If he based his judgment on the fact that the ship was never took command of and robbed the vessel he's an idiot. The fact is these Somolians are pirates and were engaging in piracy. They refer to United States v. Smith to justify the ruling. Where in that case it was deemed not piracy because the pirates were not operating under the acknowledged authority or deriving protection from the flag or commission of any government. IMO the judge fucked up.
that's nice.
the Smith decision did not explore the issue of control of the ship. the argument in that case was whether Congress could legislate on a topic covered by the 'law of nations'. the issue of 'robbery on the high seas' was incidental to that question.
incidentally, you do realize they face other charges, right?
The Act of 3 March 1819, c. 76, s. 5, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish that crime.
The crime of piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon the sea, anima furandi, is piracy by the law of nations and by the act of Congress.
Nowhere did I say United States v Smith was about control. I stated and correctly I might add that this case was refered to in part to justify the decision the judge made.
Obviously reading comprehension isn't required for attorneys.
She isn't an attorney. She just plays one on the internet when she isn't hating on Sarah Palin and other women better looking and more successful than she is.