Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: State Terrorism
Message-ID: <856@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 19:03:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.856
Posted: Fri Oct 18 19:03:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 03:28:22 EDT
References: <903@abnji.UUCP> <14232@styx.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Distribution: net
Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
Lines: 85
Summary: What ever happened to Sovereignty of Nations?

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