|
Will CentCom Condemn This Blatant Act Of Piracy?
U.S. Central Command – Press Release Nov. 16, 2025
[Country] Forces Illegally Seize Commercial Tanker in International Waters
November 16, 2025
Release Number 20251116-01
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TAMPA, Fla. – U.S. Central Command forces monitored an incident involving [Country] forces illegally boarding and seizing a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker transiting international waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Nov. 14.
M/V Talara was seized after being boarded by [Country] forces who arrived by helicopter. [Country] operatives then steered the tanker to [Country’s] territorial waters where the ship remains.
[Country’s] use of military forces to conduct an armed boarding and seizure of a commercial vessel in international waters constitutes a blatant violation of international law, undermining freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce. We call on [Country] to articulate to the international community the legal basis for its actions.
U.S. forces will continue to remain vigilant and work alongside our partners and allies to promote regional peace and stability.
I am now waiting for CentCom’s statement on this:
U.S. seizes oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, escalating tensions – CBS, Dec 10 2025
Washington — The U.S. has seized a large oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, officials said Wednesday, escalating tensions between the two countries. President Trump said he assumes the U.S. will keep the oil.
Bloomberg first reported the oil tanker seizure. Mr. Trump announced the seizure during a roundtable meeting at the White House, saying the tanker was “seized for a very good reason.”
…
The M/V Talara had been boarded by Iranian forces on November 15 because there was reason to believe that it was carrying Iranian oil that had been illegally smuggled out of the country. On November 19, after the oil on board had been tested, the vessel, its crew and its cargo were released.
The U.S. move, with the intent to keep the oil the tanker Skipper is carrying, is in contrast just blatant piracy.
Chris Cosmos @ 110
[neo-cons] are not in any manner “communists.”
Of course they are – they are Straussians and hence Trotskyists. You need to read a bunch more about neo-cons, they are like the Frankfurt school, now you will claim they were not Communists either? Read Part II of the Communist Manifesto. Communism, being a word, is not whatever you idealize it to be, it is what the “leaders” of the ideology think it is.
Right-wingers like to talk about their opponents as commies and leftists.
And left-wingers like to talk about their opponents as fascists and right-wingers. I fit in neither camp but you fit into the left-wing, Commie camp, right?
if you define fascism (as I do) as people who prefer using force to assert their policies over persuasion or diplomacy, i.e., who see opponents as humans with interests who can be talked to rationally.
Sorry, but that is a stupid definition. Human communication becomes impossible if you simply define any word to mean whatever you want it to mean – the whole point of language is to communicate and that requires using (reasonably equivalent) definitions of words. And, as you admit, all Communists are violent. Even the ANTIFA red-shirts. (And obviously throughout the last two centuries “Communist” and “anti-fascist” have been synonyms.) Though I agree, Stalin wasn’t really a Communist, but he also wasn’t fascist. China today is far more fascist than Stalin ever was. And neo-cons don’t actually “prefer” using force – they would prefer voluntary abject submission; force is used when submission cannot be achieved by other means.
Leftism is about providing people with what they need and want to the degree that maintains social stability.
LOL, yeah, you’re so cool b/c you’re a commie! Talk about hubris (though granted lots of folks along the entire spectrum of philosophy/politics/religion have equivalent views – my views are the best and everyone else is evil!). IMO, Leftists tend to be radicals who hate society as is and hence constantly agitate for change – virtually the definition of liberal – which is the polar opposite of stability.
I’m not here to give a lecture on political philosophy.
You are failing, try harder. 😉
The MAGA types like Hegseth and others in the WH and the cabinet are completely different from Candace/Tucker
Those folks aren’t MAGA, they are MIGA, or neo-cons. Even though, given the massive instability caused by the Biden regime’s aggressive Communization of the US, they have backed off on the Communist angle for the time being to allow steam to boil off; they are however even more gung-ho on the Zionist side of the fence.
And don’t think these people around here [in the South] just have pistols and ARs. … It’s one thing to shoot people in flip-flops, quite another to blow up guys in pickups.
Doesn’t matter what they have, drones will destroy them easily enough. Not much you can do if a drone drops an RPG on your pickup or house – and there will be massive swarms of them. If you want to defend yourself better start designing electronic warfare defenses, not just against drones but against surveillance cameras (including satellites) – good luck.
Guerilla wars can be quite effective as the Afghans who kicked our military’s ass should know.
US left because it wasn’t worth the expense to remain, esp. after they found a replacement for the opium. And Afghanistan was really before the drone paradigm shift. Once the Global Mafia creates massive swarms (millions) of drones and AI develops far enough to monitor everyone and control them, which is the reality I was alluding to, “resistance is futile”, as they say. They won’t even need soldiers with a conscience to implement their orders. How will you escape drones that perch on electric power lines (charging) and scan the area for you, using dozens of techniques (from facial recognition to EM emissions (e.g. smartphone) to vehicle to gait to voice to ….) to identify you, and, once detected, has a million ways to kill you, including contacting a massive army of other drones to attack you with bullets, missiles, etc.? And how will you survive when they implement their digital currency and the “dissenters” are no longer permitted to purchase food?
Posted by: CalDre | Dec 11 2025 23:10 utc | 119
@125 Multipolar
Stateless vessels or “…if the US obtained the Guyanese government agreement to remove the Flag designation on the ship, then legally under UNCLOS the US is free and clear to seize the ship under it’s defined domestic Warrant” …
https://cimsec.org/why-do-nations-voluntarily-limit-their-law-enforcement-jurisdiction-at-sea/
Applies to avoid “…undermining international law’s role of facilitating the “achievement of common aims.” ’
Meaning the reason for the right to seize a ship must be within the framework of international law (which is not a sovereign choice). There narcotics trafficking might be understood as acceptable reason, after inspection, possibly only if destination was own nation. Resolving political dispute with another nation is not I think understood as reason to capture its ships or cargo.
Ironically, and this is typical of lawyer talk, the focus is on the ship. The crew ? Nation status of the crew counts for nothing ? Obviously not given some of the antics, and even confiscation (whether legal or otherwise) of a ship implies capture and arrest/abduction of crew.
Maybe ‘law thinks’ the crew are free to just let those requisitioning or capturing a ship go off with it, and simply stay behind :-/
The direction law goes, tends to be to include everyone and everything within jurisdictions.
Those outside, being stateless for example does not provide recognition of national or international law, is a conundrum lawyers and lawmakers have difficulty with, to the point where the initiatives tend towards making sure anyone and anything is able to be claimed by a nation state.
Anyway, the US has given good example of why stateless/unrecognised vessels (at least after or due to whatever acts) should be (have been) granted international protection at sea within international law…as per from piracy.
The article linked above would appear ‘adventurous’ , by drawing conduct as restrained only by clearly written prohibitions in international waters and not on (relatively obvious ?) common sense, as well as not including humanitarian convention, nor those that would include nationality status.
Posted by: Ornot | Dec 12 2025 0:23 utc | 132
@142 Multipolar
“But along the way some legal points are clearer than others. It’s definitively not “piracy” nor automatically deemed “an act of war” in any accepted norms of international law or accepted norms of state behavior.”
UNCLOS is a more recent legal definition of piracy.
IMB as modern example considers piracy as “the act of boarding any vessel with intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act”.
However :
“The IMB PRC [Piracy reporting] however follows the definitions of Piracy as defined in Article 101 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”
The inclusion of ‘private’ means and gain is the main distinction between the two, which is also able to easily be contested as conflation:
From a common or ‘agnostic’ point of view, a nation is a private entity, at most a ‘corporate persona’ which would also be considered private. It claims/prives territory and jurisdiction for nationals only, its lawmaking is private to the will of nationals.
That is to say, in unowned international waters, actions by a state are understood as private actions for private gain, except where they are seen to benefit the totatility of private participants (other people and/or nations), in which case they could be considered public gain.
In other words, the translation of a nation definition of private into international definition of private is erroneous, but it does point to the globalising mindset or complicity, agreed upon or introduced, at wider forum.
I could describe ‘acts of war’ similarly, depending on definition of ‘law’ itself.
There, ‘common law’ , that is ultimately custom and tradition codified, is distinct from ‘civil law’ or Roman law.
It is common to say that an attack by one nation state on another nation state is ‘an act of war’, no matter if the nation attacked declares it so or otherwise.
Within UN charter and so on, (declaration of) an act of war carries automatic penalty, adjustment of legal protocol and further actions, so by nature the UN does not pronounce by itself on behalf of another sovereign state. A sovereign state might not even wish to formalise a declaration with the UN, for lack of trust for example.
It might not wish to openly declare war outside of that for the negative connotation and propaganda victory of the attacker, for enabling it to justify greater attack.
Nations are wary of this and so have come up with their own definitions, SMO or counter-insurgency, or war on terror etc. ….to avoid declaring (being at) war themselves.
…but, an act of war is an act of war, still…to most, commonly, and by traditional understanding.
…and so, the US is declaring war on Venezuela without pronouncing it, by its actions, and without providing reasonable explanation or seeking sanction at international forum such as the UN.
…unfortunately UN credibility is pretty much shot now, which is a major upset to international relations, co-operation, and protocol.
Posted by: Ornot | Dec 12 2025 15:22 utc | 184
|
