Um, I repeat: an act "of war" is not the same as "a war". Should be obvious.
Sanctions allow interdiction of banned goods. Using "ghost ships" to bypass those sanctions doesn't make it legal. It makes them pirates: those committing illegal acts at sea without flying a national flag.
Every image of blown up boats has bails of drugs everywhere. There's no question these boats exist, and no evidence that actual fishing boats have been attacked.
I'm not condoning ALL acts of war, sanctions or blowing up drug runners. Every event needs to be judged on its own merit.
Actually? Announcing an embargo OR a blockade does give the right to intercept & inspect ALL vessels going to & from that nation (or area). It has to be known internationally and a blockade requires all ships to be inspected, with few exceptions at the discretion of the commander.
International waters is the place it happens. Inside another nation's territory is another matter.
It makes them pirates: those committing illegal acts at sea without flying a national flag.
No. A trade embargo with Venezuela is a sanction. Freezing Venezuelan assets inside your own country is a sanction. A blockade that prevents a country from trading with third parties is an act of war.
The US has no legal jurisdiction to physically inhibit trade between Venezuela and other nations. If they were sneaking it into the US, that would be a different story.
I'm not even saying it's bad but they aren't pirates for shipping oil.
You are correct, it's actually an embargo, not a blockade. However? Embargo allows a nation to intercept vessels & seize them too. Anyone running a blockade is subject to capture & their vessel & cargo possibly seized. This applies to an embargo too, although the vessel might not get seized? The cargo will.
They have every right to enforce an embargo or blockade. One of the requirements of a lawful blockade is that ALL ships going to or coming from that nation are boarded and inspected. The "Russian ships" (there's 2 now) both refused boarding and fled. They're fair game.
Um, I repeat: an act "of war" is not the same as "a war". Should be obvious.
You said that it's not the same as a declaration of war, implying that it's not a war without a declaration.
Sanctions allow interdiction of banned goods. Using "ghost ships" to bypass those sanctions doesn't make it legal. It makes them pirates: those committing illegal acts at sea without flying a national flag.
That's it, the single dumbest thing I've read all year.
I'm not condoning ALL acts of war
Right, you're not happy with Putin's war against your country.
Russia's physical invasion of Ukraine (not "my" country as I've told you repeatedly) was an act of war AND came with a declaration of war. The ongoing war is just that: war. There were many "acts of war" before the invasion, but open warfare was not happening: there as no official war then.
Both embargos and blockades allow a nation to intercept & inspect ANY ship going to or coming from the target nation (or area). Both "Russian" ships refused to be inspected & thus are fair game. In fact the laws for blockades requires the inspection of ALL vessels, with a few exceptions at the discretion of the commander of the blockade.
All ships, including "ghost ships" are subject to inspection. Refusing inspection can result in the ship being seized, lawfully. That's how it's been for a couple of centuries now.
Either way: crimes on the high seas eh? That makes interdiction a lawful act.
EDIT: An embargo (sanctions) allows ships to be intercepted. https://thelawtoknow.com/2025/04/01/embargo/
Yes? It's still war, or Iraq wasn't a war.
Today I learned that people transporting their own oil are "pirates".
Blowing up fishing boats is, though. I have little faith in the people who've been manufacturing consent for one war after another.
Um, I repeat: an act "of war" is not the same as "a war". Should be obvious.
Sanctions allow interdiction of banned goods. Using "ghost ships" to bypass those sanctions doesn't make it legal. It makes them pirates: those committing illegal acts at sea without flying a national flag.
Every image of blown up boats has bails of drugs everywhere. There's no question these boats exist, and no evidence that actual fishing boats have been attacked.
I'm not condoning ALL acts of war, sanctions or blowing up drug runners. Every event needs to be judged on its own merit.
Declaring something a "sanction" don't magically extend its jurisdiction to international waters.
Actually? Announcing an embargo OR a blockade does give the right to intercept & inspect ALL vessels going to & from that nation (or area). It has to be known internationally and a blockade requires all ships to be inspected, with few exceptions at the discretion of the commander.
International waters is the place it happens. Inside another nation's territory is another matter.
No. A trade embargo with Venezuela is a sanction. Freezing Venezuelan assets inside your own country is a sanction. A blockade that prevents a country from trading with third parties is an act of war.
The US has no legal jurisdiction to physically inhibit trade between Venezuela and other nations. If they were sneaking it into the US, that would be a different story.
I'm not even saying it's bad but they aren't pirates for shipping oil.
You are correct, it's actually an embargo, not a blockade. However? Embargo allows a nation to intercept vessels & seize them too. Anyone running a blockade is subject to capture & their vessel & cargo possibly seized. This applies to an embargo too, although the vessel might not get seized? The cargo will.
They have every right to enforce an embargo or blockade. One of the requirements of a lawful blockade is that ALL ships going to or coming from that nation are boarded and inspected. The "Russian ships" (there's 2 now) both refused boarding and fled. They're fair game.
I just looked it up. An embargo also allows interception of ships. It's kind of pointless without that, eh?
https://thelawtoknow.com/2025/04/01/embargo/
You said that it's not the same as a declaration of war, implying that it's not a war without a declaration.
That's it, the single dumbest thing I've read all year.
Right, you're not happy with Putin's war against your country.
Russia's physical invasion of Ukraine (not "my" country as I've told you repeatedly) was an act of war AND came with a declaration of war. The ongoing war is just that: war. There were many "acts of war" before the invasion, but open warfare was not happening: there as no official war then.
Both embargos and blockades allow a nation to intercept & inspect ANY ship going to or coming from the target nation (or area). Both "Russian" ships refused to be inspected & thus are fair game. In fact the laws for blockades requires the inspection of ALL vessels, with a few exceptions at the discretion of the commander of the blockade.
All ships, including "ghost ships" are subject to inspection. Refusing inspection can result in the ship being seized, lawfully. That's how it's been for a couple of centuries now.
They're blockade runners, not pirates. There is no act of robbery involved in the transport of Venezuelan oil bought in violation of sanctions.
Either way: crimes on the high seas eh? That makes interdiction a lawful act.
EDIT: An embargo (sanctions) allows ships to be intercepted.
https://thelawtoknow.com/2025/04/01/embargo/