Greenland is the only landmass big enough to bury the remaining Epstein files that weren't released by the deadline.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
206 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2066 readers
1401 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
so brave
Spoiler: Britan will let the US use its bases to attack Greenland.
With a very strongly worded letter, followed by several tuts.
They will only assist them in piracy.
Piracy can only be committed by private interests, not states.
I wouldn't go that far.
Privateer… hmm
A letter of marque and reprisal[a][b] was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a foreign state at war with the issuer, licensing international military operations against a specified enemy as reprisal for a previous attack or injury. Captured naval prizes were judged before the government's admiralty court for condemnation and transfer of ownership to the privateer.
Hmm that's a lot of state involvement for a purely private enterprise.
It was essentially tax on a private concern. It still holds in maritime law that piracy is only an offence that exists in a civilian context. Militaries by definition cannot commit piracy.
It also legalised their piracy against declared enemy states.
Right so a privateer is still a private individual. A private individual sanctioned by the state to commit piracy on its behalf.
When a state's military forces seize a foreign vessel that is not an act of piracy it is an act of war
Sure, but the original argument was that states could not engage in piracy, not that militaries couldn’t. The existence of privateers and their state mandates show that states can engage in it.
It's more like a state allowing a private individual to engage in piracy.
Yes they allowed them too, they gave them a list of who they could attack, and at times armed them. Thats very much the state being involved in it. Outsourcing doesn't absolve culpability.
I'm not saying they don't retain liability or responsibility. We're talking about the definition of piracy.
the act of attacking ships in order to steal from them
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piracy
an act of robbery on the high seas also : an act resembling such robbery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence by ship or boat-borne attackers upon another ship or a coastal area, typically with the goal of stealing cargo and valuable goods, or taking hostages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
What about it?
The definition provided under international law is different. That seems more relevant to the conversation than the dictionary
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
That seems extremely irrelevant as we are not nation states, surely we should be operating under the human definition rather than a hyper specific legal framework we never interact with.
And of course states are going to say they can't possibly be called out for it.
Did you forget we were directly talking about the actions of a nation state?
This also isn't a new concept the UN invented. It's how it's been since the "golden age of piracy".
But yeah a legal definition is always going to be more specific than a general definition provided by a dictionary. Diogenese had some opinions on using these simplistic definitions to view the world
Yes we are. Did you forget you're a person?
You are making absolutely no sense at this point.
Me being a person has very little to do with whether or not the United States is committing piracy. International law however does matter.
My point is that the legal definition is irrelevant to us, we should be using the common meaning of the word that has existed for hundreds of years.
The meaning as defined by dictionaries capturing the intent of the common person, not legal texts with hyper-specific requirements. Nation States have legally defined the word in a way that absolves them of any culpability, their meaning is inherently biased and flawed.
Once again they are not absolved of all culpability. They are not guilty of piracy, yes. Instead they have committed a recognizable act of war against another nation. That's way worse than piracy
Will Kier grow a spine finally? No, of course not. Trump will do whatever he wants, and the UK will grovel and bend the knee and let him do it because somebody in the UK government will benefit personally, or because they're simply too cowardly to refuse to go along with fascism.
Good thing America is only acquiring Greenland and not attacking