Glenn Shadrake

@RezaNasri1 @ClimateAudit Not a fan of the mullahs’ regime but that doesn’t change the fact the arguments made here are well reasoned.

Iran’s legal position regarding the Strait of Hormuz rests on a firm and multi-layered foundation in international law that has been consistently articulated, formally recorded, and never relinquished. First, the applicable treaty framework does not support the imposition of the “transit passage” regime on Iran. The UNCLOS introduced transit passage as a novel legal construct, granting expansive rights—including overflight and submerged navigation—to foreign military assets. However, Iran never ratified UNCLOS and explicitly rejected this regime upon signature. Under general principles of treaty law, a state cannot be bound by provisions of a treaty it has not ratified, particularly where it has expressly objected to those provisions at the time of signature. This position is reinforced by the doctrine of the persistent objector. Even if one assumes, arguendo, that transit passage has evolved into customary international law, Iran has consistently and openly rejected its applicability. As such, it is not bound by that rule. Second, in the absence of a universally binding transit passage regime, the governing law reverts to earlier treaty law and customary principles, most notably the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. Both Iran and key user states such as the United States are not parties to UNCLOS, creating a legal vacuum in which reliance on earlier treaty regimes is not only appropriate but necessary. Under this framework, the right of passage through territorial seas is not unlimited. It is conditioned on innocent passage, a well-established rule allowing coastal states to regulate navigation to protect their security and public order. Crucially, innocent passage excludes activities that threaten the coastal state, including military operations, intelligence gathering, and acts connected to hostile conduct. Third, the geographic reality of the Strait of Hormuz strengthens Iran’s legal position. The navigable channels lie entirely within the overlapping territorial seas of Iran and Oman. This is not a high seas corridor but a maritime space subject to coastal sovereignty, albeit qualified by navigational rights. That sovereignty carries with it the right to adopt and enforce laws necessary to safeguard national security. Fourth, even under UNCLOS itself, the regime of non-suspendable innocent passage remains a legally recognized alternative in certain straits. This regime is more restrictive than transit passage and explicitly allows the coastal state to take necessary steps to prevent passage that is not innocent. Iran’s interpretation is therefore not a legal aberration, but a plausible reading grounded in existing law. Fifth, and most critically in the present context, the law of armed conflict and the UN Charter fundamentally alter the legal landscape. Following an unlawful use of force against it, Iran is entitled to invoke its inherent right of self-defense. In such circumstances, the legal characterization of passage cannot be divorced from the realities of hostilities. Vessels and aircraft associated with belligerent states—or facilitating military operations—cannot claim protected navigational rights while simultaneously contributing to acts of aggression. International law has never required a state to permit its own territorial sea to be used as a conduit for hostile operations. On the contrary, the right of self-defense permits proportionate measures to prevent such exploitation. Conditioning passage on neutrality and non-hostility is therefore not only lawful but necessary to uphold the integrity of that right. Finally, the conduct of other states further undermines any claim that Iran’s position is exceptional. The United States itself is not a party to UNCLOS yet selectively invokes its provisions as customary law when convenient.

@ivan_8848 Nor can Tehran intercept the UK’s nuclear missiles.

Former UK Defence Secretary Wallace stated that the country would not be able to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles if they were to strike. "The Iranians took two rocket stages from their space program, added them to existing missiles, and have now succeeded in creating missiles with a range that could allow them to reach the UK in the future. And even if we're not talking about Iran, the point is that range-increasing technologies are advancing, and missile ranges are increasing." "If such a missile were launched at us, would we be able to intercept it?" "No, we wouldn't be able to—at least not yet."

@BuddyWells1 Economists distinguish between money (an asset that retains its value) versus currency (a debt instrument & unit of account that shrinks in real value precisely because govt can “print” it in unlimited quantity). Currency masquerading as money is legalized counterfeiting.

@GShadrake So how do you explain him saying “govt doesn’t have money”?

How do people ever take this guy seriously? The state is the currency issuer. The private sector are currency users. Without state (central bank and govt) spending, you would not have any currency).

@dmbkparker Sopwith Camel, Spitfire, Lancaster, Mosquito, Mustang, P-38 Lightning, F-86 Sabre, Phantom. SR-71 Blackbird.

Two aircraft that should never be retired. 1. A10 2. Chinook What else goes on the list? If you say Blackhawk, I will virtually slap you.

@DX_Alphafg He spent ‘21 planning Ukraine war. Ensured all diplomatic avenues to settling the Donetsk-Luhansk rebellion were closed down, had Zelensky declare he’d retake the oblasts by force, Crimea too. When Z’ moved an army to the border, Putin reacted. Without diplomacy, war inevitable.

Your thoughts?

@Dispropoganda Hamas launched a sneak attack targeted civilians indiscriminately, in heinous fashion. As a crime, it surpassed Pearl Harbor. Hamas knew the response would be massive, so placed their civilians between the IDF & their militia, to maximize civilian casualties, for a media victory.

Gazans didn't murder 15 million innocent people, raped a whole continent and started a world war u sick Nazi fuck.

@Malinowski Since 1946, Congress has taxed Americans on avg ~17% of GDP, most years between 16% & 18%. It has typically spent ~19%. The difference is why the $ loses ~2% of its purchasing power per yr. Congress now spends ~24% of GDP. It boosted spending for Covid & kept doing so after.

If corporations paid the same share of their profits in taxes as they did under Reagan, that alone would eliminate almost half the federal budget deficit (or pay for massively more affordable health and child care, or vastly better infrastructure for every American).

@GShadrake In 1975 the money in everyone’s pocket was sovereign currency, which only got into people’s pockets because the state spent it into existence.

@BuddyWells1 Currency is not money. It is a substitute for money. That is why a British pound note stated “ I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of one pound”. That seems ridiculous unless you understand the note is a note, a debt instrument, settled by money (gold).

@ripinieks @BowesChay The “one inch east” commitment was made by all NATO countries and referred to the then established membership. NATO was not to expand into Warsaw Pact countries.

@GShadrake @BowesChay What does "not one inch east" about Germany have to do with the rest of Europe? Any contract signed (nothing was signed by the way) with non existent entity is null and void! There is NO court in the world that would rule to enforce such agreement.

36 years ago the Berlin Wall began to come down. 5 years later, Jack Matlock, US Ambassador to the Soviets 1987-1991 revealed the promises made to the Soviets for allowing a Unified Germany to join NATO unhindered. They were lied to, and here we are.

@ripinieks @BowesChay Powers have to be able to trust commitments made, or peaceful agreements will never be reached. Courts are not the ultimately adjudicator of intl disputes. The gun is. In the 1962 Crisis, JFK & Khrushchev trusted each other’s word & their commitments were honored.

@BuddyWells1 He stated “government only gets money by putting its hand in your pocket and taking it out.” He was using a metaphor to make a valid point. When the Treasury issues bonds, it creates debt, not money. The Fed buys those bonds when creating $ currency.

@GShadrake He was a very articulate man. If he meant to say what you say he meant, he would have said that. Instead he spoke nonsense.

@BuddyWells1 No. He was pointing out that all wealth is created by the citizenry, not the administrative government. Wealth is accumulated assets. One of those assets is money. Currency is not an asset. It is a liability of the central bank, once upon a time partially backed by gold.

@GShadrake In 1975 when Friedman said that nonsense, govt was spending currency, not commodity money as per your description. So the statement is nonsensical.

@DrNeilStone The probability of a healthy child dying of Covid was lower than being struck dead by lightning.

Millions of unvaccinated people who died were unavailable for comment

@DefiantLs Six billion people are alive with fossil fuels. How many could be supported without?

John Kerry: "Every year now millions of people around this planet are dying because fossil fuel and methane emissions called greenhouse gas pollusion."

@Cryptic_Vyper @WSJopinion @RandyEBarnett Howard and other senators made crystal clear during debate that “jurisdiction” meant complete and permanent US jurisdiction over the parents, not transient or partial jurisdiction, such as what occurs when a foreigner passes through on a tourist visa.

@WSJopinion @RandyEBarnett There's was no such thing as legal or illegal immigrants in 1868, and no such expectation to change immigration to permit such. Racism ending, that was baked in with the equal protections clause. The only ones excluded in 1868 were those with Diplomatic Immunity (sans racism).

Trump is right on birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment’s authors would exclude illegal and visiting aliens from U.S. “jurisdiction,” writes @RandyEBarnett on.wsj.com/3NZSCXn

@ReallyAmerica Howard spoke. The stenographer introduced the punctuation. Was the stenographer’s interpretation correct? Did Howard itemize 4 categories? 1) Foreign visitors. 2) Aliens living in the US but still loyal to a foreign power. 3) Diplomat families. 4) Ambassadors.

SCOTUS justices are asking questions that stupid people on social media would ask. Here’s the exact quotes from the Congressional Globe (39th Congress, 1st Session, Senate floor on May 30, 1866) Senator Lyman Trumbull (immediately preceding Howard’s remarks, p. 2893) “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. … It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Jacob Howard (Michigan, Republican) introduced the Citizenship Clause on May 30, 1866, and he explained it on the Senate floor., p. 2890): “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” If he wanted to JUST exclude the children of Ambassadors, he would have just said that. Howard later EXPLICITLY agreeing with Trumbull (p. 2895) “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” There is no other way to read the record. We are being GASLIT that the original meaning included anyone solely because they were subject to U.S. laws while disregarding political allegiance, “full and complete jurisdiction”. THE RECORD SAYS THE OPPOSITE, except for Howard’s final statement that foreign nationals must abide by our laws. Barbara v United States is a rehash of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Barbara(pseudonym) is in the U.S. LEGALLY awaiting an amnesty hearing. Thank Joe Biden and Mayorkas. THEREFORE She has temporary allegiance and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This case should not apply to the kids of 2 illegal aliens. If and when SCOTUS seals our fate, it will be spun that it does. PS In 100 years, this case will be the reason for the collapse of the U.S., if the plaintiff wins. PPS 19th-century legal and congressional English • “Foreigner” was the everyday word for anyone from another country. • “Alien” was the more precise legal term used in statutes and court opinions for non-citizens who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
Howard (and other senators) frequently used both words together in the same debate when they wanted to be absolutely clear they were talking about non-citizens in general. It was common style in 1866 Senate speech, not unusual. THEY’RE NOT INCLUDED PPPS If Howard had meant just the kids of ministers and ambassadors were excluded it would read like this, NO COMMA after ALIENS. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”