• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes.

    Your own link argues against you:

    "But the Suez Rajan case was unique at the time of the transfer because it was owned by the Los Angeles-based private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management. "

    At the time the ship was being used for moving US sanctioned oil, it was own by a US company. That supports @[email protected] 's statements.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is correct and why they could prosecute this case. But they have been seizing oil since 2019. And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies, it still doesn’t change the fact that this amounts to piracy. Defending international injustice with legalese doesn’t absolve what this is. When China seizes our tankers because the parts were made in China, will you defend them?

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And even if all those tankers were partially owned by US companies,

        If the tankers or company is operating in the US, then they are bound by US laws no matter where they are in the world. A company can’t benefit from the protection of the US government and laws at home only to go abroad to commit US crimes.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          36
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many countries can use that justification. Why are you defending an act that you’d condemn if it was done to America?