Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

It was legitimate as far as we know. A seizure warrant was issued under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 2332b(g)(5), and 2339B(a)(1). So far no court has ruled against that.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-unseals-warrant-tanker...

View on HN

USA can't issue a proper seizure warrant for a foreign country. It's just a declarative judgement; you can seek later to negotiate a legal transfer under that country's sovereignty, but courts which are supposed to be bound by the USC have no jurisdiction. It's legitimate within the context of the USC, but it's not valid. Very much like how Trump makes orders to the executive but pretends they're legislative fiats. USA courts can declare Trump owns the World if they wish, doesn't mean he has any more actual right to grab it by the pussy.

Sadly, your senate and congress chose to end the rule of law and application of the constitution and so no longer acts to curtail the president from being a de facto dictator. So he continues to act against international law and against basic morality: in this case in having foreign sailors kidnapped at sea and in supporting piracy.

My understanding is that it would only be unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and immoral if it was within USA's waters; so you could argue then it would be valid.

You seem to be confused about what happened. The USA hasn't seized a foreign country in this case. The M/T Skipper was a stateless vessel and thus not entitled to protection under any sovereign country's laws.

It wasn't a USA vessel and wasn't it USA waters -- AIUI that means USA lack any jurisdiction unless they're defending themselves from imminent threat?

Did I err?

Thanks for this. The warrant claims this ship was involved, basically, in financing Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. So kind of bad things.

I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:

- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side

- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own

- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative

- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law

Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.

I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.

It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.

> If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.

If they want to change the immigration laws, they first need to convince people that immigrants currently in the country illegally aren't monsters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com