Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!sun!idi!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: State Terrorism
Message-ID: <14230@styx.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Oct-85 19:07:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: styx.14230
Posted: Mon Oct 14 19:07:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 05:15:24 EDT
References: <903@abnji.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA
Lines: 58
Summary: Facts vs. emotion

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