Russia against Greenpeace (61)
bungallow55: Those damn commies, they'll get their day.
Do not underestimate your opponent by calling them names, it doesn't make you more powerfull.
------ This thread is Archived ------
GUZMAN1: Article 227 of Russia's penal code defines piracy as "an attack on a ship at sea or on a river, with the aim of seizing someone else's property, using violence or the threat of violence". It can be punished with a jail term of up to 15 years, depending on the gravity of the offence, and a fine of up to 500,000 roubles (£10,000; $15,000).
Articles 101 to 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) contain this definition of piracy:
Article 101
Definition of piracy
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).
Article 102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied.
The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.
Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.
This definition was formerly contained in articles 15 to 17 of the Convention on the High Seas signed at Geneva on April 29, 1958. It was drafted by the International Law Commission.
A limitation of article 101 above is that it confines piracy to the High Seas. As the majority of piratical acts occur within territorial waters, some pirates are able to go free as certain jurisdictions lack the resources to monitor their borders adequately.
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as:
the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.For me, these alarmists and fakers of Greenpeace need a lesson of how to behave properly with the rest of the world. We are not so stupid by not thinking like them.
Articles 101 to 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) contain this definition of piracy:
Article 101
Definition of piracy
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).
Article 102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied.
The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.
Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.
This definition was formerly contained in articles 15 to 17 of the Convention on the High Seas signed at Geneva on April 29, 1958. It was drafted by the International Law Commission.
A limitation of article 101 above is that it confines piracy to the High Seas. As the majority of piratical acts occur within territorial waters, some pirates are able to go free as certain jurisdictions lack the resources to monitor their borders adequately.
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as:
the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.For me, these alarmists and fakers of Greenpeace need a lesson of how to behave properly with the rest of the world. We are not so stupid by not thinking like them.
My dear Guzman... beyond of the cold letter of the law, there is what in Spanish is called 'el espíritu de la ley' (the spirit of the law). Which means that all law should be applied within the coherence and the criterion of the judges.
They know (as you and I also know it) that the Greenpeace group did not constitute a real threat, but it was a rather symbolic protest.
Then my dear...dejémosnos de joder!!!
Because we all know that they are NOT pirates, that they are very far from it, and are NOT dangerous people for the society.
------ This thread is Archived ------
leonardo5: My dear Guzman... beyond of the cold letter of the law, there is what in Spanish is called 'el espíritu de la ley' (the spirit of the law). Which means that all law should be applied within the coherence and the criterion of the judges.
They know (as you and I also know it) that the Greenpeace group did not constitute a real threat, but it was a rather symbolic protest.
Then my dear...dejémosnos de joder!!!
Because we all know that they are NOT pirates, that they are very far from it, and are NOT dangerous people for the society.
They know (as you and I also know it) that the Greenpeace group did not constitute a real threat, but it was a rather symbolic protest.
Then my dear...dejémosnos de joder!!!
Because we all know that they are NOT pirates, that they are very far from it, and are NOT dangerous people for the society.
Did you see the video of Greenpeace ramming the whalers boat?
If that doesn't endanger life on the high seas....
An Act of Piracy is what defines Pirates.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Things like this are used by Greenpeace as propaganda.
They just like the attention.
They just like the attention.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Pom_Pom: Things like this are used by Greenpeace as propaganda.
They just like the attention.
They just like the attention.
Just a bunch of self appointed do-gooders, that actually hinder the world, by stopping us from accessing resources we need at this time.
Their perpetual whining about global warming is running a bit thin now. And, as you said, this is all about attention seeking and very little to do with being a protest against Russian policies.
Now if they were protesting in India against the gang rapes, then they would get world support!
The Greenpeace pre 1980 and that of today are two very very different organisations, with a very different agenda.
Lock them up and throw away the key
------ This thread is Archived ------
wow that wouldnt have been fun pirates
------ This thread is Archived ------
leonardo5: My dear Guzman... beyond of the cold letter of the law, there is what in Spanish is called 'el espíritu de la ley' (the spirit of the law). Which means that all law should be applied within the coherence and the criterion of the judges.
They know (as you and I also know it) that the Greenpeace group did not constitute a real threat, but it was a rather symbolic protest.
Then my dear...dejémosnos de joder!!!
Because we all know that they are NOT pirates, that they are very far from it, and are NOT dangerous people for the society.
They know (as you and I also know it) that the Greenpeace group did not constitute a real threat, but it was a rather symbolic protest.
Then my dear...dejémosnos de joder!!!
Because we all know that they are NOT pirates, that they are very far from it, and are NOT dangerous people for the society.
The Russian applied the "Letter of the Law" as it was on their property. It is the Russian prerogative, a sovereign nation, to use it based on the laws regulating piracy.
A "symbolic protest" is not boarding a ship or an oil platform. It is called trespass depending on the country.
A permissive attitude would engender a new breed of activists, who knows, Eco-Pirates. Would the activists been armed, they would have fallen under the laws of terrorism. A little extreme perhaps, but these individuals have reached a level of behavior where they feel they can act with impunity because of a certain public support.
Like many organizations, they have reached a point where some sensationalism in the media is required to gather financial support. They have to justify the organization's existence (as Amnesty International) by beating the humanitarian drums.
Organizations have become the poster child of the politically correct. Calling on the conscience of the world is to be applauded, turning to manipulation to achieve these goals is unnecessary IMHO.
The media, political pressure, diplomacy, peaceful campaigns and demonstrations can be the lawful alternative.
They may not appear dangerous, but using intimidation and unrestrained behavior could lead to loss of life.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Delatude: They have to justify the organization's existence (as Amnesty International) by beating the humanitarian drums.
The problem then happens when these organisations become pawns. Amnesty International. Look at HWR (Human Rights Watch)? Paid money by Saudi Arabian donors and then go on to write scathing criticisms of Israel. Amnesty is not much better...
------ This thread is Archived ------
MADDOG69: The problem then happens when these organisations become pawns. Amnesty International. Look at HWR (Human Rights Watch)? Paid money by Saudi Arabian donors and then go on to write scathing criticisms of Israel. Amnesty is not much better...
I Agree MD. Rattling the masses to a frenzy, like I see here about Palestine by the Salafists. Amnesty and HRW are losing their credibilty (to me anyway).
------ This thread is Archived ------
MADDOG69: The problem then happens when these organisations become pawns. Amnesty International. Look at HWR (Human Rights Watch)? Paid money by Saudi Arabian donors and then go on to write scathing criticisms of Israel. Amnesty is not much better...
George Soros fed HRW to the tune of a 100mio Dollars!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Let's give Putin a good bath shower of his own, Black OIL
------ This thread is Archived ------
I wonder how much the Ruskies paid to get on the Greenpeace publicity bandwagon
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Greenpeace has been 'Cruising for that Bruising' long time!
And Putin is just the Guy to put it it on them!
No Rainbow Warrior Incident this time!
And Putin is just the Guy to put it it on them!
No Rainbow Warrior Incident this time!
yes we remember rainbow warrior going down here
------ This thread is Archived ------
tomcatwarne: I wonder how much the Ruskies paid to get on the Greenpeace publicity bandwagon
tomcat you are such a cynic lol
------ This thread is Archived ------
Torless: tomcat you are such a cynic lol
------ This thread is Archived ------
We never ever dreamed that the French would take out greenpeace in our harbour....
------ This thread is Archived ------
Torless: We never ever dreamed that the French would take out greenpeace in our harbour....
A tragedy as a photograph died because of the arrogance of the French services and their blatant disregard to the sovereignty of NZ.
To add insult to injury, they bungled their mission, got caught and were send back to France to serve a limited sentence and cheered as heroes!
For incompetence and stupidity, leave it to the French Government then and now.
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
I see the Dutch are making a balls of it now. Since the Greenpeace boat was Dutch they reacted by assaulting and arresting a Russian Diplomat in the Netherlands.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
other can see but not you
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
everything is changing
1830's Music
How far is too far?
Nature
rarotonga
Icebergs Still Around
Common Issues with the BMW X1
your personality
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Articles 101 to 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) contain this definition of piracy:
Article 101
Definition of piracy
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).
Article 102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied.
The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.
Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.
This definition was formerly contained in articles 15 to 17 of the Convention on the High Seas signed at Geneva on April 29, 1958. It was drafted by the International Law Commission.
A limitation of article 101 above is that it confines piracy to the High Seas. As the majority of piratical acts occur within territorial waters, some pirates are able to go free as certain jurisdictions lack the resources to monitor their borders adequately.
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as:
the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.For me, these alarmists and fakers of Greenpeace need a lesson of how to behave properly with the rest of the world. We are not so stupid by not thinking like them.