Thursday, November 22nd 2012 - 07:38 UTC

Hamburg tribunal confirms hearings on ARA Libertad impounded at Ghana port

The Law of the Sea Tribunal in Hamburg confirmed the oral hearings’ date for 29 and 30 November referred to the Argentine vessel ARA Libertad impounded and retained in Ghana since 2 October, with a previous day of consultations with both litigants on 28 November.

The news was released by Minister Hector Timerman

The announcement was made in a Wednesday release from Argentina’s Foreign ministry which also mentioned that the Ghana magistrate, because of the Hamburg hearings, decided to postpone until 6 December the decision on the removal of ARA Libertad from her current docking at the country’s main sea terminal Tema, another controversy issue between the two countries.

“The president of the Hamburg tribunal has requested both sides to abstain from taking any action susceptible of aggravating the controversy, a decision which acknowledges and responds to what Argentina presented in its demand on 14 November warning about the attitude of the Ghana port authorities harassing the frigate and its crew”, added the release.

Since the impounding of the vessel on request from a New York court acting for investment fund NML Capital which demands payment of over 300 million dollars in Argentine sovereign bonds, the vessel has been docked at pier 11, which Ghana port authorities argue occupies valuable commercial space in an already congested terminal and demands it be removed to a less busy pier 6.

However Argentina has refused point blank to such move, with some skirmishes including the showing of rifles, and claims the Ghana authorities tried to push their point by cutting water, power and supplies to the frigate.

“Argentina also requested to expand its first presentation but the Ghana Judge denied it and thus Argentina will appeal to the Superior Tribunal”.

Finally Argentina once again said it does not recognize any jurisdiction from Ghanaian courts to address the heart of the matter concerning the frigate, which is the reason why Argentina is demanding before the Hamburg’s International tribunal, the lifting of the embargo illegitimately imposed by Ghana.


42 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 agent999 (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 09:04 am Report abuse
An interesting article on the European Journal of International Law.
2 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 09:38 am Report abuse
I wish they put a nice little summary in plain English at the bottom. I can't work out if they believe Argentina will get her boat back or not.

Maybe they are as clueless about the likely outcome as we are here.
3 Raven (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:38 am Report abuse
It certainly is a fascinating case and one that does bare on the South African ship as well if things go in Ghana's favour.
Should that happen, Argentine Sovereign property will only be safe in Argentina! I'd be quite keen to get the ARA Espora back to sea sharpish just in case the ruling is not favourable. I'll bet that this case is all what NML are waiting for before trying to impound that as well.
4 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:43 am Report abuse
....or maybe they don't want to be stuck with a ship that needs $500,000 worth of repairs before it can even sail out of port.
5 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:46 am Report abuse
@01 Agent

Yes, intriguing article.
It would interesting to have a legal analysis of how this will go.
Certainly it seems there is uncertainty as to whether this case falls under ITLOS jurisdiction at all.

Good that they are moving swiftly however.

Doesn't sound likely that Espora will overcome her “ technical difficulties” in time to limp out of port before a ruling, though. :- )
6 Orbit (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:47 am Report abuse
Whatever the outcome CFK has already lost ... humiliation across the board and they've thrown in some insults to Ghana as well. National memories bear grudges.
7 googer62 (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:50 am Report abuse
Argentina seems not to be having much luck with courts - be interesting to see where this one goes
8 HansNiesund (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:51 am Report abuse

It doesn't read very favourable to Argentina :

- “it is unclear whether the dispute falls within the provisions of UNCLOS”.

- ”it does not seem apt to see (the Libertad's) seizure as impeding its right of innocent passage, still less its freedom of navigation“

- ”the limitation itself only applies to vessels exercising their right of innocent passage within the coast State’s territorial sea“

- ”(the Ghanaian government) cannot overrule its court’s decisions without breaching domestic law.“

The really interesting bit is this :

” just prior to commencing arbitration proceedings against Ghana, Argentina withdrew, ‘with immediate effect’ its declaration under Article 298 UNCLOS exempting disputes falling within Article 298(1)(a), (b) and (c) from the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions”

Which sounds as if Argentina is already preparing to repudiate the Court's judgement if it doesn't get its own way.

No surprise there, then.
9 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:56 am Report abuse

Just a thought...
wouldn't it be to NML's advantage to frustrate the Argentinians by laying claim to Espora now, before repairs are complete?

That way, much uncertainty will be generated and the Argentinians will be in a quandary as to whether to lash out a huge expenditure on a ship that may be lost anyway. It might paralyse the repair effort with internal squabbling and further uncertainty of payment for the repairs to the technicians and suppliers. That would ensure the ship won't leave Sinonstown anytime soon.
10 Raven (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:07 am Report abuse
@9 Troy

I think even South African courts will be watching and waiting on this ruling. Should NML try it on, I think the SA courts would drag their feet until certainty over the legal implications unfold, and I doubt even NML like paying legal fees, which could get very expensive for two cases, especially if the verdicts went against them. Investors would demand prudence until certainty is gained.

If NML can claim both ships though, I wonder what their new navy would score in the world rankings?
11 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:19 am Report abuse
01@agent999...thank you.....I was able to find what I suspected would be in the bond documents, a waiver of immunity.... I am terribly sad for Argentina. It has colonial and neocolonial parasites sucking its lifesblood and they will do whatever it takes to destroy Argentina's struggle for democracy so they can once more regain their colonial role.

I quote from the article posted by 01agent999,, below only to shore up this observation---These kinds of waivers are only signed by corrupt officials in governments. No government will waive its sovereign immunity in this manner without corruption at the highest levels in the execution of the documents. In this case the corruption was from those in power who were hand in glove with the bankers with both fearful of a popular uprising and trying negate any gains of democracy against their dictatorial/colonial rule. And irrespective of the vulture-bond friendly rulings of US Court , or any other court whose jurisdiction is supported by the IFM or World Bank or bankers in general, those who executed the bond documents on behalf of Argentina are thieves, and the vulture bond holders are takers from thieves. And a taker from a thief is a thief. Argentina is being used as a poster child by the global banksters and global goblins in general what they will do to you if you get rid of your corrupt officials and their corrupt financing agreements.....Oh, and Repsol is lurking out there deathly afraid that Chevron will morph itself into a mutual reward capitalist in Argentina...
12 toooldtodieyoung (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:24 am Report abuse
I'm just wondering what the reaction would be if say an ocean going tug was to tow ARA Libertad to a US naval base.

If, say, in the dead of night, persons unknown were to cast off the ship and it was towed out of Ghana then there is not much that Asslips could do about it is there? except maybe scream louder.

Ghana would not do anything, being glad to get rid of the ship and Argentina COULDn't do anything because all her warships break down. It seems to me that such an action would be welcomed by the countries that matter.

I really don't know someone hasn't tried it before now.
13 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:26 am Report abuse
9 Troy Tempest

Who knows?

My way of thinking would be to wait until the vessel is repaired and then impound it.
14 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:48 am Report abuse
#11jkw's comment.......I left out the waiver of immunity quote from #01agent999's apologies...

To the extent the Republic [of Argentina] or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled … to any immunity from suit, … from attachment prior to judgment, … from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, … the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction (and consents generally for the purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the giving of any relief or the issue of any process in connection with any Related Proceeding or Related Judgment).
15 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 11:58 am Report abuse
11 jkw

The traditional Argentine defence “Nothing to do with me Guv”

One must assume from your logic that any and all agreements signed in the name of Argentina prior to the Kirchners are nul and void?

Can others ignore contracts where the benefit is to Argentina?
16 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:03 pm Report abuse
11 jkw

You have a very geocentric point of view.

The int'l community couldn't care less who runs your country. Put away the conspiracy theories.
“Taking from a thief” is someone wanting their own money back.

After more than 10 years, the creditors are demanding to be paid back a fraction of the billions of $$$ borrowed by your admitted “corrupt officials” that you democratically elected.

Further, how can you expect foreign investment from the likes of Chevron or Repsol, or anyone else, if there is no profit to be earned?? Are you stupid?

Time for Argentina to accept accountability for its actions and for the actions of the people they elected to represent them.

The people can exercise some democracy right now and get rid of your current government - you have to help yourselves.

Best Wishes
17 toooldtodieyoung (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:07 pm Report abuse
11 jkw

“those who executed the bond documents on behalf of Argentina are thieves, and the vulture bond holders are takers from thieves. And a taker from a thief is a thief”

No, my dear jkw, a taker from a thief is the rightful owner, trying to re-claim what has been illegally taken from him.

If someone breaks into your house and steals your T.V and you ( because you know who it is ) then go round to their house and TAKE your T.V back. Does this then make you a thief? If, in your eyes, it does, then you have a very twisted idea of morality. OR you just don't know what morals are.
18 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:29 pm Report abuse

Happy days
19 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:39 pm Report abuse
@12 too old

Yes, a “real world” solution, :- )

However, personally I'm sorry that things have come this far.

I would far rather have seen Argentina pay some bucks and get their beautiful boat returned. It really is part of the peoples' heritage and of far more value to them than the monetary amount. Very sad that CFK doesn't give a crap.

In fact, very sad that she sees it only as a political tool and a stage for her message of victimisation. Argentinas public humiliation will now be on the world stage.

Sympathies to the Argentine people, but they voted her in. Too bad they can only get rid of her long after she's robbed them blind.

Perhaps they can impeach her, convict her of her crimes and recover their money from her Swiss accounts, and seize her properties and hotels?

Next demonstration, they need to storm Casa Rosada.
20 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:40 pm Report abuse
#12 tool....Ghana was chosen because it is 100% beholden to IMF and World Bank...e.g.,

Joint IMF and World Bank Debt Sustainability Analysis
Prepared by the staffs of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
Approved by Michael Atingi-Ego and Dominique Desruelle (IMF)
and Marcelo Giugale and Jeffrey Lewis (World Bank)
November 29, 2011

This debt sustainability analysis (DSA) updates the joint IMF/World Bank DSA of May 4, 2011, and reflects the most recent macroeconomic developments, including the authorities’ plans to scale up infrastructure investment.

This is just a glimmer of why Ghana will do anything the IMF and World Bank tell it to do...

#15......I will repeat: only a government which is corrupt and frightened of popular democratic takeover will execute a waiver of sovereign immunity such as the one executed by Argentina and which is being used to seize its assets in Ghana....such is theft, and those who attempt to benefit from that theft as thieves...

#16 “Put away the conspiracy theories....” and “ Are you stupid?” Those are as lame a set of premises from which to attempt to mount a refutation of an assertion as “racist” or “old white man” when Pres. Obama is criticized for some action or another....

And as far as forcing a nation's people to accept responsibility for corrupt officials whose corruption is to hide their perfidy from the people, you will first have to prove that the majority of the people willingly and knowingly agreed with and participated the corruption.....

Or to put it in a nutshell: You want innocents to be responsible for leaders' corruptly issued debt....Would you also argue for children to be held responsible for their parents criminal behaviour???
21 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:49 pm Report abuse
The people of Argentina are responsible for their government - nobody else is.

You really need to get rid of your victim mindset - though your 'children' analogy is rather apt.

Your attitude is incredible. You voted for them - you deal with their legacy.
22 Troy Tempest (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:03 pm Report abuse
They are representing YOU.
It's up to YOU to make sure they behave ethically. It is nobody else's fault that the officials of your sovereign nation are corrupt.

They borrowed the money in your name, Argentina. Argentina owes the money. They stole from you. You still have a debt. Whether you have the money or not.
Very frustrating and 'not fair' for you, but foreigners didn't steal from you - your government stole from Argentina.
Get it back from them, and make the payments you agreed to.
23 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:12 pm Report abuse
I think the crux of the matter is that Argentines love to hark on about sovereign rights but have no qualms about exonerating themselves from sovereign responsibilities.
24 LEPRecon (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:21 pm Report abuse
@20 - jkw

But Argentina was a democracy when the waiver was signed. Therefore the people are responsible for the government, and the government responsible to the people.

They signed the waiver because that was the only way they could borrow money, given your countries past record on borrowing and repaying debts, and I'm sure that the government at the time had every intention of paying back the debt so didn't factor that the waiver would ever need to be used.

The fact is that your government borrowed money, signed the waiver (of their own free will), then defaulted.

The debt is still owed, and you bleat on as much as you like, but no one put a gun to your government head to borrow the money.

Not only that, but your current President bragged that Argentina has US$45 billion. That means that Argentina could've started to pay back the money it owed, instead of steadfastly refusing and saying, 'but it's not fair.'

Well life ISN'T fair.

Bleating about how you didn't agree to the waiver is pathetic. You accepted the money, loaned to you in good faith. You elect the government to govern on your behalf, that means you have to accept responisbility for what they do in your name.

Paying back this debt should be a matter of national honour to Argentina, instead honour appears to something that you don't understand, and you constantly cry about how everyone is picking on you.

During WW2 Britain had to borrow lots of money, mostly from the US.

We came to an arrangement with them to pay if off annually, and we finally finished paying off the debt in 2006.

Now, I wasn't born in the 1940's, and neither were the majority of British people. So why should we have had to pay that debt?

Well we had to pay that debt because the US loaned us the money in good faith, and it was a matter of national honour to repay that debt.
25 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:24 pm Report abuse
#s 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 and #22: I respect the responses. Yet, I do want to try one more time to sway your thinking by asking a question:

Did the sellers of the debt have the right to sell the debt they sold? If not, then the debt was illegally sold. And if illegally sold, the right of the people in whose name that debt was sold (think of the trust relationship between an agent and its principal) to recoup that debt, i.e., by not being bound by it and not paying it, is surely at least arguably acceptable?

And the key question? Well. Are agents (government officials) who act in their own self interest and corruptly, e.g., recipients of monies, bribes, etc., etc.,with full knowledge, and indeed payment of money or equivalent or other non-disclosed inducement, by the lender, in exchange for issuing a binding national debt, acting in the interest of their principal (e.g., the people of Argentina) I would argue no. And others of you would argue yes. So far, the “yes” votes have they not?

When someone knowingly buys something from someone who doesn't have a right to sell it, ie., a thief, does he have a right to keep it? The answer is no....that person is a taker from a thief and is himself a thief, i.e., he is in the chain of notwithstanding that is standing law in the UK....really!!
26 Simon68 (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:26 pm Report abuse
20 jkw (#)
Nov 22nd, 2012 - 12:40 pm

The waiver was approved by the freely elected president of Argentina, who is at the moment a memeber of the upper house of the Argentine Congress. The only member of his cabinet that was found by the judiciary to be corrupt was Ms. Julia Alsogaray.

Thus your argument about the “thieves” in government falls flat on its face!!!!!

Once this has been shewn, your statement that the bondholders are also “thieves” also dies of inertia. The bondholders are, in their great majority, Italian pensioners who put their faith in the honesty of our government with the results that are now common knowledge!!!!!!
27 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:29 pm Report abuse
Government bonds are traded on markets all the time and those that own them have every right to sell them. That's part of how the bond market works.
28 LEPRecon (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:35 pm Report abuse
@25 - jkw

First you would have to prove that your government who signed the waiver were acting corruptly.

Yes people have the right to sell on debt, as the people who originally were owned money thought that it was better to get something (a better payout than the pathetic option the Argentine government demanded they take) than lose everything.

Most of the original bond holders were not well off people, or big faceless corporations.

Your government took the money, and since then successive governments have refused to repay the debt. That's stealing.

I say good luck to NML, I hope they take Argentina for the full amount.

You see jkw, Argentina could've come to an understanding to pay back the debt piecemeal. Instead you DEMANDED that people accept a small fraction of the amount that you borrowed.

You see that is the real crux of the matter. Argentina, government and people REFUSE to accept responsiblity for ANYTHING.

The Falkands invasion wasn't Argentina's fault, it was the Junta. The default wasn't Argentina's fault it was the corrupt government. The Libertad being impounded isn't Argentina's fault, it's the Vulture fund.

Wah, wah, wah, wah. That's all Argentina EVER does. Pathetic.

Grow up. Pay off your debts. Maybe then your country will regain some respect. As of now, you have no respect for anyone or anything, and then complain when others don't respect you.

Tick tock, default 2 on the way. This time it is the Argentine people that will suffer.

By the way, jkw, did you vote for the dollar clamp? Did you vote for your government to humiliate you on the international stage? Did you vote for 25% inflation? Did you vote for the illegal expropriation of YPF against the consitution?

No? Then why don't you do something about it?
29 HansNiesund (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 02:08 pm Report abuse

All you have is a lurid allegation. In most jurisdictions, a lurid allegation is not considered sufficient justification to overturn a contract. It's not too hard to figure out why.

What you'd need to do is prove your lurid allegation by getting get all the various alleged culprits convicted in a court. But even that would not to be enough to get Argentina off the hook. You'd still have to reimburse legitimate lenders and pursue the guilty parties to get the loot back.

Nice try, though, it's a step better than just pretending the waiver isn't there.
30 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 02:25 pm Report abuse
24 LEPRecon

Loving the post! Well set out opinions with good examples to back it up!

31 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 02:35 pm Report abuse
#26.....I knew Alsogaray had been convicted. And in the back of my mind Menem, Ocampo?? and Cavallo? were indicted, for financial corruption, but Menem couldn't be prosecuted because he was still a sitting member, and the others??? I'll have to go back and take a look....Anyhow, did CFK's folks ever get any of that---$200 million??? or so--- back from Alsogaray?

Anyhow, CFK has her hands full with these kinds of knucklheads still lurking around the country..... If their past behavior is any indicator, if their ilk come back into power, the IMF and World Bank can “ghanaize” Argentina......yeppoers.....
32 Idlehands (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 02:49 pm Report abuse
31 jkw

Surely CFK also has here hands full of the cash she and Nestor stole from Santa Cruz province in 1993. It wasn't a couple of Pesos - it was millions.
33 ChrisR (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 03:09 pm Report abuse
The Libertad is in the harbour.

Harbours are not international waters, by definition under the Convention.

The Law of the Sea Tribunal works within its' remit, which, by mutual agreement can include other topics.

Does anyone think the Ghanaians are stupid enough to agree to any remit outside the convention? No, nor do I.
34 Conqueror (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 03:12 pm Report abuse
@8 A question in my mind. What is the actual meaning of:
” just prior to commencing arbitration proceedings against Ghana, Argentina withdrew, ‘with immediate effect’ its declaration under Article 298 UNCLOS exempting disputes falling within Article 298(1)(a), (b) and (c) from the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions”

Looking at this in reverse it seems to me that argieland had a declaration in force ”exempting disputes falling within Article 298(1)(a), (b) and (c) from the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions”

If that is the case, then argieland would have had withdraw its declaration in order to obtain a binding decision from ITLOS. However, and noting that the source I consulted is dated 1997, it seems that a States party can only revoke or modify a declaration on three months' notice.
The plot thickens! How complicated things get when lawyers get involved.
@12 How would that work with the argie crew on board?
@ 13, 20 Sticking with the conspiracy theory? Tell us, who decided to send the ship to Ghana? The World Bank? The IMF? Or the argie government? Here's the “real” nutshell. Supposedly, argieland is a democracy. The people voted for the government. The government appointed the officials. It was for the government to exercise checks on its officials. Prima facie, your so-called “innocents” are as guilty as hell! Reminiscent of the millions celebrating in the streets at the 1982 invasion and then, after being defeated, insisting it is nothing to do with them.
@25 What are you? A lawyer or a weasel. A government bond is “beyond reproach”. It's why they are often termed “gilts”.
35 slattzzz (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 04:36 pm Report abuse
@10 raven .............above Argentina's
36 jkw (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 05:35 pm Report abuse
#34 conqueror....Not specifically, but generally, and as might apply to you:

I sense a deep and troubled dislike of Argentina in the comment section in Merco. Most noticeably, I note a distinct odor of thwarted colonial ambitions, marked by petulance or name calling.

What is troubling you, and you are troubled given the exasperation of your post, is the inability you have to grant, even for the sake of argument, that a nation's people may be innocent of it's leaders corrupt acts and therefore not bound by them. That you are not persuaded by my attempts at making that point is certainly not my fault. After all, you have total and uncoerced control over whether you are persuaded by my argument that a nation's people, innocent of its leaders' corrupt acts is not bound by those acts.

I am neither lawyer nor weasel, not that being either would add or subtract from the point I am trying to make, but of one thing I am sure: attempting to hold responsible the innocent along with the guilty for the perfidy of leaders never comes out well. Much as The Treaty of Versailles with its attempts to make Germany pay Britain, France, and the US for the costs of WWI didn't work out so well for France or Britain because it turned into the catalyst for nationalization of Germany and the resulting nazi and facist factions assuming control; and, much as economic sanctions working in the short term always destroy the long term, the attacks on Argentina and the support for the vulture funds sounds in these comments like the wail of someone who can't quite come to grips with the fact that there is no more empire or the suggestion that there is no natural right to make a profit, or survival of the fittest a la mode..
37 Foxtrot Indigo (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 06:42 pm Report abuse

Your comment is exactly how I would describe Argentina's recent attempts to colonise the Falkland Islands. They whine and scream how unfair it is that they don't have the Falklands and post abusive and racist remarks about the people of the Islands and even in some cases, wish for the deaths of all the people living there for refusing to accept Argentinean rule. Your country refuses to allow charter aircraft over Argentinean airspace to hurt our economy, arrest fishing vessels in international waters, refuses entry of Falkland flagged vessels into their ports...maybe you should take a good long look in the mirror before accusing other countries of having colonial desires.

As for the innocent population being ruled over by the evil corrupt government...I agree that may not be your fault but you voted for them so you have to live with their mistakes. It is the same for every country. The people of Greece have to live with the choices made by their rulers even if they don't agree with them. Britain has to live with the memory that the actions after WWI contributed to WWII. But it was the people of Germany who voted for Hitler, no one else.
38 War Monkey (#) Nov 22nd, 2012 - 10:56 pm Report abuse
@25 jkw (#)
Nov 22nd, 2012 - 01:24 pm

Are you saying that your freely elected government accepted stolen goods?

Well you have swayed me.

Fine. Keep it. It's all yours.

Actually no. It isn't. You accepted it, you are responsible for it and even if your argument was logical it would be up to you to prove that the money you accepted had been stolen in the first instance. And hurry up, stop stalling, those pensioners aren't getting any younger.

One more thing. The anti Argentine card has expired. There are one or two exceptions, there always is but there is no general anti Argentine feeling. That is all in your head. There is however a wave of anti bullshit feeling so pack that in as we'll while you are at it.

@37 FI.

Nicely put. Just about sums up my thoughts on Argentinas' continued colonial aspirations and deflection diplomacy.
39 Captain Poppy (#) Nov 23rd, 2012 - 04:29 pm Report abuse
#34 re:@25 what is the difference?
40 ChrisR (#) Nov 23rd, 2012 - 09:14 pm Report abuse
25 jkw

“When someone knowingly buys something from someone who doesn't have a right to sell it, ie., a thief, does he have a right to keep it? The answer is no....that person is a taker from a thief and is himself a thief, i.e., he is in the chain of notwithstanding that is standing law in the UK....really!!”

Yes, of course that it the case and the person who ‘bought it’ did not buy it at all, he knowingly received stolen goods.

When I was 12 YO my parents brought me a Grundig tape recorder from the local electrical shop. It was the basic model but in those days was very expensive indeed and I treasured it immensely. My parents were poor by British standards and had made great sacrifices so that I could have it.

The next door neighbour, when he knew I had got it and had taught myself how to use the features asked me to go round and help him with his Grundig.

It turned out to be the top of the line studio model and cost more than a small car.

A few weeks later we found out how he ‘afforded’ it, he had paid a burglar for it. The police caught the burglar and he ‘coughed’ up the next door neighbour. Result: machine taken back to the owner and a very high fine, he was lucky to escape jail.

I take it that this course of action is unheard of in The Dark Country. Why am I not surprised?
41 British_Kirchnerist (#) Nov 24th, 2012 - 02:11 am Report abuse
#31 Well put. I didn't actually realise it was Menem who signed the waiver, that makes a lot of sense as it fits in with his general “model adjustor” behaviour

#32 What do you allege happened in 1993 specifically? Why pick that year in particular, when Nestor was governor for 12 years? You couldn't be just creating a false air of authority, could you?! Your admission of cluelessness as to the final outcome at #2 was, however, genuinely refreshing; too often people on both sides give the impression what we want to happen is definately going to happen; alas, that's not always how it works in the real world...
42 toooldtodieyoung (#) Nov 24th, 2012 - 11:16 am Report abuse
34 Conqueror

Ok let me explain it a little more. The reason that the argy crew were waving their guns around was because the Port authorities wanted to board the vessel right? merely casting off the lines at the dockside means that no -one has to board the vessel therefore, there is no “infringement” on anyones ” sovereignty”

If it was done at night, you can bet the Argentinean’s won’t be mounting a watch and without power they can’t steer the ship so they would have let themselves be towed.

When I first thought of it, it did seem so simple...........

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!