Our long history of violating international law continues...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    No governments would ever consider this piracy because it's not.

    Since it was done using the military it's an act of war

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Have you ever heard of privateers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Yes. And those are privately owned vessels acting under a government's letter of marque. Private, it's in the name. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yes but some else just told me they are warships so it's not piracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    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

  • source
  • parent