A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Murder on the Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 3rd 16, 12:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Murder on the Moon

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 1:34:44 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:32:28 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

This would be heard by a federal court as a felony on the high seas as
part
of the OST.

Can you point out where in the OST this is stated?


--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net


Well, the OST sets the framework in which all parties to the treaty
operate. The ISA for the ISS derives from this requirement. The ISA
treaty of 1998 that has been signed are modelled after existing
legistlation related to international liability on the high seas. While
the ISA for the ISS waives certain liabilities due to the dangers
associated with space travel, it does not waive damages caused by willful
misconduct. (Article 16 and 17 of the ISA) In the case of willful
misconduct, it is up to the ISS partner who is in charge of the criminal
party, and the ISS partner who suffered damages, and the ISS partner on
whose registered spacecraft the crime took place, to arrange prosecution of
the criminal party.

In the OST itself - the requirement to supervise and authorise activities
in accordance with the treaty are spelled out;

Article 6 says activities in space, on the moon and other celestial bodies
will have to be authorised and supervised by the appropriate State Party to
the Treaty. So, the USA will arrange to authorise and supervise its
activities as they engage in them.

Article 8 says a State Party to the Treaty shall retain jurisdiction over
an object registered to them. Even if they are launched into outer space
or constructed upon another celestial body. So, the USA retains
jurisdiction of objects registered to them no matter where they are
launched or constructed.

Article 13 says Any practical questions arising in connexion with
activities carried out in the exploration and use of outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be resolved by the State Parties
to the Treaty. So the USA has the right to resolve any practical
questions arising in connexion with activities it carries out in space, or
authorises to be carried out in space.

Under these articles, the USA enters agreements with private entities and
other governments, and manages its military and civilian government
personnell accordingly, and agrees on how to interact with other parties
outside its jurisdiction.

Now the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement on operations in the International
Space Station spells out in detail the jurisdiction and control over
persons.

Under the IGA for the ISS - Article 5.2 of the IGA provides:

« ...each Partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements
it registers ... and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its
nationals »;

* The IGA provides that each of the Cooperating Agencies shall own the
elements that the Partners respectively provide (i.e. ISS user and resource
elements listed in the Annex to the IGA) and also the equipment in or on
the Space Station;

*The Partner States have each taken steps, including at legislative level
in certain cases, before they went ahead with their ratification of the IGA
to TRANSLATE IN THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM their ISS Cooperation-related
obligations (including for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction and
control).

The model for this legal system to discharge damage claims between parties
is the 1958 UN convention on the High Seas.


Yes, none of that appears to address my point,


Yes it does.

specifically murder on the
Moon outside of an particular vehicle.


You asked what in the treaties suggests the law of the High Seas operate. I gave it to you;

For the ISS its;

OST --- IGA --- Translation of Domestic Laws --- 1958 UN Treaty of the High Seas

Any moon base would like follow similar logic.

How do you imagine two people survive on the moon outside any registered equipment? (The ISS isn't a vehicle its a station).

So, if someone catches his wife in bed with another person at moonbase alpha, and freaks out and stabs him to death with a moon knife used to slice the moon cheese they had with their moon wine, the first thing folks would ask is where was that particular neighbourhood of moonbase alpha registered? Who has responsibility? Who do the parties work for? Who has responsibility for that? This will shape which laws are used in prosecuting the felony in question. This will derive from the agreements in place at the time moonbase alpha was built. This will be guided by the OST as described, and be based upon a translation from the domestic legal system applied by the flag under which it is registered. That will likely look a lot like the ISS IGA which itself is modelled on the 1958 UN convention on the high seas.

This doesn't change if the cheating wife and her friend go camping out at Mons Pico and are attacked by the jealous husband in their moon tent. The spacesuit and other hardware will have been registered to some nation state, the individuals will have a job with some entity that ties back to the IGA for their activity, and the local laws of that nation state will apply, translated for conditions on the lunar surface, which will likely be based upon the 1958 UN Treaty of the High Seas.

We're not talking about ISS which as you point out, has a number of specific
agreements.


Those specific agreements are required to be entered into by the OST, if the parties wish to have that facility in question be compliant with the treaty. So, while the ISS IGA is specific to the ISS it is a model for other facilities later. In fact, people in Washington and elsewhere waxed poetic on this subject back in 1998.

The OST states what happens within a Nation's craft, etc.


Look, your automobile is registered in the State in which you live. Your driver's license registers you personally. Your car registration is tied to your driver's license in various State databases. These must comply with various laws passed to assure public safety, such as insurance etc.

Same here. The OST establishes a framework whereby other nations are assured that they have access and can participate in the grand exploration of space and not be threatened by weapons of mass destruction from space. The OST requires that appropriate agreements be entered into as facilities are constructed, no matter where the source material comes from. Registration is required. Nation states are required to maintain appropriate authorisation and control. It also means they must assure their astronauts safety. This has huge implications. It means that not only will every spacesuit be registered and licensed the way our autos and trucks are, but that the operators will be licensed and undergo periodic checks. It will likely mean that even the food will be inspected and approved as being free of harmful products. As of today the ISS is the only IGA that looks like a moon base would look. It refers back to local laws in the country of registration and that refers back to the laws of the high seas.

Now, this suggests that Panama may be the registrant of choice going forward, for the same reason Panama is a preferred flag for vessels, even those that go nowhere near the Panama Canal.


However, it does
not appear to cover outside of the craft and as such it's not clear Federal
law would apply.


Well we don't have an IGA for any facilities on the moon yet, because there are not facilities on the moon.

In other words, this appears at first pass (unless you can show a specific
clause saying maritime law specifically applies, and from what I've
researched, it specifically does NOT apply) to be similar to Yellowstone
issue I mentioned. Federal jurisdiction doesn't appear to apply and there's
no specific state that has jurisdiction.

Again, just consider the case of a US Citizen killing another while on EVA
from a private Moon base.


I did. As a practical matter it will very likely be treated the same way murder on the high seas is treated today if the facilities are run in accordance with OST guidelines. If not, if they're rogue or pirate facilities, they will be run according to their own guidelines, (Western Sahara's disputed territories being a case in point on Earth. It is one of the first failed nation state, following UN orders to Spain to decolonise the region in 1965. Spain relinquished control to Morocco in 1975, but the residents who rebelled against Morocco in 1957 and sought protection from Morocco by appealing to Spain, refused to accept Moroccan rule. At this point Mauritania claimed the land, which was again rejected by the locals due to tribal differences between the tribes in Mauritania and Western Sahara. A government in exile formed in Algeria, by the French, but these too were rejected by the locals. Meanwhile, Kerr McGee with the backing of Norway began exploiting the oil fields in the region, extracting significant value from the area without paying any duties to anyone anywhere. Offshore exploration for oil disrupted local fishing, which is a staple for the country, and as a result, food security plummeted. KM also polluted most of the productive farming regions in the area. So, starvation and disease in the area are rampant. The skills and knowledge possessed by the 500,000 inhabitants of this region are not up to the requirements for standing up to those who seek to control this region - this is unlikely to be the case for 500,000 astronauts in a large city sized base on the moon however, see Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for more detail) though a nation state may assert authority in exceptional cases - as Norway claims the oil extracted by Kerr McGee and uses it to support the Norwegian Fund.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net


  #12  
Old August 5th 16, 07:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Murder on the Moon

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-01 19:32, Alain Fournier wrote:

Just speculation on my part, but I think that a Martian colony will
declare independence in relatively short order.


Not sure about that. As long as the Martian Colony depends on regular
supplies from one country on Earth, it is likely to remain a territory
of that country.


Right now the best hope for a Martian colony is private interests, not
governments. I can make a case either way, depending on whose colony
it is (government or private) and how supplies get paid for.


If, like the ISS, the Mars colony is made of multiple segments, each
provided by different countries,...


Nobody sane would do it that way, which means that there will be a big
push for the US government to do it that way.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #13  
Old August 6th 16, 03:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Murder on the Moon

On Aug/5/2016 at 12:10 PM, JF Mezei wrote :
On 2016-08-01 19:32, Alain Fournier wrote:

Just speculation on my part, but I think that a Martian colony will
declare independence in relatively short order.


Not sure about that. As long as the Martian Colony depends on regular
supplies from one country on Earth, it is likely to remain a territory
of that country.

If, like the ISS, the Mars colony is made of multiple segments, each
provided by different countries, it would be each country's territory
initially and countries on earth would decide on who contributes to
transport costs to send food to the colony. (consider USA paying Russia
to send food/O2 to ISS on Soyuz to support the US segment while US
transport was unavailable).

Once a colony declares independance, there is little moticvation for one
Earth country to continue to contributes funds/food/people to the
independant colony. So it is important the colony becomes self
sustaining to gain independence. (or perhaps get funding from UN as
independent nation and UN deciding which countries provide funds).


I don't think that a plan for a colony where food, water or air needs
to be provided by the home country is a viable plan. I agree with you
that the colony needs to be self sustaining before they declare
independence. Not self sustaining in the sense that it doesn't need
anything from Earth. But self sustaining in the sense that it can pay
for what it needs.

If the settlement is not self sustaining or planning to be so in short
order, it probably isn't really a colony. ISS is not a colony because
no one on ISS thinks that they will stay there long enough to raise
children and have grand-children there. People on ISS didn't emigrate
to ISS. When people will migrate to Mars and plan on staying there for
generations, I think they won't do so with the idea that the metropolis
will be providing staple foods, air or water for more than a short
while. After that, if you can pay for what you need, you can negotiate
who will be your supplier. It doesn't have to be the home country.


Alain Fournier

  #14  
Old August 6th 16, 03:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Murder on the Moon

On Aug/5/2016 at 2:20 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-01 19:32, Alain Fournier wrote:

Just speculation on my part, but I think that a Martian colony will
declare independence in relatively short order.


Not sure about that. As long as the Martian Colony depends on regular
supplies from one country on Earth, it is likely to remain a territory
of that country.


Right now the best hope for a Martian colony is private interests, not
governments. I can make a case either way, depending on whose colony
it is (government or private) and how supplies get paid for.


If, like the ISS, the Mars colony is made of multiple segments, each
provided by different countries,...


Nobody sane would do it that way, which means that there will be a big
push for the US government to do it that way.


If there is a particularly interesting spot on Mars you might have a
US colony and next to it a European colony, and also Russian,
Chinese... Pretty soon, you don't want to do an EVA to go see your
neighbour so you install some kind of connecting passages. Voilà. You
don't always get the settlement you planned for.

Also, it is true that there has been some international collaboration à
la ISS that where disasters. There are also some examples of
international collaborations where different countries provide different
segments that have worked very well (Airbus A380 for instance). There
has also been numerous examples of single nation projects which were
disasters. I don't know why you say nobody sane would do it that way.


Alain Fournier

  #15  
Old August 6th 16, 07:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Murder on the Moon

On 7/30/2016 11:04 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I was perusing Quora when I came across this:

https://www.quora.com/If-I-was-an-as...f-any-moon-law


The first answer (currently) there is in line with my understandings.
Basically Outer Space Treaty applies and as a result laws of the
launching nation applies.

But then, I realized things MIGHT get complicated.

At the Federal level, I think the applicable laws a
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

Specifically paragraph (b) "Within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States,"

I think it's clear from intent and other sources that if the murder
occurred inside say a US government launched craft on the Moon or US
government base, this would apply.

If it happens on the surface during an EVA, then it's less clear. (I
think though I'd argue as the prosecutor that the spacesuit itself being
a fully self-contained life support system and property of the US
government would count as "territorial jurisdiction". As the defense
attorney I'd argue that the idea of a space suit as territory was
ridiculous.)

But what happens if it's a not a government craft? Then I think the
idea of territorial jurisdiction is even MORE nebulous.

And my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Outer
Space Territory while it bases a lot of its stuff on maritime law makes
it clear they're not equal.

And since you're under the jurisdiction of a state, I can't see state
laws applying.

But let's take it further... what if it's a crime that's NOT covered in
Federal Law (I don't think there's Federal laws for stealing). Then what?





The movie 'The Martian' with Matt Damon spent a surprising amount
of time on this question.

From the movie...

“I’ve been thinking about laws on Mars. There’s an
international treaty saying that no country can lay
claim to anything that’s not on Earth. By another
treaty if you’re not in any country’s territory,
maritime law applies. So Mars is international waters.
Now, NASA is an American non-military organization,
it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside
I’m in international waters. So Here’s the cool part.

I’m about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where
I’m going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody
explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they
can’t until on board the Ares IV. So I’m going to be
taking a craft over in international waters without
permission, which by definition… makes me a pirate.

Mark Watney: Space Pirate.”




Martian Law: Is Mark Watney Really a Space Pirate?
Is Matt Damon really a space pirate? And could Jesssica Chastain really
be subject to a court martial?

by Ben Adams
October 27th, 2015



In The Martian, astronaut Mark Watney and his crewmates onboard the
Hermes face a relentless series of challenges in order to rescue Watney
from the harsh surface of Mars and return him home. For the most part,
these challenges are technical and scientific – how do you grow food on
Mars? How much fuel is needed to alter a spaceship’s orbit? How much
disco can one man listen to before he goes insane?

Because explanatory journalism is all the rage, the internet is
chock-full of explainers which discuss the relative plausibility of the
scientific solutions they come up with. Which is a good thing, because
despite a life-long love of space, your humble correspondent is grossly
unqualified to challenge the science behind The Martian.

But in the (distant) background of the technical challenges, both Watney
and the crew of the Hermes must confront legal challenges as well. And
this particular newly-minted lawyer/former pirate-hunter is more than
happy (and at least nominally qualified) to discuss the plausibility of
these instead.

Let’s law the s**t out of this thing.

MarkWatneySpacePirate

Is Mark Watney really a space pirate?

As he sets out on his months long journey from the HAB to the Mars
Ascent Vehicle, Matt Damon demands that NASA refer to him by his new
name “Captain Blondebeard.” This is in honor of both his fresh new
alone-on-a-planet beard and the legal conclusion he’s come to:

“I’ve been thinking about laws on Mars. There’s an international treaty
saying that no country can lay claim to anything that’s not on Earth. By
another treaty if you’re not in any country’s territory, maritime law
aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American
non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk
outside I’m in international waters. So Here’s the cool part. I’m about
to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I’m going to commandeer the
Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and
they can’t until on board the Ares IV. So I’m going to be taking a craft
over in international waters without permission, which by definition…
makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.”

So there’s a couple leaps of logic here, and Watney is at least on the
right track because he realizes there are (at least) two separate
questions behind every legal issue:

First, what law applies?

And second, what does that law say?

Watney concludes that the Law of the Sea applies to his situation. This
probably isn’t quite right. Though the so-called “Moon Treaty”
explicitly attempted to model the Law of Space on the Law of the Sea,
that Treaty has thus far been signed by only a handful of nations, none
of which have their own ability to launch astronauts into space – and
doesn’t include the United States, so it’s not binding on Watney. While
there *is* a treaty that says no nation will lay claim to any celestial
body, that doesn’t mean that maritime law neccesarily applies:
Antarctica isn’t owned by any nation, but that doesn’t mean the Law of
the Sea applies to the South Pole, it just means that treaty law and
international agreements govern.

As a result, figuring out what law applies as a general matter on the
entire surface Mars is actually a fairly tricky (and mostly unresolved)
question.


But good news! We can actually dodge the hard question and answer an
easy one, because as it turns out, all that really matters is the law
that governs the MAV (the lander that Watney is going to “pirate”). The
Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (to which the U.S. and most other
space-faring nations are party), provides that when a State like the
U.S. launches an object into space, the U.S. would “retain jurisdiction
and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in
outer space or on a celestial body.”

So it doesn’t matter that the MAV is unmanned – it’s still U.S. property
and U.S. law still applies onboard. This means that he’s not really a
pirate: he’s a U.S. government employee making use of U.S. government
property. At most, he’d be guilty of some version of misappropriation
or theft of government property, but he wouldn’t be a pirate.

Even if the Law of the Sea or some similar regime did apply, Watney
still probably can’t live up to the fearsome reputation that’s implied
by his self-given title of Captain Blondebeard. He says that he’s a
pirate because he’s taking a craft without permission in international
waters. Mere theft or taking of a vessel, however, isn’t technically
piracy. Piracy is defined as robbery at sea, see, e.g. U.S. v. Furlong,
18 U.S. 184 (1820), and robbery requires the use of force or threat of
force.

So if you find a boat drifting out in the ocean and take it without
permission, you’re not necessarily a pirate, because you didn’t use
force or threat (though you may have broken other admiralty laws).
Similar principles would presumably apply here – the MAV is unmanned, so
oboviously no force or threats are required. Even if the MAV had
belonged to Russia or China (like the various spacecraft commandeered by
Sandra Bullock’s character in Gravity), he could probably take it
without technically being a pirate, because the act would be at most
theft, not robbery.

Even better, whatever crime Watney is guilty of by “stealing” the MAV,
he has an extremely strong case for a necessity defense. Necessity
provides that a crime can be justified and excused if committing the
criminal act was necessary to prevent some greater harm to the defendant
or others: the canonical example is borrowing your neighbor’s garden
hose to put out a fire. Here, Watney probably meets all of the elements
– there was no adequate legal alternative, stealing the MAV didn’t
create any greater harms, and Watney did not substantially contribute to
the emergency in the first place.

So never fear Captain Blondebeard – you are almost certainly safe from
prosecution for stealing the MAV. But will Watney’s colleagues on the
Hermes be so lucky?

Hermes

Could the crew on the Hermes really be subject to court martial for mutiny?

Millions of miles away from Mars, Commander Lewis (played by Jessica
Chastain) and the crew of the Hermes are faced with a similar question
of law-breaking. After receiving a coded message, the Hermes crew
discovers that NASA has decided not to alter the trajectory of the
Hermes so that they can go recover Watney, opting instead for a
last-ditch effort to send Watney a rocket full of food. Realizing that
the “Rich Purnell” maneuver has a much better chance of success, the
crew discusses whether to disobey NASA’s decision.

During the discussion, Commander Lewis notes that as military members,
her and Michael Peña’s Major Martinez could be subject to court martial
if they execute the maneuver – they are subject to the military code,
and defying NASA in this way could be seen as “mutiny.”

Here, Commander Lewis is much closer to the truth than Watney’s
piracy-analysis. Despite being on a civilian mission, Commander Lewis
and Major Martinez are most definitely subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), which applies to all military personnel
regardless of where they might go.

ChastainPenaTheMartian

The question, then, is whether or not taking control of the Hermes is
really a “mutiny.” Article 94 of the UCMJ defines the crime, and
provides that any person subject to the UCMJ who “with intent to usurp
or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any
other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty . . . is guilty of
mutiny.”

That probably fits what Commander Lewis and Major Martinez do. They are
definitely acting in concert, and their action is at the very least
against NASA’s intent that they continue with the mission as planned.
There are two wrinkles, however,

First, at the time Commander Lewis gives the order to defy NASA, they
haven’t actually received any orders yet – NASA hasn’t told them
anything, so NASA hasn’t technically ordered them not to fire the
engines and execute the maneuver. And second, we don’t know is how much
implicit authority Commander Lewis, as Commanding Officer of the Hermes,
has in piloting the ship. It may be that NASA has a standing order
which says “thou shalt not fire the engines without permission,” in
which case, yeah, mutiny. But it’s also possible that the commander of
the mission has been given broad discretion to maneuver the vessel as
she deems necessary to accomplish the mission, or as is key here – to
rescue a member of her crew. In that case, the lack of a contrary order
by NASA could provide a defense to mutiny.

The problem with this argument is that Commander Lewis’ actions show
that she clearly intended to defy the authority of NASA, whether they
had given an explicit order or not: disabling the communications systems
and remote override demonstrate that pretty clearly. While the
commander of a interplanetary-spacecraft would probably be given a lot
of latitude, there’s almost certainly some sort of caveat along the
lines of “if you can contact NASA before acting, do that first.” So if
the US Government were so inclined, Commander Lewis and Major Martinez
could get some handcuffs along with that ticker tape parade when they
come home.

The “good” news is that they wouldn’t necessarily be alone! Commander
Lewis implies that only the military members of the spacecraft are
subject to the Uniform Code, but she might be wrong on that score.
Civilians are not normally subject to the Code, but there is a narrow
exception for “persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in
the field” during wartime or a “contingency operation.” While that
authority usually only extends to the battlefield, you could probably
argue that the Hermes is the equivalent of a warship, and that a manned
mission to space is exactly the sort of “contingency” operation which
requires at least the potential for the imposition of military
discipline. So the entire crew of the Hermes could technically be
guilty of mutiny.

SayWhat
Say what now?

The real good news is that politics usually wins out over technical
legal arguments. Commander Lewis and her crew can be pretty confident
that neither she nor anyone else will never be prosecuted for their
decision, because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the
astronauts had defied authority in this way. Indeed, in the book and
movie, NASA pretends that the Purnell maneuver had been the plan all
along, and presumably the “mutiny” is never brought up again.

So never fear, astronauts – you focus on sciencing the s**t out of
things, we’ll handle the law, and we can all come home safe.

The author is an officer in the US Navy, but the opinions expressed in
this article are solely his own, and do not reflect those of the United
States Navy, Department of Defense, or US Government. The legal
opinions offered in this article are provided for informational and
entertainment purposes only, and should not be relied on during any
future voyages to sea and/or space.

Read More


https://www.overthinkingit.com/2015/...-space-pirate/












s





  #16  
Old August 6th 16, 11:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Murder on the Moon

The Martian was a good movie in my opinion.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/outer_space

The United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, which is modelled on the law of the sea, as stated in the film and in documents held by the UN.. Celestial bodies, like the sea, cannot be owned or claimed by any nation or human entity. Vessels and bases, housing and facilities built on or around celestial bodies, or on the sea, are owned by the nation to whom they are registered.

A pirate must be unregistered and board and seize a vessel or facility registered to another, converting it to his or her own purpose. without authorisation.

A letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale.

Cruising the sea for prizes (sort of like Pokeman Go) with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy.

A "letter of marque and reprisal" would include permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.

It is clear from the Iran Contra affair, that such letters are operating largely in secret today.

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law.

The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, and entered into force on 10 October 1967. As of September 2015, 104 countries are parties to the treaty including the United States and the Soviet Union (Russia)

Â*Afghanistan
Â*Algeria
Â*Antigua and Barbuda
Â*Argentina
Â*Australia
Â*Austria
Â*Azerbaijan
Â*Bahamas
Â*Bangladesh
Â*Barbados
Â*Belarus
Â*Belgium
Â*Benin
Â*Brazil
Â*Bulgaria
Â*Burkina Faso
Â*Canada
Â*Chile
Â*China
Â*Cuba
Â*Cyprus
Â*Czech Republic
Â*Denmark
Â*Dominican Republic
Â*Ecuador
Â*Egypt
Â*El Salvador
Â*Equatorial Guinea
Â*Estonia
Â*Fiji
Â*Finland
Â*France
Â*Germany
Â*Greece
Â*Guinea-Bissau
Â*Hungary
Â*Iceland
Â*India
Â*Indonesia
Â*Iraq
Â*Ireland
Â*Israel
Â*Italy
Â*Jamaica
Â*Japan
Â*Kazakhstan
Â*Kenya
Â*North Korea
Â*South Korea
Â*Kuwait
Â*Laos
Â*Lebanon
Â*Libya
Â*Lithuania
Â*Luxembourg
Â*Madagascar
Â*Mali
Â*Mauritius
Â*Mexico
Â*Mongolia
Â*Morocco
Â*Myanmar
Â*Â*Â*Nepal
Â*Netherlands
Â*New Zealand
Â*Niger
Â*Nigeria
Â*Norway
Â*Pakistan
Â*Papua New Guinea
Â*Peru
Â*Poland
Â*Portugal
Â*Qatar
Â*Romania
Â*Russia
Â*Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Â*San Marino
Â*Saudi Arabia
Â*Seychelles
Â*Sierra Leone
Â*Singapore
Â*Slovakia
Â*South Africa
Â*Spain
Â*Sri Lanka
Â*Sweden
Â*Â*Switzerland
Â*Syria
Â*Thailand
Â*Togo
Â*Tonga
Â*Tunisia
Â*Turkey
Â*Uganda
Â*Ukraine
Â*United Arab Emirates
Â*United Kingdom
Â*United States
Â*Uruguay
Â*Venezuela
Â*Vietnam
Â*Yemen
Â*Zambia

  #17  
Old August 7th 16, 01:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Murder on the Moon

William Mook wrote:


The United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, ...


We should withdraw. It's like someone said to themself, "Gee, we know
how Earth got explored and developed. We should write a treat to make
sure that all those incentives are removed from exploring and
developing space and it's resources."


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #18  
Old August 7th 16, 04:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Murder on the Moon

The two World Wars, the League of Nations and the United Nations along with the present system of international banking and energy finance is a fraud put in place by the ruling oligarchy in Britain at the end of the 19th century, according to historian Carroll Quigley, detailed in his book "Tragedy and Hope"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A76LFGtWhRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kwZYrZDM20

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-un...er-the-oceans/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8R_SEmjTO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUWxApj0F-M




On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 12:52:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


The United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, ...


We should withdraw. It's like someone said to themself, "Gee, we know
how Earth got explored and developed. We should write a treat to make
sure that all those incentives are removed from exploring and
developing space and it's resources."


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

  #19  
Old August 7th 16, 08:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Murder on the Moon

And Mookie tries to Mookjack a thread yet again. What does this
lunacy have to do with the Outer Space Treaty?

William Mook wrote:

The two World Wars, the League of Nations and the United Nations along with the present system of international banking and energy finance is a fraud put in place by the ruling oligarchy in Britain at the end of the 19th century, according to historian Carroll Quigley, detailed in his book "Tragedy and Hope"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A76LFGtWhRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kwZYrZDM20

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-un...er-the-oceans/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8R_SEmjTO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUWxApj0F-M




On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 12:52:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


The United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, ...


We should withdraw. It's like someone said to themself, "Gee, we know
how Earth got explored and developed. We should write a treat to make
sure that all those incentives are removed from exploring and
developing space and it's resources."


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

  #20  
Old August 7th 16, 03:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Murder on the Moon

I agree. We should withdraw from the UN. I give the reasons why.

You're the one who are guilty of disrupting the natural course of this conversation.

Even so, you asked a good question. The connection is rather simple;

(1) The Outer Space Treaty is the product of the UN.

(2) The previous writer said we should withdraw from the UN.

(3) I agreed and gave valid reasons why ending our relation with the UN is a good thing.

The UN is a product of the ruling oligarchy, which as Aldous Huxley once said famously, "has always existed and presumably always will."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7moyrzpmWI

Only a profoundly ignorant and controlled person would call Bill Clinton and Carroll Quigley, Aldous Huxley and John Gatto conspiracy theorists.



On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 7:05:31 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
And Mookie tries to Mookjack a thread yet again. What does this
lunacy have to do with the Outer Space Treaty?

William Mook wrote:

The two World Wars, the League of Nations and the United Nations along with the present system of international banking and energy finance is a fraud put in place by the ruling oligarchy in Britain at the end of the 19th century, according to historian Carroll Quigley, detailed in his book "Tragedy and Hope"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A76LFGtWhRQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kwZYrZDM20

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-un...er-the-oceans/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8R_SEmjTO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUWxApj0F-M




On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 12:52:16 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


The United States is a party to the Outer Space Treaty, ...


We should withdraw. It's like someone said to themself, "Gee, we know
how Earth got explored and developed. We should write a treat to make
sure that all those incentives are removed from exploring and
developing space and it's resources."


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Murder at a Planetarium William Hamblen Amateur Astronomy 1 March 2nd 08 02:56 AM
The first MURDER in space ??? Ed Zagmoon Policy 3 February 19th 07 06:26 AM
Evolutionists Getting Away with MURDER Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 1 November 14th 04 11:44 PM
Murder Now Legal In The U.S.A. Dan Wenz Amateur Astronomy 3 May 2nd 04 12:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.