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: <873@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 22:17:13 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.873 Posted: Thu Oct 24 22:17:13 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 00:00:26 EDT References: <903@abnji.UUCP> <14232@styx.UUCP> <856@lsuc.UUCP> <14591@styx.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Distribution: net Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto Lines: 133 Summary: In International Waters? 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