed by a non state actor.
Thank you for this rephrasing. I couldn’t read it in any other way than the US somehow being specially exempt from committing piracy, rather than the fact that being state sponsored (regardless of the state) means it can’t technically, legally, be piracy.
If it helps to think of it in an 18th century swashbuckling sense, this would be an example of privateering rather than piracy.
Unless of course this was an act by state actors at the direction of the state in which case it would most logically be considered a military action and therefore an act of war, even if not yet declared
Except for all the times it happened. All the colonial countries hired ships to attack merchants of the other nations in the Caribbean and Atlantic. The age when that happened? The golden age of piracy! There were more pirates on the payroll of states than those stealing for themselves.
That was privateering. Privateers were basically PMCs.
That be privateerin, matey.
That was a privateer. And it wasn’t exactly considered all that legitimate at the time, and definitely isn’t legitimate activity today.
Sir Francis Drake was legitimate enough to get knighted. And when he captured and ransomed Cartagena de Indias he gave 100,000 pesos to the crown of england. You know what the people in Colombia call that event? A pirate raid.
I agree there is a differentiation and privateer is a more precise definition. But the people getting attacked could not give less of a shit if the guy robbing them is state sponsored or not. To the victims its just pirates. Just as the US is sending pirate ships to do piracy in Venezuela.
I mean, if you want to say enforcing sanctions is piracy, but that makes a whole lot of countries guilty, not just the us.
Right so that has a word. Those individuals would be privateers. They commit state sanctioned piracy.
If you’re using your country’s military that’s not piracy by any definition
Privateers are private individuals. Not military. They just happened to be paid by a state.
The only distinction is for Venezuela to make. They won’t handle an act of war the same way as an act of piracy - and they shouldn’t be expected to be responsible for US internal politics, or give a shit.
Did you mean to reply to me? I’m pretty sure I made it very clear these were not privateers and was instead the military.
When I said “They committed state sanctioned piracy” I was replying to a comment asking about historical privateers. “They” refers to those historical privateers not the current situation with the US military being used
I don’t think it’s really about hypocrisy and the color chart meme doesn’t fit either. The distinction of being a government act is significant. In my opinion the actions of the US vs Venezuelan interests recently are closer to acts of war.
I thought the same thing. The meme doesn’t fit, but the content of the text is actually interesting. Can’t be piracy if it is a government doing it? Does that make it an act of war, then? Or can the government just steal whatever it wants form any country?
Can’t be piracy if it is a government doing it?
Yes in every modern and historical definition of the word yes. Basically if the US hired a mercenary group to do it those would be considered privateers doing some state sanctioned piracy.
The US used its military. Meaning it’s an action of the state and a direct act of war.
Now what does that mean? Not much truthfully. Under all international laws Venezuela is a victim to our military aggression and has the inherent right to defend its sovereignty. They won’t though because the US is far too strong and influential. The world would have to band together to sanction the US or engage in military action.
deleted by creator
Privateering
Nope not that either. Privateers are private ships committing piracy under the authority of the state.
The US used the military. It’s just a regular old act of war
I just want to say how much I love Lemmy. Yes. Privateering. 😉 Although technically privateers were privately owned vessels operating under government sanction.
So think Gravy Seal boats capturing an oil tanker.
Give them time. They could just be setting precedent for PMCs to legally seize one in the future.
When a company like Amazon publicly displays the bodies of the pirates they hanged in a vassal state of which they have de facto control, we’ll know we’re in the next iteration of the age of privateering and the East India Company.
Thats the Merchant Marine. We’ve always had privateers
Reuters just uncritically repeating American propganda wish i was surprised.
Real journalists get the quote and print the quote and let the reader think for themselves what they think about what the person said.
I guess you prefer “alt media” that just straight up tells you how to think? Or maybe an algorithm that just gives you content that always agrees with how you feel?
Because we said it was ok it was ok that we did it.
Richard Nixon, “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
It’s not a racial thing … it’s a money and wealth thing
If blacks had a bunch of billionaires and owned majority wealth in the world and had easy access and control of the largest military in the world … then racial profiling according to skin colour would be a lot different
It’s about the money … it’s always about the money
But sir that’s against the international rules!
I guess there is some stupid argument that the US government doesn’t consider it piracy… We kind of assumed that. Other governments think it’s piracy, and US DoJ memos don’t apply to those
No governments would ever consider this piracy because it’s not.
Since it was done using the military it’s an act of war
Have you ever heard of privateers
Yes. And those are privately owned vessels acting under a government’s letter of marque. Private, it’s in the name. :)
Yes but some else just told me they are warships so it’s not piracy
Warships are by definition owned and operated by a government. Privateers are private vessels operating under cover of law by a government.
So, yeah? Warships cannot commit piracy, technically. Really, the whole conversation here is about words and meanings.
Except privateers had warships…
It is a word game at this point you’re right
Yes I have. Privateers are private individuals that commit piracy on behalf of the state.
The US did not hire or sanction a mercenary group to take this tanker.
The US used its military. That makes it not piracy, but that does make it an act of war
Glad they used lines.
