It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"#AbolishICE means not having an agency that incarcerates children and sexually assaults women with impunity.
It does not mean abolish deportation."
originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
originally posted by: MindBodySpiritComplex
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow
Without the 5th fleet Scott free incident: would all carriers including the Stennis now be in their home ports? Does that translate to calm before the storm?
What kind of scenario would make that desirable?
Question : military tribunals on board of carriers and potentially just outside US territorial waters? Would that make sense?
I see your logic reasoning now
Yes, that is an interesting possibility. Maritime Law is a whole different animal but the incident and/or criminal offense has to occur in maritime waters. Just an assumption, I really don't know how it would apply.
Admiralty law is old, REALLY old. Admiralty laws and codes were some of the first governing rules to be written down. The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Romans all had admiralty laws on their clay tablets. As the US was founded by Great Britain, generally, we inherited the admiralty law at the time of the Revolution.
In England, admiralty law applied to anything that happened on the ocean and the tidal waters of its rivers (basically, if the river rose and sank with the tide, it was covered by admiralty).
However, once our young country and its Courts started to hear admiralty cases, we adapted new requirements to fit our country’s needs.
In 1857 a seminal US Supreme Court case was decided that switched our definition of admiralty jurisdiction. In Jackson et al. v. Steamboat Magnolia, the Court eliminated the “tidal” requirement for jurisdiction and created a necessity for the water in which the accident occurred to support international and interstate commerce. What this did was allow for the large rivers and lakes of this country to now be under admiralty jurisdiction.
For example, under the old English view, only a small portion of the Mississippi River (not to mention all the large rivers that feed into it) would have been under admiralty jurisdiction. Over the years, this too has changed into the new standard. The modern standard of maritime jurisdiction for accidents that occur on events on the high seas, territorial seas and the inland waters of the US so long as they satisfy the requirement of being “navigable waters.” Generally, inland water of the US is “navigable” if: It is capable of supporting maritime commerce; It runs through two states or empties into the sea; and It is presently sustaining maritime commerce.
Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships
Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Some lawyers prefer to reserve the term “admiralty law” for “wet law” (e.g. salvage, collisions, ship arrest, towage, liens, & limitation), and use “maritime law” only for “dry law” (e.g. carriage of goods & people, marine insurance, and the MLC).
Admiralty law may be distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters, and the maritime relationships between nations. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been adopted by 167 countries and the European Union, and disputes are resolved at the ITLOS tribunal in Hamburg
is a maritime boundary located in the South China, Sulu and Celebes Seas
The boundary is the result of the division of the Sulu Sultanate through the cession of its territories to colonial powers. The British gained control of the northeast shores of Borneo, which became known as North Borneo and subsequently Sabah, while the rest of the Sulu Islands fell under Spanish control and later United States rule. The Philippines still officially claim the eastern part of Sabah as part of its territory, arguing the validity of the cession by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu.
The historical connections of the people living on both sides of the border has resulted in the border being extremely porous, with a lot of illegal immigration from the Philippines occurring. The porous border has also resulted in several incidents of cross-border raids and kidnapping by armed groups from the Philippines on Malaysian towns and resorts on the east coast of Sabah.
A fact-finding mission to Palawan in June reported how the peasants of Yulo King Ranch have been dispossessed of the land they were tilling when it was declared a pasture land during Martial Law. Their impoverishment and landlessness show a picture of failed agrarian reform from the regime of the dictator Marcos up to Aquino.
They called it “a state-sponsored massive land grabbing case against the people of Coron and Busuanga.”
In 1975, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1387 which declared the disputed lands as a pasture reserve. Through his cronies, Luis Yulo and Peter Sabido, Marcos was able to acquire the sprawling land.
When Marcos was ousted, the YKR was among the properties sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government in 1986. Administration of the ranch was transferred to the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI). YKR was renamed as the Busuanga Breeding and Experimental Stations (BBES).
In March 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the lifting of the sequestration of the YKR due to mismanagement, noting that in 1986, the ranch used to have 75,477 cattle and 115 horses. By 2005, however, the YKR had only 2,565 cattle and 76 horses.
Only the contract with Skykes Aggreventures was allowed to continue. Another company, “Goat Industries,” residents said, is operating in the area and has control over 600 hectares of land. But the fact-finding team could not find any contract or supporting government document that allowed its operation in the disputed land.
Pesante Pilipinas took advantage of the impoverished and desperate conditions of the affected peasants. They were recruited and deceived by this pseudo-peasant group who extorted money through annual renewal of membership fees, monthly dues and collections for operational expenses. Nothing, however, materialized from their promises.” Coron-Busuanga Fact-finding Report
Private security guards involved in the demolition of homes of residents, according to Decalachao village official Roger Gacayan, were hired by the Bureau of Animal Industries.
REPORT: Huber and Horowitz Investigations Deep State Cons Constructed by DOJ…
Paul Sperry has an interesting report posted at RCP-Investigations outlining numerous interviews with DC politicians and would-be witnesses, if any actual DOJ investigation of the FBI and DOJ misconduct was taking place. What Sperry discovers is the year-long narrative around John Huber and Michael Horowitz is factually false.
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: carewemust
That is a hope crushing gut kick.
What is Trump waiting for?
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow
I see NAFTA was signed 1994 but was it George HW Bush who instigated negotiation of it?
Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy; established under the Trade Act of 1974 advisory process and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.
Soros Is Found Guilty in France On Charges of Insider Trading
After a 14-year investigation, a French court today convicted the American financier George Soros of insider trading and fined him 2.2 million euros ($2.3 million), the amount prosecutors said he had profited from the trading. Mr. Soros, who was not present in the courtroom, called the verdict unfounded and said he would appeal.