Clinton appointed Federal judge Throws Out Piracy Charges Against 6 Somalis

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

s'matter, troll, i called you for the 'pretend rabbi' that you are, so you need to take pot-shots at what i do.

here's a hint, freak... the lawyers on the board KNOW I'm a lawyer as do any of the people here who know me in real life.

but you are clearly a pretend rabbi, nutter

i've known kahane's people who weren't as virulent as you.

p.s. now go whine about the neg you just got, freak. i'm sure gunny will be interested in hearing about it.

whining little twit.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis - wtop.com

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

Good information..

Can you cite the actual law as it applys to Piracy and show where the judge wrongly interpreted the existing law?

I could, but I'm not.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

s'matter, troll, i called you for the 'pretend rabbi' that you are, so you need to take pot-shots at what i do.

here's a hint, freak... the lawyers on the board KNOW I'm a lawyer as do any of the people here who know me in real life.

but you are clearly a pretend rabbi, nutter

i've known kahane's people who weren't as virulent as you.

p.s. now go whine about the neg you just got, freak. i'm sure gunny will be interested in hearing about it.

whining little twit.

I've never pretended to be a rabbi. What I do is right in my profile here.
You on the other hand clearly know bupkis about the law, or anything else. Your posts are always mean-spirited insulting attacks on people, revealing your own frustration with your empty pathetic life. Your neg rep bullying merely confirms this.
Now go post on something you know about. Like which cleaners work best on toilet bowls.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you wouldn't know

I think I'll trust the good justice's decision over yours. at least unless and until he's reversed by a higher court.

especially when yours comes from rightwingnut bloggers and neither of us have read the decision yet.

but its good to know you got the talking points down. let me know when you read the decision.

also, since getting information doesn't seem to be YOUR strong suit:

The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.

Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis - wtop.com

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

you didn't read the decision. I don't even trust headnotes in case books. i certainly wouldn't trust some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said.

and i certainly wouldn't trust your judgment as to the judge being correct or incorrect.

if the 4th circuit reverses then they reverse. that's life. unlike the rightwingnuts, i don't have a vested interest in this particular count of the indictment. that's what appeals courts are for.

Yes I read the decision, in United States v Smith they found Smith guilty.

If you don't believe the article then why bother with an opinion at all?

 

[jillian]

I've never pretended to be a rabbi. What I do is right in my profile here.
You on the other hand clearly know bupkis about the law, or anything else. Your posts are always mean-spirited insulting attacks on people, revealing your own frustration with your empty pathetic life. Your neg rep bullying merely confirms this.
Now go post on something you know about. Like which cleaners work best on toilet bowls.

stop projecting. you're uniformly regarded by people on both sides of the aisle as a nasty troll.

 

[jillian]

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

you didn't read the decision. I don't even trust headnotes in case books. i certainly wouldn't trust some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said.

and i certainly wouldn't trust your judgment as to the judge being correct or incorrect.

if the 4th circuit reverses then they reverse. that's life. unlike the rightwingnuts, i don't have a vested interest in this particular count of the indictment. that's what appeals courts are for.

Yes I read the decision, in United States v Smith they found Smith guilty.

If you don't believe the article then why bother with an opinion at all?

not the decision in smith... the decision in THIS case.

from what i've read, the judge seemed correct. but i'd have to read the decision.

which is something you should want to do instead of letting some rightwingnut blogger tell you what's correct.

 

[rightwinger]

Nor would you for that matter.

I've read the article so there's no need to quote from it. That quote has nothing to do with the discussion about whether or not the judge made the right decision? The fact is these men were engaged in piracy and the count should not have been dismissed.

Judge Jackson ruled that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations." The only problem with that is the piracy under the law of nations doesn't give a real interpretation of what piracy is.

I'm willing to bet the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn this decision.

Good information..

Can you cite the actual law as it applys to Piracy and show where the judge wrongly interpreted the existing law?

I could, but I'm not.

In that case I will have to side with the judge

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you didn't read the decision. I don't even trust headnotes in case books. i certainly wouldn't trust some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said.

and i certainly wouldn't trust your judgment as to the judge being correct or incorrect.

if the 4th circuit reverses then they reverse. that's life. unlike the rightwingnuts, i don't have a vested interest in this particular count of the indictment. that's what appeals courts are for.

Yes I read the decision, in United States v Smith they found Smith guilty.

If you don't believe the article then why bother with an opinion at all?

not the decision in smith... the decision in THIS case.

from what i've read, the judge seemed correct. but i'd have to read the decision.

which is something you should want to do instead of letting some rightwingnut blogger tell you what's correct.

How can you honestly say the judge is correct when a) you don't believe what "some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said" and b) you haven't read the decision?

I'm not sure who you are calling the "rightwing blogger" that I'm supposedly letting tell me the judge is incorrect.

I read the article I read the references to United States v Smith the 1820 law that played a big part in the judge ruling the way he did and I came to my own conclusion. No one has had to tell me anything. He concluded in a 21 page ruling that the 1820 law "robbery at sea" still prevails today. Neither the 1820 law or the "laws of nations" defines piracy and until piracy is legally defined how can you say his ruling is correct?

The UN convention on the law of the sea defines piracy as "all illegal acts of violence or detention ... committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship" and that is what the prosecutors are asking the judge to consider.

Article 101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Good information..

Can you cite the actual law as it applys to Piracy and show where the judge wrongly interpreted the existing law?

I could, but I'm not.

In that case I will have to side with the judge

Aww I'm crushed.....

 

[rightwinger]

Yes I read the decision, in United States v Smith they found Smith guilty.

If you don't believe the article then why bother with an opinion at all?

not the decision in smith... the decision in THIS case.

from what i've read, the judge seemed correct. but i'd have to read the decision.

which is something you should want to do instead of letting some rightwingnut blogger tell you what's correct.

How can you honestly say the judge is correct when a) you don't believe what "some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said" and b) you haven't read the decision?

I'm not sure who you are calling the "rightwing blogger" that I'm supposedly letting tell me the judge is incorrect.

I read the article I read the references to United States v Smith the 1820 law that played a big part in the judge ruling the way he did and I came to my own conclusion. No one has had to tell me anything. He concluded in a 21 page ruling that the 1820 law "robbery at sea" still prevails today. Neither the 1820 law or the "laws of nations" defines piracy and until piracy is legally defined how can you say his ruling is correct?

The UN convention on the law of the sea defines piracy as "all illegal acts of violence or detention ... committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship" and that is what the prosecutors are asking the judge to consider.

Article 101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

I've never seen a rightwinger side with the UN before....

They may take away your Texas citizenship

 

[Lonestar_logic]

not the decision in smith... the decision in THIS case.

from what i've read, the judge seemed correct. but i'd have to read the decision.

which is something you should want to do instead of letting some rightwingnut blogger tell you what's correct.

How can you honestly say the judge is correct when a) you don't believe what "some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said" and b) you haven't read the decision?

I'm not sure who you are calling the "rightwing blogger" that I'm supposedly letting tell me the judge is incorrect.

I read the article I read the references to United States v Smith the 1820 law that played a big part in the judge ruling the way he did and I came to my own conclusion. No one has had to tell me anything. He concluded in a 21 page ruling that the 1820 law "robbery at sea" still prevails today. Neither the 1820 law or the "laws of nations" defines piracy and until piracy is legally defined how can you say his ruling is correct?

The UN convention on the law of the sea defines piracy as "all illegal acts of violence or detention ... committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship" and that is what the prosecutors are asking the judge to consider.

Article 101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

I've never seen a rightwinger side with the UN before....

They may take away your Texas citizenship

If you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to might see a lot more.

 

[Gunny]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – A judge on Tuesday dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men accused of attacking a Navy ship off the coast of Africa, concluding the U.S. government failed to make the case their alleged actions amounted to piracy.
The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.
Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.
Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government “failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations.”
​

Nice.

 

[The Rabbi]

How can you honestly say the judge is correct when a) you don't believe what "some hack rightwingnut blogger to tell me what the judge said" and b) you haven't read the decision?

I'm not sure who you are calling the "rightwing blogger" that I'm supposedly letting tell me the judge is incorrect.

I read the article I read the references to United States v Smith the 1820 law that played a big part in the judge ruling the way he did and I came to my own conclusion. No one has had to tell me anything. He concluded in a 21 page ruling that the 1820 law "robbery at sea" still prevails today. Neither the 1820 law or the "laws of nations" defines piracy and until piracy is legally defined how can you say his ruling is correct?

The UN convention on the law of the sea defines piracy as "all illegal acts of violence or detention ... committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship" and that is what the prosecutors are asking the judge to consider.

Article 101

Definition of piracy

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

I've never seen a rightwinger side with the UN before....

They may take away your Texas citizenship

If you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to might see a lot more.

Nutwinger suffers from terminal cranial rectitis. Nothing can change that. He is a hopeless case.
I would point out that you didnt "side with the UN." You merely referenced documents by that body germane to this case.
But that will be futile because Nutwinger knows that and just wants to yank your chain.