Italy's Salvini May Face Trial for 'Kidnapping' Migrants

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

[The Grims]

Not really, they were in port, in Sicily. It's rather a long way from there to the ocean. Further than one could swim.

It being a rather long distance does not mean they could not have attempted it. If they aren't wanted in Italy then obviously they would have needed to find somewhere else to go like the ocean.

Either that or the Italian coast guard could have ferried them back to the middle of the Mediterannean.

Were they allowed to jump off the ship then ?

[Risottia]

Anyway, for further reference, the crime that's being translated as "kidnapping" here is "Sequestro di persona" (art.605)

from
https://www.brocardi.it/codice-penale/l ... ispositivo
Dispositivo dell'art. 605 Codice penale

Chiunque priva taluno della libertà personale (1) è punito con la reclusione da sei mesi a otto anni.

La pena è della reclusione da uno a dieci anni, se il fatto è commesso:

1) in danno di un ascendente, di un discendente, o del coniuge (2);
2) da un pubblico ufficiale, con abuso dei poteri inerenti alle sue funzioni.

(omissis)


Whoever deprives anyone of personal freedom is punished with imprisonment lasting between six months and eight years.
The punishment of imprisonment lasts between one year and ten year if the crime is committed:
1) against an ascendant or descendant relative or against the spouse;
2) by a public official abusing of the powers attributed to him as part of his capacity.


Explanation:
I delitti contro la libertà personale sono posti a tutela della libertà di movimento e di spostamento, che solo lo Stato, per mezzo dei suoi organi giurisdizionali, può limitare. La libertà personale rappresenta un diritto inviolabile ai sensi dell'articolo 13 della Costituzione, (...)
Per la configurabilità del delitto è richiesto che il soggetto passivo non possa riuscire da solo a recuperare la libertà, anche qualora il soggetto passivo non si attivi in tal senso, quando la libertà non sia recuperabile con immediatezza, agevolmente e senza rischi.

Articles punishing crimes against personal freedom are created to protect freedom of movement, which only the State, through its judiciary, can limit. Personal freedom is an inviolable right according to art.13 of Constitution (...)
To configure the crime, the passive subject must not be able to retake his freedom by himself, even when the passive subject doesn't attempt to do so, when freedom cannot be retaken immediately, easily and without any risk.

[The Holy Therns]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

No, it was kind of a given that people with terrible opinions would rush to a thread with "migrants" in the title.

[Ifreann]

Not really, they were in port, in Sicily. It's rather a long way from there to the ocean. Further than one could swim.

It being a rather long distance does not mean they could not have attempted it.

I didn't say they couldn't have attempted it, I said it was further than one could swim. Besides, do you think that they'd have been allowed to start jumping overboard?

If they aren't wanted in Italy then obviously they would have needed to find somewhere else to go like the ocean.

Either that or the Italian coast guard could have ferried them back to the middle of the Mediterannean.

No, that wouldn't have worked either. Ships at sea have a duty to rescue people in distress.

Really, this attempt to argue that these people should have all killed themselves is sub-par at best.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

No, it was kind of a given that people with terrible opinions would rush to a thread with "migrants" in the title.

Huh. Fair point.
Well, at the very least, I think they've lost the right to be surprised when people call them fascists.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Really, this attempt to argue that these people should have all killed themselves is sub-par at best.

I am very tempted to sig this.

[Ifreann]

Not really, they were in port, in Sicily. It's rather a long way from there to the ocean. Further than one could swim.

Doesn't matter, not a kidnapping because they had a choice to leave.

Obviously they like water since they decided to cross the Mediterranean and unlike the 25 000 or so who died over the last 4 years in the sea, they can swim long enough to get rescued. So they can swim back.

You think they swam?

[Yusseria]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

Drown? Pfftt.

They obviously have experience traversing large bodies of water. I'm sure they'll be fine.

Why do you doubt the abilities of people of African origin?

[Trumptonium1]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

Nobody is arguing that. People are either arguing that the coast guard should have ignored them in the first place, a valid argument, or that he is not at fault because the coast guard weren't depriving them of freedom, because while they couldn't go on land they could go back into the sea.

What happens after that is no one's business. Tunisia's waters are only 15 miles away from Italy. Hundreds of people swim across the English Channel every year which is twice as long.

[Trumptonium1]

Doesn't matter, not a kidnapping because they had a choice to leave.

Obviously they like water since they decided to cross the Mediterranean and unlike the 25 000 or so who died over the last 4 years in the sea, they can swim long enough to get rescued. So they can swim back.

You think they swam?

After their boat capsized? Yes, presumably, or else they'd be dead.

[Ors Might]

He explicitly said whether or not what they did is illegal it has no business being codified as kidnapping or treated similarly. Your gatekeeping is unwarranted.

No, he said:

I don’t know enough about Italian law and EU agreements to know if this is illegal or not but it really shouldn’t be treated along the lines of a kidnapping.

Which means "I don't know about the laws of the land, but it is my opinion that this behaviour shouldn't be considered as crime X". If one doesn't know the laws of the jurisdiction and how crimes are defined, they cannot have a meaningful opinion on what prosecutors should file as a charge.

Not knowing how X country defines Y crime means that one can’t have a meaningful opinion on how Y crime should be defined in general?

[Yusseria]

It being a rather long distance does not mean they could not have attempted it.

I didn't say they couldn't have attempted it, I said it was further than one could swim. Besides, do you think that they'd have been allowed to start jumping overboard?

The ship was docked. I highly doubt they'd leave port just to grab them.

If they aren't wanted in Italy then obviously they would have needed to find somewhere else to go like the ocean.

Either that or the Italian coast guard could have ferried them back to the middle of the Mediterannean.

No, that wouldn't have worked either. Ships at sea have a duty to rescue people in distress.

Really, this attempt to argue that these people should have all killed themselves is sub-par at best.

In distress? They were "migrating". They didn't seem to be in distress.

[Des-Bal]

No, he said:

I don’t know enough about Italian law and EU agreements to know if this is illegal or not but it really shouldn’t be treated along the lines of a kidnapping.

Which means "I don't know about the laws of the land, but it is my opinion that this behaviour shouldn't be considered as crime X". If one doesn't know the laws of the jurisdiction and how crimes are defined, they cannot have a meaningful opinion on what prosecutors should file as a charge.

No, see "I don't know if this is illegal or not" cedes that the actual text of the law is not being argued, if he had then said "this should be prosecuted differently" I would understand your interpretation but he didn't say that. I would understand your continued defense of it if his follow up posts had suggested your interpretation was correct but they didn't say that.

We are now limited to debating whether you were wrong and I was right because his meaning was clear and you just missed it, or because he articulated himself poorly but I am so amazing at discerning meanings that I got it right anyway. I don't see either as having much to with the price of tea in China or the appropriateness of Salvini's actions or potential consequences for them so I'm comfortable letting this be the end of it.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

Nobody is arguing that. People are either arguing that the coast guard should have ignored them in the first place, a valid argument, or that he is not at fault because the coast guard weren't depriving them of freedom, because while they couldn't go on land they could go back into the sea.

What happens after that is no one's business. Tunisia's waters are only 15 miles away from Italy. Hundreds of people swim across the English Channel every year which is twice as long.

...So you're not arguing that the Coast Guard should have dumped them in the Mediterranean, you're just arguing that A) it wouldn't be wrong if they did and B) that was their best option.
Thanks for the clarification, I guess, but I fail to see how one of these things is different from the other.

[Pim Fortuyn]

Good. Just look at Italy’s economy! Lock him up and maybe the average Italian won’t suffer.

[Phoenicaea]

^ ..either throw the minus habens in the sewer where he belongs to, this, umpteenth, lower mafia families inferior servant.

or throw the country. after 26 years of Berlusconi Italy, to keep being ruled by the same inner circles, through their disgrace 'human tools', can t be beared.

break line. abandon, it s done.

Italy can t even live as formally unite country. after abandon european union, also it is going to break into regions, as the ex-Jugoslavia, nowadays puppet states, have done before.

[Ifreann]

...Is anyone else concerned that quite a few people in this thread are seriously suggesting that the Coast Guard should have dumped these people in the middle of the ocean to drown?

Nobody is arguing that. People are either arguing that the coast guard should have ignored them in the first place, a valid argument, or that he is not at fault because the coast guard weren't depriving them of freedom, because while they couldn't go on land they could go back into the sea.

What happens after that is no one's business. Tunisia's waters are only 15 miles away from Italy. Hundreds of people swim across the English Channel every year which is twice as long.

Ships at sea have a duty to help people in distress.

---

You think they swam?

After their boat capsized? Yes, presumably, or else they'd be dead.

So they can't swim back. They'd need a boat. A seaworthy boat, or the coast guard would just have to rescue them again after dropping them off.

---

I didn't say they couldn't have attempted it, I said it was further than one could swim. Besides, do you think that they'd have been allowed to start jumping overboard?

The ship was docked. I highly doubt they'd leave port just to grab them.

Of course the Diciotti wouldn't have gone anywhere. They'd use their RIBs, or leave it to the port's rescue boats.

Surely you can't believe that if these migrants started jumping overboard and swimming away everyone would have assumed that they were swimming back to Africa.

No, that wouldn't have worked either. Ships at sea have a duty to rescue people in distress.

Really, this attempt to argue that these people should have all killed themselves is sub-par at best.

In distress? They were "migrating". They didn't seem to be in distress.

I was responding to your suggestion that the coast guard drop them off in the middle of the Mediterranean. If you're having trouble remembering your own posts you can just scroll up and re-read them.

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean I know that conservatives have a hard-on for trying to force us to refer to refugees as illegal migrants because it makes it easier to demonise them and to pretend that governments don't have responsibilities towards them as enshrined in international law, but...

International law doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with Monopoly to violence on the international stage.

There are international agreements, but inherently, international law cannot exist.

[Phoenicaea]

^ ..sir, that shit-hole cleaning uneducated servant bears the interests of mafia sporting in the government.

even if there may not be command chain, a discredited (and useless) state is functional in consuming the resources.

he can t even talk, it merely belches with the mouth. i wonder from where the partitocracy regime and their state-banquet lobbies keep taking them.

there may be a farm of these abominable clowns.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I mean I know that conservatives have a hard-on for trying to force us to refer to refugees as illegal migrants because it makes it easier to demonise them and to pretend that governments don't have responsibilities towards them as enshrined in international law, but...

International law doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with Monopoly to violence on the international stage.

There are international agreements, but inherently, international law cannot exist.

You do realize that law can exist without a monopoly on violence, right?

[Ifreann]

I mean I know that conservatives have a hard-on for trying to force us to refer to refugees as illegal migrants because it makes it easier to demonise them and to pretend that governments don't have responsibilities towards them as enshrined in international law, but...

International law doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with Monopoly to violence on the international stage.

There are international agreements, but inherently, international law cannot exist.

The law of gravity doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with a monopoly on violence in physical reality.

Or maybe things can be laws without that stuff, who knows?

[The Emerald Legion]

International law doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with Monopoly to violence on the international stage.

There are international agreements, but inherently, international law cannot exist.

The law of gravity doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with a monopoly on violence in physical reality.

Or maybe things can be laws without that stuff, who knows?

I mean. You try to fistfight gravity or thermodynamics. See how well that goes for you.

International law doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with Monopoly to violence on the international stage.

There are international agreements, but inherently, international law cannot exist.

You do realize that law can exist without a monopoly on violence, right?

Can it? Is it really a law if there is no concrete means of enforcement?

[Ifreann]

The law of gravity doesn't exist, because there is no sole enforcer with a monopoly on violence in physical reality.

Or maybe things can be laws without that stuff, who knows?

I mean. You try to fistfight gravity or thermodynamics. See how well that goes for you.

Fighting gravity is easy. We do it all the time. They're called "planes".

You do realize that law can exist without a monopoly on violence, right?

Can it? Is it really a law if there is no concrete means of enforcement?

Yes.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nobody is arguing that.

They pretty much are, more or less, they’re just arguing it in a more coy and roundabout way as to not be explicitly advocating death.

People are either arguing that the coast guard should have ignored them in the first place, a valid argument,

Coast guards have a duty to provide assistance, they cannot ignore anyone in distress, no matter who they are.

or that he is not at fault because the coast guard weren't depriving them of freedom, because while they couldn't go on land they could go back into the sea.

I.e. practically leaving them to their death.

What happens after that is no one's business.

Maybe to the callous who don’t care about leaving people to their deaths.

Tunisia's waters are only 15 miles away from Italy. Hundreds of people swim across the English Channel every year which is twice as long.

Do you realistically expect the vast majority of these people to be even remotely capable of swimming dozens of miles?