baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (10/13/85)
> Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by the US Government? By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. If the U.S. navy assisted the Italian government in capturing the hijackers of "their" cruise ship, I think that's perfectly within the bounds of international law. If the murder was comitted on an Italian vessel on the high seas, the culprits should be tried under Italian law. If it happened within the territorial waters of some other country, I suppose that country could argue for the right to try them under local law. But I don't understand what legal basis Mr. Reagan could have for extradition of the hijackers to the U.S. Baba
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/15/85)
In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: > . . . > Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as > an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers > are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a > subject; I don't mind "unpopular viewpoints", but please get your facts straight first. Under US as well as international law, sovereignties are permitted to make arrests--including the use of force--without arrest warrants, under various circumstances. The incident in question occurred in international airspace, but even under US law, it would have been PERFECTLY LEGAL. The most important justification for a warrantless arrest is known as "exigent circumstances". In real life, that means a situation where there is no time to have a warrant drawn, because the suspect is fleeing or importance evidence would be destroyed. Take for example a sitation where a man has just robbed a bank in Miami Beach. The police learn that he has taken off in a boat and has left US waters and is heading for (say) Cuba. Can the Coast Guard or Navy intercept his boat, board it, and arrest him? YOU BETCHA. If he flees (even from a third country) in an airplane, can the plane be intercepted and forced to land either in the US or another country (presumably one with which the US has an extradition treaty)? YOU BETCHA. Leaving all political issues aside, the situation was that four persons were suspected of having committed a crime under US law while on the high seas. (As an aside, you may wish to note that under treaties dating back to the 18th century, ANY sovereignty has jurisdiction to try piracy cases, so strong is the mutual interest in keeping the seas safe.) These persons were believed to be fleeing to a safe haven (Tunisia, Algeria, Greece?) where they would be unable to be arrested and prosecuted, for whatever reasons. The US government quite lawfully intercepted their craft and forced it to land in a third country. There was no use of force, either deadly or non-deadly. Remember that arrests made under threat of force are extremely commonplace in democracies. Is a peace officer justified in drawing a weapon and telling a fleeing bank robber to stop? YOU BETCHA. Of course the bank robber is not yet guilty of any crime. Nor, under US law, are those suspected of piracy of the Achille Lauro. But without the right to arrest suspects by force or threat of force, sovereignties would be powerless to enforce their laws against those who would refuse to be arrested. I am a lawyer, and have studied both international law and US criminal law. I do not practice in either of those areas, and am certainly no expert. But the principles of sovereign power with respect to international fugitives and the use of force and threat of force in the arresting of suspects are both so fundamental that I hope that a comment like Mr. Armstrong's would not be considered seriously. Michael C. Berch, J.D. mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/17/85)
> > an act of "state terrorism" by the US Government? By the US legal > > system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted > > without the due process of the law being followed. > > try them under local law. But I don't understand what legal basis > Mr. Reagan could have for extradition of the hijackers to the U.S. I have no love for Arabs in general or Palestinian terrorists in particular. But isn't it an act of piracy by US to force down a plane over the international waters? From what I know US had no warrant for the arrest of the hijackers, or even a firm knowledge of their presence on the plane! The proper steps would be : 1) Locate the body of the man killed by hijackers. 2) prove beyond any reasonable doubt the palestinians had commited a murder. 3) await (and help with) the trial of hijackers by PLO; 4) petition with Tunisia (?) and PLO for their extradition. I don't think any of these steps are realisticly possible. And I think the only thing better than force-landing the Egiptian plane would have been a commando raid on the ship while it was still in the hands of terrorists. But as it is -- US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about all of this! -- -----------------------------------+ With deep indifference, "I disbelieve an army of invisible | Oleg Kiselev. mind-flayers!" | DISCLAIMER: "OK. They are *still* not there." | I don't know what I am talking about and -----------------------------------+ therefore am not responsible for any damages to people who take me seriously! ...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg ...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg Nothing I ever say reflects the views or opinions of my employers. They knew who they hired though!
andy@Shasta.ARPA (10/18/85)
Oleg@oac6 writes: > The proper steps would be : and > [But as it is] US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets > are going to say about all of this! I know I'm going to get flamed for this but .... Do any you claiming that the US/Italy/Egypt is wrong/right under international law actually know international law? I suppose it's bad form to ask people to distinquish between opinions and facts. BTW - The last I heard, the Soviets APPROVED of the interception. -andy
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/19/85)
In article <14232@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <903@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >> . . . >> Does not the act of forcing the aircraft to fly to Sicily qualify as >> an act of "state terrorism" by teh US Government? By the US legal >> system, these people were guilty of NO crimes, yet were adbucted >> without the due process of the law being followed. US legal officers >> are required to follow the laws of the land when apprehending a >> subject; > >I don't mind "unpopular viewpoints", but please get your facts straight >first. Under US as well as international law, sovereignties are >permitted to make arrests--including the use of force--without arrest >warrants, under various circumstances. The incident in question >occurred in international airspace, but even under US law, it would >have been PERFECTLY LEGAL. The most important justification for a >warrantless arrest is known as "exigent circumstances". In real life, ... >Leaving all political issues aside, the situation was that four >persons were suspected of having committed a crime under US law while >on the high seas. (As an aside, you may wish to note that under >treaties dating back to the 18th century, ANY sovereignty has >jurisdiction to try piracy cases, so strong is the mutual interest in >keeping the seas safe.) These persons were believed to be fleeing to a >safe haven (Tunisia, Algeria, Greece?) where they would be unable to >be arrested and prosecuted, for whatever reasons. The US government >quite lawfully intercepted their craft and forced it to land in a >third country. There was no use of force, either deadly or non-deadly. > >Remember that arrests made under threat of force are extremely >commonplace in democracies. Is a peace officer justified in drawing a >weapon and telling a fleeing bank robber to stop? YOU BETCHA. >Of course the bank robber is not yet guilty of any crime. Nor, under >US law, are those suspected of piracy of the Achille Lauro. But >without the right to arrest suspects by force or threat of force, >sovereignties would be powerless to enforce their laws against those >who would refuse to be arrested. > >I am a lawyer, and have studied both international law and US criminal >law. I do not practice in either of those areas, and am certainly no >expert. But the principles of sovereign power with respect to >international fugitives and the use of force and threat of force in >the arresting of suspects are both so fundamental that I hope that a >comment like Mr. Armstrong's would not be considered seriously. > >Michael C. Berch, J.D. >mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA >{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb Well, I'm a lawyer too, and I studied International Law, both private and public at law school also. Likewise, although I have international dealings, I don't practice International Law. And, of course, I disagree. The US has no jurisdiction over an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. You seem to have forgotten the very basic premises of Inter- national Law, formost of which is the Sovereignty of Nations. Having said all this, I think that *overall* I don't feel badly at all about what happened. International Law *must* balance pure 'paper law' with realities of the situation. The US had *good* reason to doubt that justice would otherwise have been done. The problem is, that you Americans are, I think too taken up by Miranda and the fact that your local police must justify what they have done in order to be 'right'. If I may say so, 'forget it'. The dislike of terrorism is strong almost throughout the world. The better part of the world agreed with the action. Just watch out that the precedent doesn't backfire. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/85)
In article <856@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > . . . The US has no jurisdiction over > an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in > command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian > government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were > in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the > aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. I can't agree that the terrorists were in Egyptian custody at the time they were intercepted by the US forces. Indeed, the fact that the Egyptians had RELEASED the terrorists (reference: statement that the four "had been turned over to the PLO," by Mr. Mubarak, that morning) and that they were free of sovereign custody and in danger of escaping judicial proceedings is what made the US action, in my opinion, timely and lawful. Obviously this would not apply if US forces seized the terrorists on Egyptian soil, etc., but that isn't what happened. Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is (let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug smuggling, in the Caribbean. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
> > And I think the only > thing better than force-landing the Egiptian plane would have been a commando > raid on the ship while it was still in the hands of terrorists. But as it is -- > US is in the wrong, and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about > all of this! > -- The terrorists have in effect declared an international war on citizens. Those countries who don't have mashed potatoes for spines should declare war on terrorism. Then those marshmellows who are now screaming in defense for the terrorists will have no ground to stand on. In times of war, the rules are bent to end the war, thus, forcing down a plane loaded with terrorists will be perfectly acceptable. Why do you care what the Soviets say about this? If you must know, they shocked the US by saying they understood why there was a Rambo Raid on the airliner, they felt the Americans had been through this just too much. Does this make you feel any better?
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (10/22/85)
> > Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with > regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is > (let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. > The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release > him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... > wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international > waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of > thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug > smuggling, in the Caribbean. > > Michael C. Berch Actually, the Coast Guard does wait for the suspected "smuggling" ship to enter U.S. waters. Some other pretext can be used requiring the Coast Guard to enter such a ship to verify its registration number. This is what happens most of the time. To check this number, a person must get to the center of the ship's hold. If illegal contraband is seen the ship is taken into custody. Mark Reina
weltyrp@rpics.UUCP (Richard Welty) (10/24/85)
> ... and I'd love to hear what the Soviets ar going to say about > all of this! > -- Actually, with three of their people still held hostage, the Soviets are most likely to play it straight, which is what they have been doing ... -- Rich Welty "P. D. Q.'s early infancy ended with a striking decision; at the age of three, P. D. Q. Bach decided to give up music" - Prof. Peter Schickele, from "The Definitive Biography of P. D. Q. Bach" CSNet: weltyrp@rpics ArpaNet: weltyrp.rpics@csnet-relay UUCP: seismo!rpics!weltyrp
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/25/85)
In article <14591@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >In article <856@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> . . . The US has no jurisdiction over >> an Egyptian aircraft, which was piloted by an Egyptian clearly in >> command of his own aircraft and acting pursuant to the Egyptian >> government. In as far as the terrorists are concerned, they were >> in the proper custody of Egypt at the time the hijacking of the >> aircraft occurred and subject to Egyptian, *not* US law. > >I can't agree that the terrorists were in Egyptian custody at the >time they were intercepted by the US forces. Indeed, the fact that the >Egyptians had RELEASED the terrorists (reference: statement that the >four "had been turned over to the PLO," by Mr. Mubarak, that morning) >and that they were free of sovereign custody and in danger of escaping >judicial proceedings is what made the US action, in my opinion, timely >and lawful. Obviously this would not apply if US forces seized the >terrorists on Egyptian soil, etc., but that isn't what happened. > >Take the following hypothetical, variants of which take place with >regularity: X robs a US pleasure boat in international waters but is >(let's say) wounded and surrenders to the Bahamanian authorities. >The Bahamas decide they have no evidence to hold X and release >him. He arranges a chartered Bahamanian flag yacht to take him ... >wherever. Can the US Coast guard seize this ship in international >waters and arrest X? I certainly hope so, since that is the sort of >thing that goes on on a daily basis, mostly with regard to drug >smuggling, in the Caribbean. > >Michael C. Berch >mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA >{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb If They really *do* board ships registered and clearly under the laws of a foreign country in *international* waters, then they're on weak grounds. But this case isn't even *that* strong. The ship on which the original offence took place wasn't even US. In general, the drug smuggling case is not in exactly the same class of your hypothetical or the terrorist case. If a ship is coming *into* your territory, you start to have some basis for meeting it. Even then I think the truth is that its only Bahamian courtesy that stops them from protesting (assuming this also occurs in *international* waters which I have reason to doubt). That's why it's called 'international' waters. *No* country has the right to impose their laws on subjects of another country who are not threatenning or interfering with them. On the otherhand, if by this you are admitting that the US's claims to territorial waters are overstated, well, I think your government may disagree:-) As for the release of the terrorists. That's a good point. Problems are 2fold. 1. Does Egypt have the right to recognize the jurisdiction of the PLO? This is a *bit* arguable, but mainly, if you apply the sovereignty of Nations (Egypt as a nation cannot be dictated to by the US as to whom it does or does not recognize), then yes Egpyt can recognize the PLO's juris- diction. 2. At what point is someone released? I'm not even going to *try* to argue that question because it *is* a hard question in this case. If the Egyptian government told the pilot to return to Egypt because they'd changed their minds and the Terrorists decided other- wise, then what would have happened? At this time I don't know if the Terrorists were given arms. I don't think so, but I don't know. If not, then I don't they were really out of Egypts 'custody or control'--or their jurisdiction. This is a de facto test. A test based on intention on the otherhand would go the other way. The evidence is that Egypt intended to release them. Anyway, if there was *no* juris- diction before, maybe there is now. This get's back to my warning about being careful you don't set a precedent you can't live with. Hypothetical: A Russian poet--political prisoner escapes from Siberia on a boat. Having made a perilous journey risking his life, he is just off the coast of Canada and the US Pacific. Russian patrol boats and aircraft are heading towards his location. He boards a Canuck fishing boat and radios a plea for asylum. The Russians claim he is a convict in their jurisdiction. An ultimatum is given from the Russian government: "Give up X. He is a known terrorist. Refuse and we'll blow you (the Canuck ship) out of the water!" Now what do we do? Which country should the Canuck ship head for? What if the US Coast guard is on the way? Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
kenf@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/27/85)
Excerpt from an interview with Francis Boyle, University of Illinois Professor of International Law: "The interception of the airliner was completely illegal and prohibited by the Chicago Convention, which has governed international civil avi- ation for the past 40 years. As a general rule, under the convention, jet fighters may only intercept commercial aircraft if they have entered their national airspace without permission. The U.S. action amounts to hijacking the airliner of another country..." "...this country does have the right to prosecute those responsible for holding U.S. citizens hostage for purposes of political blackmail, how- ever, it is not currently a violation of U.S. law for a foreigner to murder a U.S. citizen abroad. Therefore, only the Italians, who had juris- diction over the Achille Lauro, could prosecute the hijackers for the murder of Mr. Klinghoffer." Taken from Oct. 24, 1985 issue of Illini Week