Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 6

[Dave]

Still not applicable in any way in this case. Is it? That's why I asked Cupcake what grounds they would have to intercept it much less seize it? Someone photoshopping pirate eye patches on the crew, kilos of drugs headed to the US, dangerous cargo?

How do you come to that conclusion? The USA include sanctions busting in their terminology, and also any breaches of US law.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

only your MSM brainwashing ever named a timeframe of 3 days since this war started

back to this again? it has been discussed several times in the over 60 000 posts already and shown to be the intention of the Russian military. they thought Ukraine would be a walkover.

 

[sefeddt]

Russian's object to the word Orc but its perfectly OK to have an ice-cream insulting others.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583802507817807874

 

[Wut]

How do you come to that conclusion? They include sanctions busting in their terminology, and also any breaches of US law.

As in carrying cargo that is sanctioned. Read the precedents that Cupcake and Major Fake News posted. Some insight in the links even if the posters were trying to act all smart by saying that the US Navy can intercept and seize the yacht ... which they were incorrect about

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The USA see it differently, UNCLOS 82 succeeded 58 in their view. US courts held that to be true in US vs Postal.

On the Legality and Policy Ramifications of High Seas Seizures of Foreign Merchant Vessels for Violating U.S. Sanctions

In its efforts to enforce economic sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, the United States is straining the boundaries of traditionally accepted state behavior in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It is walking a tightrope.

www.lawfareblog.com

Globally, UNCLOS has subsumed the 1958 Convention as the international law of the sea, though it is unratified by the United States. In law of the sea disputes, the Supreme Court and multiple circuits hold that U.S. law incorporates UNCLOS only to the extent that it reflects customary international law. This leaves the 1958 Convention as controlling in U.S. courts. However, despite the U.S’s ratification of the 1958 Convention, courts considering it must still confront whether the relevant treaty provisions are “self-executing.” This distinction, which has perennially fuzzy edges, is instrumental to determining whether courts have jurisdiction to hear treaty law claims. Self-executing treaty provisions are those that can operate without implementing legislation. U.S. courts generally regard such provisions as equivalent to federal statutes when the treaty clearly authorizes executive action in “pursuance of its provisions” and where existing legislation is adequate to enforce the treaty provision. Provisions that are not self-executing may create international commitments but are not binding federal law absent associated implementing legislation. The vast majority of treaty provisions are non-self-executing.

U.S. courts maintain that their jurisdictional bounds are exclusively constitutional or statutory and that customary international law is insufficient to restrict their authority on the high seas absent Congress explicitly abdicating jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tackled self-execution of 1958 Convention Article 6—curtailing jurisdiction over foreign vessels in international waters—in United States v. Postal, which involved a drug-runner seized in the southern Caribbean. The Postal court found Article 6 not to be self-executing and therefore that it could not restrict the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. More broadly, international law defenses to U.S. jurisdiction generally fail unless the court holds the treaty provision to be truly self-executing or the claimant can prove the court is statutorily precluded from exercising jurisdiction in their specific scenario. While courts tend to uphold the principle of restricting the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, they are willing to distinguish applications of the protective principle, granting U.S. courts high seas jurisdiction over offenses committed in violation of United States criminal law. That Postal and its progeny give the U.S. government remarkable latitude to justify extraterritorial jurisdiction on the high seas creates enormous friction with both the 1958 Convention and UNCLOS.

Thanks Dave. I'm experiencing a troll attack on several fronts and just didn't have the time to look it up. Google wasn't returning the results I knew I needed either. I'm not a google expert user and find its suppression of what I need infuriating.

 

[Howdy]

As in carrying cargo that is sanctioned. Read the precedents that Cupcake and Major Fake News posted. Some insight in the links even if the posters were trying to act all smart by saying that the US Navy can intercept and seize the yacht ... which they were incorrect about

The USS Gerald R. Ford and the rest of the fleet has disengaged up north and is on it's way to save the feels. There might be a tin of Russian engine oil on board.

May we ask them to sort out JM at the same time for his one American on bullet at the same time?

 

[Wut]

Thanks Dave. I'm experiencing a troll attack on several fronts and just didn't have the time to look it up. Google wasn't returning the results I knew I needed either. I'm not a google expert user and find its suppression of what I need infuriating.

Now Google is against you?

 

[DreamKing]

Russia, Ukraine and Preventing Nuclear Holocaust with Jeffrey Sachs | The Tulsi Gabbard Show​

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Six months, twenty-three lessons: What the world has learned from Russia’s war in Ukraine

Our experts break down how this conflict has transformed not only military operations and strategy, but also diplomacy, intelligence, national security, energy security, economic statecraft, and much more.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

"When it was first launched in the wee hours of February 24, the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was supposed to last just a few days and end with the quick capture of Kyiv."

notice the fact that there is no direct quote?

yeah your source just made that shyte up, try again

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

back to this again? it has been discussed several times in the over 60 000 posts already and shown to be the intention of the Russian military. they thought Ukraine would be a walkover.

what do you always lie about the 2013/2014 US coup in Ukraine? ... oh right: "been debunked"

ironically in this case that statement would be true, the 3 days bullshyte has been debunked, there is literally no official Russian government source whatsoever after the war began that says anything about 3 days, that is just a simple fact

 

[Wut]

what do you always lie about the 2013/2014 US coup in Ukraine? ... oh right: "been debunked"

ironically in this case that statement would be true, the 3 days bullshyte has been debunked, there is literally no official Russian government source whatsoever after the war began that says anything about 3 days, that is just a simple fact

I think "debunked" is Cupcake's new favourite word? Everything seems to be debunked in his head without any actual links to articles debunking things

Search results for query: debunked

mybroadband.co.za

 

[Cosmik Debris]

what do you always lie about the 2013/2014 US coup in Ukraine? ... oh right: "been debunked"

ironically in this case that statement would be true, the 3 days bullshyte has been debunked, there is literally no official Russian government source whatsoever after the war began that says anything about 3 days, that is just a simple fact

back to the mythical coup again? Debunked how many times in the last 60 000 posts? Didn't you receive the weekend propaganda from the Kremlin and now have to rehash old arguments?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

back to the mythical coup again?

lmao, and you just proved my point, thank you

Debunked how many times in the last 60 000 posts?

ZERO, it has been debunked ZERO times, given that ZERO proof has been offered other than your nonsense medic training and nonsense opinion to "debunk" it

 

[Cosmik Debris]

what do you always lie about the 2013/2014 US coup in Ukraine? ... oh right: "been debunked"

ironically in this case that statement would be true, the 3 days bullshyte has been debunked, there is literally no official Russian government source whatsoever after the war began that says anything about 3 days, that is just a simple fact

A news alert from Russian newspaper Pravda, citing a report from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) read: "Putin expected to seize Ukraine in three days. This is the supply of provisions he distributed to his soldiers."

Earlier reports said President Putin had allowed five days to defeat Ukraine. The invasion took place six days ago (Thursday, February 24).

Putin's 3 day war prediction means Russia's troops 'running short on supplies'

The Russian army was only given supplies and rations to last three days because Vladimir Putin was confident they would be able to seize Ukraine quickly, according to reports

www.dailystar.co.uk

 

[Cosmik Debris]

lmao, and you just proved my point, thank you


ZERO, it has been debunked ZERO times, given that ZERO proof has been offered other than your nonsense medic training and nonsense opinion to "debunk" it

Oh. my medical training makes the coup real? Strawman argument.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

A news alert from Russian newspaper Pravda, citing a report from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) read: "Putin expected to seize Ukraine in three days. This is the supply of provisions he distributed to his soldiers."

jesus christ, are you joking?!?

1: Pravda is an anti-Russia propaganda rag, it is NOT a "Russian newspaper"
2: it cites a report from ... Ukraine

Ukraine does not get to speculate on what Russia's plan was, Ukraine does not know seeing as it was not Ukraine's plan, it was and remains Russia's

if your nonsense logic is the new standard I can quote Russia all day long stating that Ukraine planned to attack Donbas and that is why they invaded

see how that works?



your second nonsense source quotes some random dumbass from Estonia, again, the official Russian plan can only come from official Russian sources ... there is NO SUCH SOURCE that says any bullcrap about 3 or 5 days or any timeframe for that matter

 

[BBSA]

We going to have a 3 day "debate" about the 3 day war.

 

[Dave]

As in carrying cargo that is sanctioned. Read the precedents that Cupcake and Major Fake News posted. Some insight in the links even if the posters were trying to act all smart by saying that the US Navy can intercept and seize the yacht ... which they were incorrect about

Nowhere does the US curtail sanctions offences to just cargo.

Here's a rather convoluted explanation, basically the US doesn't restrict action unless restricted specifically by US law:

However, despite the U.S’s ratification of the 1958 Convention, courts considering it must still confront whether the relevant treaty provisions are “self-executing.” This distinction, which has perennially fuzzy edges, is instrumental to determining whether courts have jurisdiction to hear treaty law claims. Self-executing treaty provisions are those that can operate without implementing legislation. U.S. courts generally regard such provisions as equivalent to federal statutes when the treaty clearly authorizes executive action in “pursuance of its provisions” and where existing legislation is adequate to enforce the treaty provision.

Provisions that are not self-executing may create international commitments but are not binding federal law absent associated implementing legislation. The vast majority of treaty provisions are non-self-executing.

U.S. courts maintain that their jurisdictional bounds are exclusively constitutional or statutory and that customary international law is insufficient to restrict their authority on the high seas absent Congress explicitly abdicating jurisdiction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tackled self-execution of 1958 Convention Article 6—curtailing jurisdiction over foreign vessels in international waters—in United States v. Postal, which involved a drug-runner seized in the southern Caribbean. The Postal court found Article 6 not to be self-executing and therefore that it could not restrict the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

 

[Dave]

lmao, and you just proved my point, thank you


ZERO, it has been debunked ZERO times, given that ZERO proof has been offered other than your nonsense medic training and nonsense opinion to "debunk" it

 

[Dave]

jesus christ, are you joking?!?

1: Pravda is an anti-Russia propaganda rag, it is NOT a "Russian newspaper"
2: it cites a report from ... Ukraine

Ukraine does not get to speculate on what Russia's plan was, Ukraine does not know seeing as it was not Ukraine's plan, it was and remains Russia's

if your nonsense logic is the new standard I can quote Russia all day long stating that Ukraine planned to attack Donbas and that is why they invaded

see how that works?



your second nonsense source quotes some random dumbass from Estonia, again, the official Russian plan can only come from official Russian sources ... there is NO SUCH SOURCE that says any bullcrap about 3 or 5 days or any timeframe for that matter