Quote:
I may be wrong here, but doesnt this apply?
Quote:
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).
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH825.txt
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
I bolded the word detention as this is certainly, to me anyway, what the protesters intended on and did.
|
if you want to discuss this, then let's go that way.
if you dont, then we can stop here.
either way, this snarky little exchange is over.
so either make a move or dont.
============================
frosstbyte: i dont follow. so you're saying that private property claims do obviate the right to protest in that the former can impose prohibitive costs on protest actions. and that's ok with you.
so it would follow that greepeace may have the "right" to protest, but its empty. in other words, they can talk about protesting, but if they inconvience Trade, they're liable.
so trade obviates the right to protest.
that seems to follow logically from your position.
is that what you mean?