WikiLeaks To Ship Servers To Micronation of Sealand?

Velcroman1 writes "Julian Assange's investors are in the process of purchasing a boat to move WikiLeaks servers offshore in an attempt to evade prosecution from U.S. law enforcement, FoxNews.com has learned. Multiple sources within the hacker community with knowledge of day-to-day WikiLeaks activities say Assange's financial backers have been working behind the scenes on the logistics of moving the servers to international waters. One possible location: the Principality of Sealand, a rusty, World War II-era, former anti-aircraft platform off the coast of England in the North Sea. Based on a 1968 British court ruling that the facility is outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Sealand's owner has declared the facility a sovereign state, or 'micro-nation.'"

Comments

Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[elrous0]

This has never worked, would never work, and could never work. And it was a PR stunt when Pirate Bay said they were going to do it, it was a PR stunt when HavenCo was founded, and I can't believe anyone thinks anyone still buys it. Hell, even the batshit-crazy Sealand founder and his family long ago abandoned their "country" and HavenCo collapsed in 2008. It's also been pretty much abandoned since a fire in 2006 (amusingly forcing the few "independent" countrymen left to cry for a rescue from the British Air Force). The facility has a single generator left and living facilities for one person. There is no way to get fresh water on its own. And there are DAMN SURE no internet trunk lines there.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[MightyMartian]

A nation by definition must have territory. No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory. Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[snowgirl]

A nation by definition must have territory. No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory. Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.

And Monte Carlo has no judges of its own, and all of its judges are supplied by the French... stick to the "it has no territory" argument, it holds far better water than any other "it has no XY"...

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[DragonWriter]

A nation by definition must have territory.

A nation, in practice, needs nothing more than no one with sufficient force to apply objecting to its exercise of sovereign authority.

In theory, the key thing is the recognition of soveriegnty by other nations.

No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory.

Every reasonable interpretation of international law allows plenty of man-made structures (independently of their construction material) to be considered soveriegn territory of nations.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[eln]

It's also not in international waters in any meaningful sense. The British have pretty much let it be so far because it's basically harmless, but if they start posting embarrassing secrets about the US government from there, you can bet the US will put pressure on the UK to re-assert its territorial rights over it.

The only real way they could get into international waters these days would be to be mobile in the middle of the Pacific ocean. Even then, if they started putting out information the US considered truly dangerous, it would only be a matter of time before their floating fortress was "accidentally" sent to the bottom of the sea by a wayward torpedo.

This whole idea is a fantasy, of course. The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it. I don't think there are very many countries on that list.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[gl4ss]

HOWEVER...

a long tradition of operating pirate radios has been to do it from a vessel on international waters.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tripleevenfall]

TFA states, saliently, that where the data resides does not determine jurisdiction anyway.

The advantage of this Sealand "strategy", if there even is one, is that the servers are removed from within the borders of a country which might choose to comply with pressure from the United States to shut an ISP down.

It does nothing to stop said government from influencing the provider of traffic to Sealand - whomever owns the dish communicating with it, for example, whomever owns the building on which it is mounted, whomever in the UK is providing the service. It does nothing to stop the ability to prosecute the people who are breaking the laws involved.

It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Samantha Wright]

FYI, Wikipedia says that The Pirate Bay was actually going to go through with it, but the deal fell through.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few island nations scared of global warming might beg to differ.

I find it amusing that Americans could be so fearful of a couple of guys thousands of miles away marooned on a platform in the ocean.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[ClioCJS]

Sounds like you need to do more reading.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[demachina]

"I don't think there are very many countries on that list."

Russia and China almost certainly would be on the list if Wikileaks would confine itself to only embarassing the U.S. But doing that you are trading an increasingly dictatorial police state(the U.S.) for a couple that have been there for a while. I seem to recall Putin was fairly delighted with all the state department cable leaks for exposing how duplicitous the U.S. and its allies are.

But, I think Wikileaks is an equal opportunity embarasser of repressive states so I doubt they would partner with Russia or China.

The real problem is you need a country that is willing to stand up to the U.S. AND isn't heading towards repressive police state itself and THOSE are sadly somewhere between vanishingly rare and non existent.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[DrgnDancer]

This whole idea is a fantasy, of course. The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it. I don't think there are very many countries on that list.

Not true! There's a substantial list of countries on that list. It's just that most of them have a lot less sympathy to the Wikileaks cause than even the US does. The Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, or any of a number of other countries have sufficiently poor relations with the US that they'd love to host secret and possibly embarrassing US documents. Assuming that Assange and company are quite clear on the fact that nothing the host country does is to be subject to the least negative scrutiny or leaking.

There's plenty of countries willing to stand up to the US, but few if any of those are any more (indeed often far less) willing to accept the idea that anything and everything is subject to full disclosure.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[RenderSeven]

The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it. I don't think there are very many countries on that list.

There are plenty. Iran, North Korea, China to name a few. Except they all take a very dim view of free unrestricted information. Wikileaks cant exist without the *relatively* unfettered access to the internet provided by the Western nations they want to expose. Ahh sweet irony.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jimbolauski]

A nation by definition must have territory. No interpretation of International Law I've ever seen allows a steel man-made structure to be considered territory. Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.

If SeaLand is not a territory then must be a ship (sea vessel), sinking, destroying, and or boarding said ship would be considered an act of piracy. As a ship SeaLand would have to find a nation and fly it's flag and would be protected by that nation. I'm sure certain nations would be glad to stick it to their neighbors up north and might even agree to allow a communication cable to SeaLand which would be protected by treaties. The big problem and cost would be power and supplies. I am unfamiliar with maritime law so a blockade may not violate any international treaties and there would be nothing SeaLand could do to stop it.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Runaway1956]

" It does nothing to stop the ability to prosecute the people who are breaking the laws involved."

Personally, I don't recognize that Wikileaks is breaking any laws. I'm an American, and a veteran of the US Armed Forces. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that Corporate America has been throwing their weight around, using their bought congressmen to bully the rest of the world into submission.

Wikileaks has violated no reasonable law.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[scubamage]

The interesting thing about law is it changes over time.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[kiwimate]

Monte Carlo is an administrative area of the Principality of Monaco. It's not a nation.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[sohmc]

Territory can be anything. You have to be able to defend your territory from other nation states, terrorists, etc.

Put it this way: The only reason the POTUS can be president is not because the Constitution says so. It's because the force and might of the US Armed Forces that protects the Constitution gives the POTUS power. I can say I'm the President but without the military, I'm just some lunatic.

Whether Sealand is "officially recognized" is not the point. They must be able to defend themselves from usurpers, much like the US did during the revolution. And they must be able to continually do so, less they become like some African nation that is constantly in civil unrest.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[drnb]

HOWEVER...

a long tradition of operating pirate radios has been to do it from a vessel on international waters.

Such a ship has no physical contraband to seize and they are merely violating local broadcasting regulations. Possessing "stolen" diplomatic messages ups the controversy to espionage, the later being something that might give a naval vessel in international waters the authority to board and search.

If you are beyond territorial waters and flying no flag to avoid legal responsibilities you must accept the risk that you also have far less legal protection.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Expertus]

there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.

perhaps a simple matter of semantics, but does one necessarily follow the other?
That is to say (and, please forgive my ignorance on the matter), I assume that non-British citizens can petition the court and do have some standing to sue (just as non-citizens can be sued by the British court) to redress some wrong.

If that is the case, does asking the British courts to issue an injunction against the British Navy necessitate a recognition of sovereignty?

and if such a request of the court does imply such a recognition, where is the line drawn? Can the United States, or Mexico, or China ask the British government to refrain from blowing up their stuff without such a recognition?

and to where would the recognition apply? Do we acknowledge that the British possess total sovereignty (of all it surveys), or simply sovereignty over its own Navy, or would it be sovereignty over the requesting nation?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[MightyMartian]

Can you show me any decision in domestic courts or international tribunals that recognizes man-made structures as extensions of territory? We have disputes about whether even building up islands against natural erosion as legitimate territorial claims, and you think some fucking derrick well within UK territorial waters that has no recognition from anyone other than a few crackpots who printed up some faux passports somehow constitutes a legitimate claim of sovereignty? They can't even decide on the ultimate fate of Western Sahara, and you think there's some reasonable interpretation of International Law that allows a completely man-made structure to be seen as territory?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[TheRaven64]

Well then, the thing to do is to have two versions of Wikileaks. One that only publishes things not about China, and is hosted in China, one that only publishes things about China, and is hosted in the USA...

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[warren.oates]

To see how "independent" Sealand really is, look up the history of British pirate radio stations. Essentially, HMG made it illegal to trade with them in any way (no food, no water, no booze, no hookers and so on) and that was the end of that.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Bert64]

And if they do have any internet connectivity, it will be connected to the UK and thus subject to being shut off at the whim of the UK authorities.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Ichijo]

Can you show me any decision in domestic courts or international tribunals that recognizes man-made structures as extensions of territory?

Embassies.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Hatta]

if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it

Isn't that the case with any act of war? If the US decides tomorrow to bomb Iran, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it. That doesn't mean Iran isn't a sovereign nation.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[JWSmythe]

    Ya, I was fairly sure they shut down operations in 2008.

    The place was a joke to start with. From what I understood, they had negotiated some terms with some nations, for some sort of recognition, but that was about it.

    The Sealand site is still up, and flogging merchandise including your own royal title (which would probably get you executed in no less than a dozen other countries). The havenco site is gone. I'd have to assume most or all of their connectivity is gone. Wasn't it provided by microwave links, and not actual cables? I'd bet those could be brought up without too much trouble. They could also be taken down pretty easily from a court order or financial pressures.

    When there was talk about the Pirate Bay move, I had posted that it would make more financial sense to put it on a freighter. They could easily run with microwave links, and sit in International waters.

    The whole idea was iffy for HavenCo. Its insanity for WikiLeaks. They have set themselves up to be the enemy of many states, and therefore fair game for military action in international waters. Who do you call for help, when you've made an enemy of just about every nation on the planet.

  "S.O.S. This is SS Wikileaks. We're under attack. Please assist. Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan. This is SS Wikileaks. We are under attack. Please assist."

  "SS Wikileaks, this is HMS Bulwark. We have received your distress. The nearest ship is 7 days out. Stay at your current coordinates. Help will arrive."

    SS Wikileaks was never heard from again.

    Hmm. Starting up HavenCo again does seem to make more sense. A few errant shots during a spontaneous "training exercise" would deal with the problem quickly and decisively. That, and it wouldn't tend to drift around as much.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"A nation by definition must have territory."

Territory doesn't imply or require land, or more accurately, that said land cannot be covered by water.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[krlynch]

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

How about military bases? An explanation of the territorial status of Guantanamo bay would be appreciated.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[dwillden]

Well if they have NO diplomatic representation to deliver a declaration of war too. Or we could just send some SEALs in to plant explosives on the legs, wait a few days and blow it so it topples into the water during a nasty storm. Who is going to complain? Heck who is going to even investigate the failure of one or more supports during a storm>

Acts of war are not necessarily wrong or illegal. The world usually expects diplomatic notification of war, but it's not required, and I repeat, who is going to file any complaint? No country recognizes Sealand, so no country is likely to file a formal complaint in the UN, media, or directly with the government of the attacking country.

In fact since the as yet unpublished diplomatic cables could be potentially embarrassing to every country on the planet, they'll all probably just quietly applaud the action and breath a sigh of relief.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

I'm not so sure that's ironic. It's only ironic if you consider Wikileaks to be an enemy of those Western nations who seeks to destroy them. A free press has traditionally been regarded as one of the things that helps keep free nations free.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Talderas]

It's Cuban territory leased to the United States, just like all military bases.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even possession of territory is insufficient. Then there's the Republic of China (Taiwan), which has territory, plus citizens, police, military, an economy -- yet is not legally recognized as a nation (except by the Vatican and some small 3rd world countries).

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

But, I think Wikileaks is an equal opportunity embarasser of repressive states so I doubt they would partner with Russia or China.

Therein lies the problem. Until Wikileaks actually embarrasses some of the "bad guys" (for lack of a better term) the only evidence we have so far is that they are perfectly content in only embarrassing the USA. Unfortunately some rather unique circumstances made it possible for Bradley Manning to do what he did. I get that. But frankly I think Assange is crazy and I'm not sure that he personally is an equal opportunity embarrasser. He may simply just have it in for democratic societies and give a free pass to repressive ones. Or maybe not. But there's no evidence either way and given how oppressive regimes are usually quite good at maintaining their secrets there may not be any.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[idontgno]

you think there's some reasonable interpretation of International Law that allows a completely man-made structure to be seen as territory?

A warship.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[mark-t]

The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it.

Or on the moon.

It's not like the US is going back to the moon anytime soon.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Hatta]

Acts of war are not necessarily wrong or illegal.

Acts of war are always extra-legal.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Principality of Monaco" is ... a city state. And while you are technically correct that Monte Carlo is not a nation, and in the year 3000 being technically correct is the best kind of correct .. you are also a useless blowhard. Because Monte Carlo doesn't have its own judges... since Monaco as a whole doesn't have its own judges. They're all French.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall Putin was fairly delighted with all the state department cable leaks for exposing how duplicitous the U.S. and its allies are.

You must be recalling some leaked cables you read in your wildest dreams. The cables wikileaks has are pretty much normal, boring, mundane, routine cables from diplomats doing normal, boring, mundane, routine diplomat stuff. Just like every other country's diplomats do.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Score Whore]

I suspect that there are lots of countries that recognize that artificial islands are part of their territory.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a dickish comment. I should decrease my font size to offset the vertical space you've just wasted.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it

Don't give them ideas. I plan on buying an industrial rubber raft that's suitable for calm seas, and having a go. After storming the place, I'll turn it over to the Crown. I'd really like the Bath or the Garter, but I'll settle for tickets to Top Gear.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tverbeek]

The sovereignty (or not) of Sealand is, frankly, irrelevant. For all its claims to being "de facto" sovereign, if Her Majesty's armed forces sincerely attempted to take control of (or destroy) the platform, they would undoubtedly be successful. And there is no nation-state or supranational body (e.g. UN, NATO, EU) that would do anything to prevent that, nor take any effective action to restore the current status quo.

To actually relocate the Wikileaks servers to Sealand would be hazardous to both Wikileaks and Sealand.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are trading an increasingly dictatorial police state(the U.S.) for a couple that have been there for a while.

But, I think Wikileaks is an equal opportunity embarasser of repressive states so I doubt they would partner with Russia or China.

It's interesting to note, in that regard, how much of Wikileaks' material has embarrassed the US (practically all of it) and how much has embarrassed Russia or China (very little, mostly from US sources).

It's almost like the US is not, in fact, a dictatorial police state at all, if its citizens feel so safe embarrassing it!

(Those who object to the treatment of Bradley Manning would do well to consider that if he had been a Chinese citizen, we probably wouldn't even know he'd been arrested ... or it would have been done by planting drugs in his room, followed shortly afterwards by planting a bullet in his skull.)

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Castel Gandolfo and the major basilica's in Rome?

"According to the Lateran Treaty, certain properties of the Holy See that are located in Italian territory, most notably Castel Gandolfo and the major basilicas, enjoy extraterritorial status similar to that of foreign embassies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Bert64]

If it was a ship, then its now within the 12 miles of sea claimed by the uk...
The uk could therefore demand that it leaves uk waters, which it would clearly be unable to do. Refusing to leave the sovereign waters of a foreign nation when requested could be seen as a hostile act, and provoke a military response by the UK.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[elrous0]

I am buying a sailboat and going for a Duchy myself. I wish to be the "Duke of Northumbira." No one has occupied the post in centuries, so I figure no one will complain too much.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Half-pint HAL]

US law doesn't apply in Guantanamo, which is why they used it.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jythie]

Sealand has territory, it just happens to be covered in water. Countries fight over such territory all the time, just look at the conflicts between Japan and China over underwater islands outside both of their immediate waters.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Slashdot Assistant]

Thus Sealand, whatever it may be, is not a nation, and thus while it may not be within Britain's sovereignty, if the Royal Navy decided tomorrow to blockade it or sink it, there is no lawful means by which the owner could hope to prevent it, save by appealing to a British court, which means the owner recognizes the sovereignty of Britain.

A lack of nationhood does make fair game of structures and ships. Why would a Royal Navy attack on Sealand be any different to the navy using cross-channel ferries for target practice? Even with Sealand currently sitting in waters claimed by the UK, there remain limits on what the navy can do - both under British law and international conventions. An unprovoked attack would be what's more commonly known as piracy.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Half-pint HAL]

They don't need to take it over. It's in UK territorial waters, and the only people who have ever inhabited it since the "settlement" are British Citizens or citizens of EU member-states, so all meet the residency requirements for UK territory. No illegal immigrants, therefore no need for evictions. Simple.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jythie]

Take a look at the various territorial arguments over the north sea. The question of man made (or even portable) structures imparting territorial ownership over natural gas reserves is a hot topic.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jythie]

extra-legal and illegal are not the same thing.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jythie]

I wonder what would happen if they tried to jon NATO....

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[jythie]

Actually, before the Manning stuff made them a household name in the US, they had a long track record of reporting crimes and corruption in repressive governments in eastern europe.. they did embarrass the 'bad guys' quite a bit.. sadly now those people are working with the US to close them down. Kinda like how now the US is looking the other way (or even going after ourselves) when Russia goes after terrorist groups that previously only impacted them. Recall when the US media was filled with sympathy for seperatists in Russia? But now that we are on 'good' terms those same people have become 'evil terrorists' and we have a common enemy.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so explain to me how MegaUpload was allowed to be taken down in Virginia, if data and servers do not determine jurisdiction?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Hatta]

That was my point. The fact that war cannot be averted by legal means is irrelevant to the issue of sovereignty.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[demachina]

"Those who object to the treatment of Bradley Manning would do well to consider that if he had been a Chinese citizen"

An argument could be made that the U.S. method is actually the more effective deterrent. A life time of low grade torture in a miliary brig, being paraded around naked, with every detail being broadcast to the world might be considered worse by a lot of people than a quick disappearance and a summary execution. Manning faces a lifetime of misery ahead of him, he will probably find no sympathy in any military prison he lands in. Many people would prefer a bullet in the head because it would be a quick end.

Manning's only hope is he gets off using an Elsberg, Pentagon Papers defense, which is highly improbable in the repressive security state that is the U.S. has become since 9/11.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the invaded, but not for the invader. The legality of an act is determined by the arbitrary decision of the state. If it says something is legal, then it is. Thus, any war it brings upon others is legal. So, while some states(perhaps even a majority of them) might declare something illegal, it can just as easily be declared legal by others.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[demachina]

Some of the cables have been wildly embarrasing to the U.S. and its allies, some of them helped fuel the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt.

  I will agree they probably aren't any different than the duplicity you will find in most diplomatic corps. But the U.S. is the first country in history that managed to let someone dump a huge store of diplomatic cables on the Internet so the whole world could read them. The U.S. is also so infatuated with its position as the world's only superpower, so that its arrogance tends to superceed all others in its diplomatic dealings.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

I think you've underexplained just a little there. The part about it being Cuban territory is extremely confusing in light of the political state of affairs between Cuba and the US. Are you saying it's under Cuban Jurisdiction? Can they send their police officers in there to arrest US soldiers for breaking cuban law? And how does that lease thing even work in light of the fact that it's illegal for US citizens to even travel to Cuba. And what about all of the prisoners being held there who they've determined they have no cause to hold any more? If they're already in Cuba, why can't they just walk out the front gate and take a bus into town?

I think your explanation oversimplifies things just a little bit.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

Now, milatary personnel on military bases are subject to military law. What about civilians: contractors, visitors, non-POW prisoners? Are they subject to Cuban law and jurisdiction while on the base? If there's a vending machine there, and they buy a snack, are they violating the trade embargo with Cuba? For that matter, if they buy anything on base, are they charged sales tax? Cuban sales tax? Are the prisoners then prisoners of the nation of Cuba? Can they appeal to Cuban courts for release?

I don't think your explanation is satisfactory.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[DragonWriter]

Can you show me any decision in domestic courts or international tribunals that recognizes man-made structures as extensions of territory?

Probably, but it would take more work than I can be bothered with. Explicit treaty text would be easier. Consider UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 47, para. 4; art. 60, para. 3 (but note that per the same treaty such structures, while they are within the jurisdiction of the coastal state even when outside of the territorial waters but within the exclusive economic zone, do not have territorial waters of their own; art. 60, para. 8.)

you think some fucking derrick well within UK territorial waters that has no recognition from anyone other than a few crackpots who printed up some faux passports somehow constitutes a legitimate claim of sovereignty?

I don't think I've ever claimed that the sovereignty claims of the so-called Principality of Sea Land over the ex-H.M. Fort Roughs were legitimate. Perhaps when responding to posts you would do better to respond to claims actually made in them rather than ones that you have fabricated.

They can't even decide on the ultimate fate of Western Sahara, and you think there's some reasonable interpretation of International Law that allows a completely man-made structure to be seen as territory?

These two things have pretty much nothing to do with each other. It's like saying "the sky is red, and you think tomorrow is Friday".

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[equex]

I don't know the legality or widespreadness of this, but at least Norway has started to apply Norwegian law to anyone with a Norwegian citizenship, no matter where the person may find itself. So if you break Norwegian law in, say Thailand, where the action is NOT forbidden, you will still be prosecuted as if the action took place on Norwegian ground. This practice was made to fight child abuse (O REALLY?!) but nothing stops them from taking that further. And most people don't care about this because of the 'think of the children' defense. I am just waiting for the police to arrest Norwegians coming home from an Amsterdam smoke-out. I don't know if this sort of extra territorial mumbo jumbo has ever made it to higher European courts. (to which Norway must answer)

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[demachina]

It could be that Russia or China don't attempt to maintain the illusion that they are particularly nice guys. It tends to be countries like the U.S., Britain, Israel and France that try to con the world in to thinking they are the bastions of freedom and democracy, and trumpet those value the world over, over while in the shadows they prop up right wing dictators, overthrow elected governments, render innocent people to be tortured, etc. in order to make the world safe for themselves and their brands of economics and religion, at the expense of just about everyone else.

I can't really speak to the motives of Wikileaks or Assange but you can see where they might target the hypocrital "democracies" who are increasingly repressive and oppressive but denying it, over China and Russia which are repressive and oppressive but don't really hide it.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you show me any decision in domestic courts or international tribunals that recognizes man-made structures as extensions of territory?

Embassies.

That's what I was thinking! MightyMartian just got owned, LOL.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks has violated no reasonable law.

Fortunately for the legal systems of every country on earth who might have a beef with Wikileaks, there are plenty of laws on the books that you'd probably find unreasonable, but which can be enforced all the same.

Unless you're a supreme court judge, your assertion that "this law is unreasonable" isn't worth a single squirt of lukewarm piss.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[wormout]

Your're not thinking outside the box enough. The most resilient place to host this material would be on a constellation of (relatively) cheap, redundant micro satellites. While the technology surely exists to destroy these, it is still in its infancy and would be prohibitively expensive to deploy repeatedly (not to mention the fact that the smaller the target, the harder it is to track and hit). There are continuing improvements in low cost ways of getting things into orbit so I can see space become part of the theater of the war for information freedom.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tverbeek]

They would be ignored, I'm sure.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, thanks for your service.

Secondly, unless you're a judge, no one gives a shit about, "...has violated no reasonable law." You don't get to decide if its reasonable or not. Period. And neither do I.

If you disagree, use the legal system to change the course of our nation. Otherwise, we have no choice but to take the only reasonable postion which is, who gives a shit if you agree or not. Currently the laws are legal, on the books, and appear to be constitional. Many of these laws prop up the world's economy. So regardless if you agree or disagree, why should we care?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

The answer given by GP poster is entirely correct. The technical term for it is "foreign establishment." The US was leased Guantanamo in perpetuity under the Cuban American Treaty of 1903, as part of the overall negotiations involving the removal of troops from Cuba after the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, and leading to recognition of Cuban independence by the US. The US was granted complete control over the area defined by the treaty, but the territory is ultimately acknowledged as sovereign territory of Cuba.

The treaty was signed long before the current government of Cuba came to power. If they want the US military out of the territory, they have 2 options:
1) Negotiate a new treaty whose terms include a peaceful withdrawal of the US from the leased territory in such a way that re-establishes Cuban jurisdiction over the territory;
2) Declare war and evict the US military through force of arms.

Number 1 is difficult when you have no official diplomatic relations under which to initiate negotiations; Number 2 is pretty much impossible for a small, fairly poor island nation 115 miles off the coast of the US.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Hatta]

TFA states, saliently, that where the data resides does not determine jurisdiction anyway.

It seems to be a factor in the MegaUpload case.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[adavies42]

A nation by definition must have territory.

a surprising number of countries recognize the Knights of Malta as sovereign, despite their having lost their last territory over 200 years ago.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Hatta]

Because the legitimacy of the legal system depends on the consent of the people. When fine upstanding citizens like Runaway1956 delcare open disrepect for the law, that's a sign that there's something wrong. When the laws in question are legal, on the books, apparently constitutional, and flagranly disregarded by a vast swath of the population, that's a recipe for revolution.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

It most certainly does apply in Guantanmo - numerous cases have been heard by federal courts all the way up to the Supreme Court regarding the status of detainees in Guantanamo.

You may believe that the people held there are entitled to the full benefit of constitutional due process afforded civilians under US law, and you wouldn't be alone in believing that. But the argument that detainees are non-combatants subject to civilian courts is certainly far from established case law - there's an awful lot of nuanced gray in that black and white picture you've painted.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Costa Rica has no armed forces. It doesn't make it any less of a valid nation.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

Civilians are subject to the laws and regulations governing the facility they are on. Buying a snack from the Exchange doesn't constitute "trade with Cuba," because all of the trade is conducted with private contractors operating on a military base which the US has jurisdiction over. All of your questions strike me as pointless semantic dithering - do you really believe that prisoners of the US military, on a US-controlled military facility, are "prisoners of the nation of Cuba"?

I think your objections are ill considered and don't hold up to even the most cursory examination.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

This assumes a complex and very unlikely chain of events. Here's how it would go down, if the British government actually cared about Sealand:

It's well within current UK territorial waters, and it's scarcely fit for habitation. All they'd really need to do is issue an eviction notice because living on the platform constitutes a risk to health and safety - I'm sure there's a regulatory body that inspects and certifies ships & other marine structures, much like a building authority inspects & certifies buildings. Do that, and the "sovereign territory" effectively ceases to exist.

Once the platform is declared unsafe for habitation, the police forcibly remove the inhabitants if necessary, and then the structure can be demolished. Unless the British Army regularly serves eviction notice to homeless squatters, I'm guessing it would be pretty trivial for the british government to legally empty the platform without resorting to deploying a carrier group and conducting weeks of bombardment with guns and bombs.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[alreaud]

Good idea, so they fly a flag of convenience, like the Liberian, as many commercial vessels already do. Most vessels that fly no flag are pirate vessels...

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[betterunixthanunix]

Secondly, unless you're a judge, no one gives a shit about, "...has violated no reasonable law." You don't get to decide if its reasonable or not. Period. And neither do I.

Unless, of course, you are selected to serve on a jury, in which case you and your fellow jurors can refuse to convict someone accused of violating a law you collectively disagree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[drnb]

Good idea, so they fly a flag of convenience, like the Liberian, as many commercial vessels already do. Most vessels that fly no flag are pirate vessels...

My understanding is that the vessel needs to be actually registered in the jurisdiction of that flag, and flying that flag without registration or flying multiple flags will make a vessel fair game for naval boarding. In other words a vessel needs to be under the legal jurisdiction of some recognized nation. Even so, if that nation is notorious for turning a blind eye toward illegal activities then flagged vessels may still be subject to naval boarding mid voyage.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Martin Blank]

If a vessel is within a nation's territorial waters, then it may be forced to comply with safety and environmental provisions of that nation's laws and is subject to boarding for such inspections. Should it fail the inspections, it may be forced to leave national waters or seized as a safety hazard. Vessels which meet the latter condition are often evacuated and sunk (see USCG actions against the rickety boats often intercepted traveling from Cuba to the US).

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[khallow]

Bottom line is that Sealand isn't a nation because it doesn't have the force either in itself or an ally to preserve its sovereignty. With sufficient military force, my ass could be made internationally recognized, sovereign territory. Not that that would be desirable aside from the bounty of bad jokes that would be so easy to come by that they'd tell themselves.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

That rumbling you hear is the Founders of your nation collectively rotating in their graves.

The idea that the POTUS derives his power from the military is obscene. It's a complete, 180-degree reversal of the reason your country was founded and the philosophy it's built on.

Even if the US had no armed forces of any kind, the President would still be the President and he'd still have all the legal authority he does today.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the U.S. fucking said so.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

No, no I don't think that. I think that US military bases are treated as US territory in virtually every way, even when they're located in other countries. I thought that was fairly obvious from my posts.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

Yeah. Although I'll grant that your post was informative, it only strengthens my opinion that, in all ways that matter, Guantanamo Bay is US territory. A treaty with a previous government (whose president was a US citizen and was the only candidate in the election) doesn't hold a lot of weight after a revolution. The simple facts of your answer is that Guantanamo bay is territory militarily occupied by the US which they might give back someday once Cuba has replaced its government with one the US doesn't have a grudge against.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[macshit]

That's an example of the most basic and underlying rule of all: those with enough power/money/weapons tend to get their way on issues they really care about, no matter how crazy their position, and regardless of what all the other rules and conventions say.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Thing 1]

Exactly! And, mentioning that to fellow jurors can result in a mistrial. Say what? Sadly, exactly. Next time I'm called I'm planning to bring some FIJA brochures, and that will be the last that anyone has ever heard from me.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[gmhowell]

All of your questions strike me as pointless semantic dithering

We are talking about questions of legalities. What is that other than pointless semantic dithering?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's totally legal to just destroy a vessel or platform that doesn't belong to you?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[nomadic]

"I find it amusing that Americans could be so fearful of a couple of guys thousands of miles away marooned on a platform in the ocean."

Uhhh...huh? Can you name a single person who has indicated fear?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[nomadic]

Alternately, the Royal Navy can say "hey, what are you doing on HM Fort Roughs? That's a naval installation."

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Tastecicles]

The structure in question (Sealand) stands outside of the three mile zone which at the time it was built stood outside the territorial limit - hence the 1968 ruling that the structure fell outside UK jurisdiction hence was subject only to international maritime law; by the same law, any natural or manmade structure, be it boat, island or lagoon, lies in the jurisdiction of its dependent nation state (which the structure currently did not since it was abandoned by the state!), therefore it fell lawfully either to general salvage under IML or it fell under the jurisdiction of the individual occupying the highest covered deck (ie, the Captain or whoever thereafter claims the salvage).

In short, since the State abandoned Sealand, the State had no legal claim to it nor did they have claim to salvage after it was claimed as a residence by a private individual.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Tastecicles]

How about the MANY artificial islands lining the coast of Dubai? There's the Palm Deira, Port Rashid, The World Islands, The Palm Jumeira, The Palm Jebel Ali, and the one place I would love to spend my last night on Earth, the Burj al Arab Hotel.

All completely manmade from the sea bed up to the roof and all recognised sovereign territory of the Arab Emirate of Dubai.

Oh, and according to the treaties, the sea territory extends from the outer edges of these islands not the natural coastline - which means Dubai claims more ocean every time they build another resort.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Tastecicles]

No, it does not require recognition of sovereignty, but it does require acceptance of jurisdiction.

If you as an external Sovereign body want to sue the UK or obtain an injunction against the State you have to do it in the ICJ. If you want to prosecute the UK for a criminal act you have to do that through the ICC as a complainant State - individual citizens CANNOT use the ICC or the ICJ, UNLESS YOU HAVE EXTREMELY UNUSUAL OR SIGNIFICANT ISSUES such as State-sanctioned child snatching and trafficking, systemic abuse and murder/genocide (been there, had the death threats made against my family).

If you ask nicely I'll happily post the entire complaint I and one other individual made that got 1500-odd arses twitching in Westminster Palace through the entire back half of 2010 and the entirety of 2011.

For a taster, here's what the Telegraph[PDF] had to say in 2010.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[geekmux]

...And there are DAMN SURE no internet trunk lines there.

Fastest internet trunk in the world isn't going to do you a damn bit of good when your servers get seized. That's kind of the whole point here of a move like this.

And try not to act like Sealand is on Mars. It's six damn miles offshore...certainly not an impossible task for a multitude of network options.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Tastecicles]

ACTS of war are illegal.
DECLARATION of war makes it legal.

NEITHER make war LAWFUL. It's still MURDER.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[drolli]

No, but after weird conspiracy theories about women, weird interviews, improperly handling cryptographic keys just to show off, after treating the other WL members in a king-servant relation (causing real harm), using WL publicity for his private legal costs and making contracts with the media who are more worthy of sony that of a organisation interested in the free exchange of information, what do you expect from JA?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that sealand is armed and have successfully defended themself at least two times. In 1968 they protected their territorial water against British workmen and in 1978 they stopped a revolution(or whatever we should call it) and captured the dutch/german mercenaries.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who's suggesting that the solution would be to send in the military.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[silentcoder]

By your logic if a French boat is sailing in international waters the British navy has every right to blow it the hell up ?

And if the French owners complain to the British court that their country has acted in that way they are accepting British sovereignity ? So Apple has now accepted the Sovereignity of the German government because they took a case (much discussed on /.) to a German court ?

There are valid problems with sealand as an attempt to establish an independent micronation and this is partly why it's not been much of a success, but your arguments aren't among them.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[silentcoder]

>Every reasonable interpretation of international law allows plenty of man-made structures (independently of their construction material) to be considered soveriegn territory of nations.

So does history. Maritime law for centuries recognized all ships as part of the sovereign territory of their host nation. It gets weirder than that, maritime law for those same centuries (and to this day) recognized anybody ON a ship as being in the sovereign territory of their home-country (indeed the long-held ability to get married by a ship's captain in international waters derived from that). It's a bit more convoluted these days - but the core of that remains in modern international law.

Indeed in some cases most of the complexity takes it FURTHER. Do you think for one second that the USA does not consider every single one of their aircraft carriers to be part of their sovereign territory and an attack of them to be an act of war against the COUNTRY of the United States ?

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tapanitarvainen]

I don't know the legality or widespreadness of this, but at least Norway has started to apply Norwegian law to anyone with a Norwegian citizenship, no matter where the person may find itself. So if you break Norwegian law in, say Thailand, where the action is NOT forbidden, you will still be prosecuted as if the action took place on Norwegian ground. This practice was made to fight child abuse (O REALLY?!) but nothing stops them from taking that further

Interesting. In comparison, Finnish law applies to crimes outside Finnish territory when either the act is also crime in the country where it was committed and carries sufficiently heavy penalty or it is one of explicitly listed crimes (which include child sexual abuse). In most cases it also applies to crimes committed abroad only when either the perpetrator or the victim is a Finnish citizen, but there're a number of exceptions to that (e.g., certain crimes like genocide or when extradition is denied on grounds of possible death penalty or torture).

So you would not be prosecuted in Finland for smoking hashish in the Netherlands even if you are a Finnish citizen, but you could be for raping a child regardless of where it occurred.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

No, in all ways that matter, Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory that the US leases. The terms of that lease grant the US jurisdiction over the leased area for the duration of the lease, but the territory is most certainly not "US territory."

It is occupied - in the sense of in use, people residing there, not in the sense of 'seized' - by the US military because the Cuban American treaty of 1903 grants the US the right to occupy that land. Now, the Cuban government disputes the validity of the treaty, the US government says the treaty is valid. Since there really is no legally binding "court" they can take the dispute to, the options available are, as I said:
1) Negotiate a peaceful withdrawal using diplomacy;
2) Push the military out through force of arms;

Neither one is particularly practical, so the status quo endures. But Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and its associated facilities has never been "US Territory," and the land it's on will always remain Cuban territory. "We don't like the treaty an old administration signed on behalf of our country" is not sufficient grounds for termination of the provisions of a treaty.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[nomadic]

I've only seen people speculating that if either the U.S. or U.K. government was irritated enough by Sealand they could take it over quite easily, thus disproving the theory that this would be some way to protect wikipedia servers. "Fear" doesn't enter the picture.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

"treated as US territory in virtually every way" - except for the fact that they are NOT "US territory," you mean. The terms of the lease grant the US jurisdiction over the facility. They do not make the facility "US Territory." I don't understand why you can't seem to understand that these two completely separate things are possible.

Have you ever rented a car? Do you consider yourself the owner of the car, since Hertz doesn't send an employee along to control everything in a way it deems appropriate? Because this is what your argument amounts to: that granting someone else use of a portion of your property somehow makes that person the "owner" of your property, unless you control anything and everything they do on / with that property.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[anyGould]

My first thought was those man-made islands made by dredging up the ocean. Only difference I see is that one is made of dirt and one made of metal.

It's pretty academic, anyway - if I build a giant floating base, declare independance, and can effectively defend myself against aggression... I'm effectively a "nation" for intents and purposes, the same as Taiwan. We might not be "recognized", but that just means that other countries don't want to talk to me. Taiwan still manages to get a lot of trade, though...

And as otherwise noted - the US hasn't demonstrated that they'll respect recognized nations anyway, so that's not any particular defense.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[anyGould]

By your logic if a French boat is sailing in international waters the British navy has every right to blow it the hell up ?

Yep. The only reason they don't is that it would most likely piss off not only France, but other countries who would like their boats to not be blown up.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[MightyMartian]

It's actually a pretty serious issue in the South China Sea, where several nations are competing for resources, and where the issue of "fortifying" tiny atolls and other semi-islands to try to extend the economic zone and other territorial claims will soon come to a head. But let's be clear here, whatever the decision ends up being, these are claims by extant nations. No one out there recognizes Sealand as a nation. Absolutely no one. Not the UK, not the EU, not the UN, not any body whose recognition would in any way be important recognizes Sealand. If the Met decided to raid Sealand because there were Wikileaks servers there holding information deemed by the British Crown to be protected by national security laws, no one is going to pay any attention to any "official" from Sealand, and it's so improbable that any body, like the UN General Assembly, would give such an official the time to defend themselves.

At the end of the day, Sealand's status is a fabrication, tolerated because the British government has better things to do then muck about with some guy living on an abandoned WWII sea platform. But if they start doing things like hosting Wikileaks servers or anything else that potentially violates UK law or causes problems for the UK or its allies, that fiction will disappear in a moment, Sealand will be reoccupied (or however you prefer to call it), and all this nonsense will end, and no one, not anyone who counts will give a damn.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

It's not a case of "we don't like the treaty an old administration signed on behalf of our country" though. It wasn't an old administration, it was a completely different government that happened to occupy the same island that the current Cuban government occupies. On the US side, the treaty was signed by the US President, on the Cuban side, it was signed by the Cuban president, who was also a US citizen. Immediately before this treaty, the US government _was_ the government of Cuba. The creation of the treaty was one of the conditions of the US withdrawal. The US is currently in violation of pretty much all parts of the treaty and has been for longer than I've been alive. The "lease" is perpetual and, as far as I know, the current Cuban government is paid nothing for it.

So, the US has dominion over the area because it occupied the island militarily and refused to leave unless they were allowed to keep the base and they've held it for years, in violation of the original agreement. The US clearly does _not_ recognize Cuba's sovereignty over the area. So, the area is clearly de facto US territory.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Slashdot Assistant]

Yeah, it's a very unlikely series of events, as proposed by the guy I was responding to. I don't believe Sealand has to worry about an unprovoked naval assault. If Sealand ends, it will be due to an accident, or as you said, through legalistic means.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

Well, here's the thing. If I rent a car from Hertz and, as I'm leaving the parking lot, they stop me and tell me that they've changed their mind on renting me the car, I'm going to get annoyed. I might even sue them afterwards (not very likely). One thing I'm not going to do is shoot them when they try to take it back. The overall problem here is what the actual definition of territory. I would argue that having complete military dominion over an area along with legal jurisdiction to the degree that children born there satisfy the "natural born citizen" requirement for the US presidency. I don't think we're going to agree on it. And, as much as you seem to think it's a settled matter, I'm pretty sure that no qualified legal scholar is going to agree with you that it's a settled matter, either. Nations have been quibbling and warring over such definitions for millenia and they haven't stopped.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

It wasn't an old administration, it was a completely different government that happened to occupy the same island that the current Cuban government occupies.

You can't have it both ways - if the Cuban government today is not party to the treaty, then its opinions on whether or not the US is in violation of the treaty are moot. If it *is* party to the treaty, it remains for the Cuban government to demonstrate the the United States is in violation of that treaty, and revoke its accession to the treaty. Of course, Cuba tries using the 1969 VCLT to demonstrate that violation, and the 1969 VCLT specifically states that its articles are NOT to be applied retroactively. So what it boils down to is Cuba going "We don't like that you use that stretch of land," and the US going, "Tough, we pay for it, and we were given use of this land in perpetuity, so we're going to continue using it." Since there is not mutual agreement on a withdrawal, the only other way out is for the Cuban government to force the US military into abandoning the facility.

The "lease" is perpetual and, as far as I know, the current Cuban government is paid nothing for it.

You would be wrong on the second count. The lease was reaffirmed by treaty (Treaty of Relations) in 1934 (long after the establishment of an independent Cuba), and the stipulation that only mutual agreement or US abandonment of the property would terminate the lease. The US sends payments (and continues sending inflation-adjusted payments) to the Cuban government for the land. The Cuban government refuses to accept the money.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

If it's Cuban territory, but Cuba has absolutely no rights to it unless they fight the US for it, then it's not _really_ Cuban territory. You can niggle over unimportant technicalities all you want. You can tell that they're unimportant technicalities because the US treats them as unimportant. Even if you ignore the fact that the treaty was basically an agreement between the United States and itself, there were various stipulations in the agreement such as Cuban vessels both civilian and military having access. Do they? The treaty was also very specific about the scope of the use of the base, and yet the US has gone well beyond that scope. So, there really isn't any agreement with Cuba, either the Cuba of today or the Cuba of over century ago. You must be crazy if you really think that the US is using Guantanamo Bay in accordance with some old treaty rather than just treating the area as its own territory because it can. The US does not explicitly officially call it its own territory for political reasons, in pretty much every real sense, it is, however.

The 1934 treaty was still before the Cuban revolution. As it is, I'm having trouble figuring out which of the 4 presidents Cuba had in 1934 actually signed the Avery Porko treaty, the actual details of which are pretty hard to find. I assume it was Carlos Mendieta who, by most accounts, was just a puppet for Batista. Just read up on the rent checks. I'm wondering if they're still for $4,085 per year or if the US has inflation adjusted the payments? Either way, it's a ridiculously small amount. Apparently, Cuba's treasury, after the revolution, cashed one of the checks very early on, and the US claims that's ratification of the treaty and has called no takesies backsies.

In any case, it's clearly ridiculous to try to claim that Cuba has sovereignty over that area when the US is clearly denying it to them. Cuba has said "leave!" and the US has said "No!". The US bases its claim to the "lease" on a treaty that it treats as worthless and doesn't follow. The US treats Guantanamo Bay as its own territory and Cuba is powerless to stop them.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

If it's Cuban territory

It is Cuban territory. It is Cuban territory that the Cuban government signed a treaty about, in which it ceded jurisdiction in that territory to the United States for the duration of the United States' use of that territory. Cuba doesn't dispute that it's Cuban territory, nor does the United States. Why do you insist on arguing that it's not Cuban territory?

but Cuba has absolutely no rights to it unless they fight the US for it,

Cuba has all the rights they did not cede in the treaty. They granted the US jurisdiction over the area, and agreed to the conditions set forth in the treaty. Their only options are to terminate the treaty peacefully, through mutual consent leading to the US military's withdrawal, or through force, by ejecting the US from the land. If countries can unilaterally declare treaties void on a whim, then what is the point of having treaties in the first place?

You keep going back and forth on this point, arguing that the current government is party to the treaty in some respects, but isn't in others - which is it? If Cuba is a party to the treaty, then they need to abide by the terms of the treaty even if they don't particularly like them anymore. The way to change it if they are party to it is to negotiate for a peaceful withdrawal under mutually acceptable terms, at which time jurisdiction over the Cuban territory reverts back to the Cuban government. As far as Avery Porko, yeah, it's pretty safe to assume Pres. Mendieta's administration was the one that ratified it, since he was in office from mid-January of 34 until his resignation in 1935.

If Cuba is not party to the treaty because the revolution changed their government, then their only recourse is to enforce their jurisdiction over the territory they've laid claim to by force of arms. Bitching about a treaty, and then saying "But we're not bound by that treaty, and we don't recognize it as valid anyway," is a little foolish.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

I insist that it's not Cuban territory because, except for playing diplomatic and legal semantic games in which they can never explicitly claim it as their own territory, the US treats it as its own territory. Any claims by the US that it's Cuba's territory aren't sincere, because they're saying one thing, but doing another. It sounds something like this:
"I don't dispute that it's yours, but that you can have it back and I don't recognize any of your rights to it, I signed your name on deal that lets me use it under terms that I'm not following, but I don't recognize you diplomatically anyway."

You also state: "If countries can unilaterally declare treaties void on a whim, then what is the point of having treaties in the first place?" apparently unaware that countries declare treaties void on a whim all the time. The US, for example, breaks treaties whenever it's convenient for them. One example of treaties they break whenever it's convenient to them is the treaty they have with Cuba over the use of Guantanamo Bay. Despite the fact that the US has broken its side of the treaty, you insist that the treaty can only go away if both the US and Cuba mutually agree. In contract terms, this is known as an unconscionable contract. Also, with regards to Cuba, you keep saying that "they" agreed to it. Quite aside from the revolution changing the government, do you recognize the fact that the treaty and its modification in 1934 were with what amounts to a US puppet state? Does that have any bearing, in your mind, on the validity of the treaty? I don't see how you can argue all of this nonsense about Cuba having sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay while simultaneously stating that their only recourse if they don't like the situation is to engage the US militarily. That's some kind of wacky doublethink

You say: "You keep going back and forth on this point, arguing that the current government is party to the treaty in some respects, but isn't in others - which is it?" Where the hell are you getting that? I've said nothing about the current Cuban government being party to the treaty in some respects. I've said that the US has violated the terms of the Treaty, but that doesn't require the Cuban government to be party to the treaty, it just requires a fair-dealing US to say, when Cuba says to get out, "well, our only claim to the place is a treaty that we're not following, so we should leave". Anyway, whichever president was presiding over the country at the time of the treaty, the point is that Cuba at the time was clearly in political turmoil and pretty much everything the government did was controlled by shadowy undemocratic forces.

Bitching about a treaty, and then saying "But we're not bound by that treaty, and we don't recognize it as valid anyway," is a little foolish.

??? I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you trying to saying that "bitching about a treaty" is somehow equivalent to saying you are bound by the treaty and that you do recognize it as valid? That doesn't make any sense.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[MidGe]

And ships, I think. And they are not even tethered!

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

the US treats it as its own territory

Because the US was granted jurisdiction over the site in a treaty, signed by the government of Cuba and the government of the United States. The terms of that treaty stipulate that the only way it will revert back to Cuban jurisdiction under that treaty are by mutual agreement between Cuba and the US, or if the US abandons the site. The land is, and has always been, "Cuban territory." If Cuba wants to get jurisdiction over the site back from the US, it needs to secure US agreement, or induce the US to abandon the site, it's that simple.

What terms is the US not following in the treaty? Cuba's objection to it under the VCLT mostly takes the form of "We were coerced, and under article 52 of VCLT, that makes the treaty moot." If the US is violating other aspects of the treaty, shouldn't they be publicizing those, rather than relying on the VCLT, article 4 of which states that its provisions are not to be applied retroactively?

Cuba has sovereignty over the territory because it is acknowledged by both sides of the treaty as Cuban territory. Jurisdiction is not ownership. The US was granted jurisdiction over the site by a treaty ratified by both sides in 1934. The treaty also stipulated conditions under which jurisdiction reverts to Cuba: those conditions HAVE NOT CHANGED. The US believes that the treaty is valid, and is abiding by the terms of the treaty (unless you can cite the Cuban government's evidence that the US isn't abiding by the treaty, because I haven't found anything other than references to the VCLT). The Cuban government decided (25 years later, after a revolution) that it didn't like the treaty its predecessors signed, and wanted the US to leave. Cuba can certainly open negotiations with the US to modify the terms of the treaty as well, but unilaterally declaring the treaty void and demanding the immediate departure of the US Navy simply because "I don't like this treaty" is not how treaties (or international diplomacy) works.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Expertus]

Fair enough.
You've raised some interesting points about British and International Law (both of which I know very little about).

I won't ask you to unmask yourself here by posting an identifying document like that, but the whole situation is fascinating. It's always interesting to watch what happens when the state's monopoly of violence intersects with the liberties of its citizens (particularly when the state purports a facade of democracy).

Thanks for the introduction to the case - I expect that a weekend of reading is in store. [though if you wish to spoil the ending, I'd love to get a personal perspective on how it turned out (if it has, in fact, been processed yet)]

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

I found the text of the 1934 treaty, by the way. It turns out it was signed by one of the 4 presidents from 1934, Manual Marquez Sterling. Now, he was only president for a day, and this was signed in June, after his presidency. I'm assuming that it was signed in his capacity as a diplomat. What I find interesting is that it does not appear that it actually was signed by the sitting President of Cuba.

Anyway, the part that's relevant to this discussion is:

ARTICLE III

Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty.

So, the station shall continue to have the territorial area it had as of 1934 with the limits it had due to the previous treaties and agreements:

ARTICLE I

The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations, the following described areas of land and water situated in the Island of Cuba:
1st. In Guantánamo (see Hydrographic Office Chart 1857). From a point on the south coast, 4.37 nautical miles to the eastward of Windward Point Light House, a line running north (true) a distance of 4.25 nautical miles;
From the northern extremity of this line, a line running west (true), a distance of 5.87 nautical miles;
From the western extremity of this last line, a line running southwest (true) 3.31 nautical miles;
From the southwestern extremity of this last line, a line running south (true) to the seacoast.
This lease shall be subject to all the conditions named in Article II of this agreement.
[Removed the section about Bahia Honda]
ARTICLE II

The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.

Vessels engaged in the Cuban trade shall have free passage through the waters included within this grant.
ARTICLE III

While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas with the right to acquire (under conditions to be hereafter agreed upon by the two Governments) for the public purposes of the United States any land or other property therein by purchase or by exercise of eminent domain with full compensation to the owners thereof.

So, one thing that I'd expected in these treaties was a more overt statement that the US wouldn't make war against Cuba. The 1934 treaty where the terms of the Platt Amendment are abrogated takes away the right of the US to militarily intervene

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[Americano]

You clearly have a problem with calling things what they really are. [...] In every functional sense, the property in question is the property of the person who holds the rights to it.

And you clearly have a problem with distinguishing between the notions of jurisdiction and ownership. Claiming that running somebody over with a car by accident is "functionally equivalent" to murdering them - after all, they're no longer alive! - doesn't amount to a legal argument. I'm not sure what sort of axe you're grinding, but your inability to comprehend the differences by this point can only be the result of a willful refusal to understand.

Re:Wow, does that PR stunt even work anymore?

[tragedy]

The words of the treaty aren't just jurisdiction, they're "complete jurisdiction and control". The critical question is, what parts of the construct of ownership do not fall to the US under this agreement? As far as I can tell, the differences between the current state of affairs and true ownership are in name only.

Your accident/manslaughter/murder example isn't comparable to what I'm saying. The critical component of intent is missing in the accidental killing, whereas the intent in the treaty is clear, which is to give the US ownership of the area in all but name. A comparable example involve a killing would need to have an intentional killing that isn't considered murder even though it's functionally equivalent to murder. A better example might be someone with a grudge who invites someone to their home, then comes out with a gun when they arrive and shoots them in the back when they run, but aren't considered murderers legally thanks to Castle doctrine (the exact situation would be considered murder even with Castle doctrine of course, but maybe not with just a little sneakiness on the part of the murderer).

The axe I'm grinding has to do with your refusal to understand that mere differences of verbal semantics and hollow acknowledgement of one set of truths while acting completely contrary to them are irrelevant to reality. The US holds and treats Guantanamo bay as its own territory. Lip service to it just being a lease and Cuba still having sovereignty are meaningless because leases don't really work that way and Cuba doesn't really have sovereignty there unless the US grants it to them. I am being a pig-headed realist in the same way that you are being a pig-headed literalist. I strongly suspect, however, that your pig-headedness on this particular point stems mainly from strong US partisanship rather than an absolute belief in all things written down and signed.

Uh Oh

[rotorbudd]

? "Torpedo's away"?

Re:Uh Oh

[sycodon]

This whole deal is starting to sound like a Monty Python skit.

Re:Uh Oh

[jellomizer]

No... "Lost at Sea".
Unscheduled travel "got in the way" of some War Games.
Knowing the boat was filled with valuable servers it got taken over by pirates and looted.

Re:Uh Oh

[damian2k]

Its already been made into a tv show called 'south atlantic raiders' by the comic strip. Well sort of. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0544884/

Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[John.P.Jones]

In this day of age of virtualization, cloud deployments and the like the idea of moving servers offshore being equivalent to physically moving boxes across the ocean seems absurd. You setup some new machines at the new location, sync the data across this thing called the Internet, flip a switch and then wipe the old boxes and sell off the hardware (if you ever owned it to begin with).

Re:Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[ForgedArtificer]

It's already mirrored in multiple locations anyway. Even if the servers are seized, the information's not going anywhere, and they must know it.

Re:Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[SethJohnson]

Uhhh, but then you don't get to buy a boat to do the moving. Your suggestion interferes as much with the original goal as renting a boat. Or paying a shipping company to move the servers. These are all dead-end approaches that fail to result in someone writing off a boat purchase on her taxes and then getting to sail the boat around for the purpose of 'helping' WikiLeaks move servers.

Seth

Re:Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[Minwee]

Yeah, you'd have to work for Fox News to believe in a story like...

Oh, right. Never mind.

Re:Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[RobertLTux]

the new location may not have the hardware yet (plus a Boat has massive (burst) bandwidth)

Re:Moving servers, you mean physically, seriously?

[Rich0]

Uh, if they can't transmit the data into the site once, how do they expect to ever host it and upload it millions of times from there to everybody else?

Jurisdiction?

[countertrolling]

Anybody actually think that would stop the bombs and bullets? Please! It would only suffer the same fate as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Philippines, etc etc etc.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[X0563511]

I find it hilarious that this story is on the front page on the same day. That has to be intentional.

And What Defenses Does It Have?

[eldavojohn]

To add to your doubt, the wikipedia article for Sealand makes it sounds like a couple guys with a boat and some small arms could over take it ... so, uh, you're moving your servers to a defenseless island? Where no other nation recognizes you? Where no one will come to your aid if someone decides to just blow you out of the water? And you're planning on hosting what? Oh, sensitive information about the United States government that they consider to be a threat to national security? Yeah, good luck with that. The US will take out anybody in Pakistan (or a number of other countries) in the middle of the night if they want to, I highly doubt they'd be worried about slapping some thermite to some servers out in the middle of the ocean and calling it a day -- which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[JeanCroix]

To add to your doubt, the wikipedia article for Sealand makes it sounds like a couple guys with a boat and some small arms could over take it ...

If I remember my Sealand history correctly, a couple guys with a boat and some small arms almost did overtake it.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[snowgirl]

which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?

The UK government. Sealand did not fall within the territorial waters of the UK before, but now it does. As such, if Sealand were not recognized as a sovereign nation, then it would be UK territory.

I highly doubt that the British would take kindly to us singing a large-ish structure in their territorial waters.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[snowgirl]

If I remember my Sealand history correctly, a couple guys with a boat and some small arms almost did overtake it.

Indeed, Achenbach a German citizen also carrying a Sealand passport hired some mercenaries and assaulted the platform with a few boats and a helicopter.

Later, the original monarch recovered the platform, and since he carried a Sealand passport, they charged Achenbach with treason.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[Synerg1y]

can you really blame them for wanting to try?

I doubt the US govt. could swallow the PR of blowing sea-land up. I hate to say it, but public empathy towards white European extreme liberals is much greater than Muslim empathy.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[shutdown -p now]

This. The way I see it, Sealand may not be in the jurisdiction of UK, but it sure as hell is in the "jurisdiction" of RAF and Royal Navy. And is there any doubt that, should US ask, UK will be happy to oblige?

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[jbeaupre]

I highly doubt that the British would take kindly to us singing a large-ish structure in their territorial waters.

At least not without proper payments to BMI.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[NetNinja]

One mk48 torpedo is all it would take to destroy this place.

Oh I can see the Navy attaching listening equipment to the undersea cable that feeds this place.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[kheldan]

..a couple of guys with a boat and some small arms could take it over

I'm not quite so generous as that: A couple guys with some scuba gear and a couple pounds of C4 could sink the entire "nation" to the bottom of the North Sea.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[dwillden]

It's called creating an artificial reef. It's done all the time.

And I highly doubt the Brits would even whisper any complaints as they too are not exactly happy with the contents of the Bradley Manning leaked files.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[StikyPad]

That's a joke, right? Hell, the Royal Navy would probably give US commandos a ride out to the platform and a hot meal afterwards.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[X0563511]

I don't doubt that the US government could do the job in a way that either leaves no evidence it was them, OR that it was anything other than an accident (another fire, structural collapse, etc)

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[Anonymous Coward]

can you really blame them for wanting to try?

I doubt the US govt. could swallow the PR of blowing sea-land up.

Doesn't have to be the US. In fact, it doesn't even have to be the snarky cover-up style of "whoopsie daisy, some unnamed terrorist force blew it up, how convenient for the US government!". All it'll take is one ACTUAL terrorist organization. And really, what warm-blooded America-hating terrorist organization WOULDN'T want absolute control over a treasure trove of information that could potentially hurt the US?

Frankly, putting this on Sealand would be complete suicide, both organizational and literal. It would just make it far easier for anyone who DOESN'T rely on diplomacy and laws to do their jobs.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[jythie]

Eh, give them a few months to spin Sealand as some type of pirate haven and the PR will go just fine. Crow, they would probably just flood the media with descriptions of it as simply being UK separatists like sovereign citizens in the US, and raiding them is handled just fine.

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[Anonymous Coward]

the Brits would do it themselves and the Americans will thank them and the Chinese will fund the whole operation...

Re:And What Defenses Does It Have?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US could always ask the French for some fine frogmen. They have the experience relating to the sinking of things in the territorial waters of others.

All disks on one platform

[scorp1us]

One fatal flaw. Easily declared an enemy combatant and easily bombed.

Re:All disks on one platform

[MightyMartian]

Don't need to bomb it. It's a tiny man-made structure in the sea. A couple of cruisers could blockade it. Without food, fuel and freshwater, Sealand would be done in a few weeks. The thing was always a fiction, all this would do is force to the British government to finally do something about it.

Re:All disks on one platform

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the first thing I was thinking when I read this: "Sweet! Now we'll finally get conclusive proof of how well big talk, handwavey interpretations of international law, and the hard realities of a complete lack of resources needed for internet server hosting stand up against one 'accident' with a strategically-aimed torpedo!!"

Re:All disks on one platform

[Malties]

A couple of cruisers! Hell, a cutter circling it for a couple of days could do the same thing. Who would be interested in "running the blockade" to bring fuel for the generators or food?

Re:All disks on one platform

[KhabaLox]

To be fair, that flaw exists under the current model too. Hell, it exists under *any* model.

Re:All disks on one platform

[tripleevenfall]

A rubber dinghys and a rifle could blockade it.

FTFY

Re:All disks on one platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Declare it an enemy combatant over internet servers? That is a hell of a stretch and would set off alarms in every other country.

Re:All disks on one platform

[scorp1us]

Well, unless you are an American in America or abroad (which the US can now bomb at will) or a foreigner in a war zone, you cannot be bombed without there being diplomatic repercussions.

But my point was even more subtle than that. One predator drone has enough firepower to take out the computing infrastructure. It is also easily boarded. Without UN recognition, it doesn't really exist. And it is unlikely to get any recognition before, and especially now.

Re:All disks on one platform

[MarkvW]

Sealand would be buying major risk if it contracted with Wikipedia. They'd risk their sovreignty!

Re:All disks on one platform

[Anonymous Coward]

fuel for the generators

Given that they are even contemplating this idea, I'm sure they've considered solar power, pedal power and even attaching alternators/inverters to hamster exercise wheels.

Obviously the hamsters could be fed with wheatgrass grown right there on the rig. Blockade defeated.

outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom

[onyxruby]

Outside of the UK, than it's fair game for a 500# bomb. The nice thing is it is even conveniently located for a nearby F-15 to get to. Who want's to starts the SeaLand Death Watch website?

Re:outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you saying being outside of the UK automatically means they can engage in acts of war? Seriously, it isn't as frivolous as that. You seem to be blurring the line between your video games and reality.

It's not a nation

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, but them claiming it doesn't make it so. You can claim anything you like, doesn't make it the case. The two ways you can become a sovereign nation is by force and diplomacy.

The first is the most obvious: You simply have a large enough, powerful enough military that nobody can tell you that you aren't sovereign. They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that. You are sovereign on account of nobody being able to say otherwise. This is how the USA gained sovereignty, as an example. They said "We are independent," England said "Nuh uh." A war was fought, the US won, that pretty much settled it.

The second is diplomacy. You get the big, powerful, nations to recognize you as a nation, as well as international bodies like the UN. They all say "Yep, you are a sovereign nation and have the right to your own government and laws," and you do. Since they agree and won't try to attack you, and also usually will keep others from doing so, you are sovereign. The big boys have agreed to leave you be, so there you go.

Sealand has neither, and in fact the UK claims it belongs to them. They can go on all they want and the UK doesn't really care but push comes to shove and the UK has a reason, they can clamp down on them. One platoon of Royal Marines would do the trick.

So this would solve fuck all for Wikileaks.

Re:It's not a nation

[MightyMartian]

You don't even need a platoon. A Sea King helicopter would probably be sufficient. Hell, one torpedo from a British sub and the whole thing goes to the bottom. Sealand is tolerated because it's just some morons with comprehension problems. But if it starts committing acts that might be viewed as criminal, such as, say, violating the national security of the United Kingdom, then the whole farce will come to an end in short order.

Re:It's not a nation

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Why spend money? Just withhold rescue services and patiently wait for the next big storm.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

Sealand is tolerated because it's just some morons with comprehension problems. But if it starts committing acts that might be viewed as criminal, such as, say, violating the national security of the United Kingdom, then the whole farce will come to an end in short order.

Or say, like firing on ships that travel too close to the structure as well... they would be hauled into British court, and charged with a crime.

Oh, wait, that already happened? The British courts ruled that it was outside of their jurisdiction? So, the sovereignty of Sealand was established BEFORE it lay within the UK's territorial waters, and there are international laws pertaining to how territorial waters work if two nations are within 12 miles of each other.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

You simply have a large enough, powerful enough military that nobody can tell you that you aren't sovereign. They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that. You are sovereign on account of nobody being able to say otherwise.

Ok, apart from mixing up "ability" with "unwilling"... you know, because the US could oust just about any government from power, so all of them are no longer sovereign?

So, taking it that the case is "No other nation is willing to spend the money, material, and men to take you down", Sealand is in fact a sovereign nation, as the UK has not attempted to assert that Sealand is within its jurisdiction since the original court ruling that it lies outside of of their jurisdiction.

Re:It's not a nation

[kiwimate]

You're confusing "we recognize your sovereignty" with "we really don't care enough to give a toss, we're busy working on actual issues". The difference being that if they start to do things which are genuinely embarrassing/awkward/dangerous, the former will get you censured in the U.N. whereas the latter will just get you a night-time invasion.

Re:It's not a nation

[ClioCJS]

By your definition, Costa Rica isn't a nation.

Re:It's not a nation

[Jawnn]

Sealand has neither, and in fact the UK claims it belongs to them. They can go on all they want and the UK doesn't really care but push comes to shove and the UK has a reason, they can clamp down on them. One platoon of Royal Marines would do the trick.

Or just one Chuck Norris.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

You're confusing "we recognize your sovereignty" with "we really don't care enough to give a toss, we're busy working on actual issues". The difference being that if they start to do things which are genuinely embarrassing/awkward/dangerous, the former will get you censured in the U.N. whereas the latter will just get you a night-time invasion.

But modern international law holds that recognition by other countries is merely declaratory, and not constructive of the nation.

Correct, no one recognizes it as a country, but the fact that the UK has not enforced its jurisdiction over the property, and has explicitly denied jurisdiction over the territory opens the door to Sealand declaring its sovereignty.

Also, please note that I never said that the UK or anyone else recognizes Sealand's sovereignty, but then again, recall, modern international theory holds that recognition is not necessary for it to have sovereignty.

You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty. Believe it or not, Sealand has de facto sovereignty, and no one has bothered to come in and kick them out, and assert their jurisdiction. And even if the UK decided to do that tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.

Re:It's not a nation

[kiwimate]

You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty.

No, I don't. To claim I do is inaccurate.

that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.

It wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has claimed they've been operating as a sovereign territory for years.

Re:It's not a nation

[MightyMartian]

You're overinterpreting the decision. No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign. No nation would, because of the potential it would have for some crazy asshole trying it on them. At best invading it would be seen as an act of piracy, not an invasion.

Re:It's not a nation

[DerekLyons]

Oh, wait, that already happened? The British courts ruled that it was outside of their jurisdiction?

It's not quite that simple. They were hauled before Crown Court when the comic opera 'nation' was outside British waters. Now, not only are they inside British waters, the finding of the Crown Court is not binding on an Admiralty Court anyhow.
 

there are international laws pertaining to how territorial waters work if two nations are within 12 miles of each other.

Since Sealand is not a signatory to any of those instruments, and is not recognized as a sovereign state by any signatory, and there is no binding decision, precedent, or principle to provide them with de jure or de facto recognition... My guess (though IANAL) is those laws don't apply.
 
tl;dr version: you can't both claim to not be bound by the law *and* seeks it's protection. Not to mention that if you don't understand the difference between different types of courts and laws and their jurisdictions, you shouldn't be parroting crap you patently don't understand.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty.

No, I don't. To claim I do is inaccurate.

Should you read your own posts?

They are unwilling to spend the money, material, and men to take you down so that is that.

that wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has operated as a sovereign territory for years.

It wouldn't change the fact that Sealand has claimed they've been operating as a sovereign territory for years.

They haven't claimed shit. They actually have been operating with de facto sovereignty. Until you can show me a UK court case involving recognition that Sealand is within their jurisdiction, the question remains a vague "maybe?" and even a possible "unlikely?" as Sealand has already been explicitly ruled as being outside of UK jurisdiction.

The fact remains that until the UK comes in and enforces its jurisdiction over the territory, it remains in a quasi-legal limbo, which has de facto sovereignty, but no international recognition of that.

Re:It's not a nation

[MightyMartian]

There's still the issue that Sealand is not actually a territory. A man-made structure is not territory. Period.

Re:It's not a nation

[MightyMartian]

Have you seen him lately? I think it would take at least two Churck Norrises nowadays.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

you can't both claim to not be bound by the law *and* seeks it's protection.

There is no argument that they are not bound to international law. The argument is that they are outside of UK jurisdiction, and thus not subject to UK laws.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

You're overinterpreting the decision. No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign. No nation would, because of the potential it would have for some crazy asshole trying it on them. At best invading it would be seen as an act of piracy, not an invasion.

Except that Sealand was in international waters when it constructed its claim to sovereignty. There is no concern about some island in your territorial waters up and declaring itself a micronation, because such a micronation would have to construct itself on territory that is already under the jurisdiction of a separate sovereign agency.

No one recognizes Sealand as sovereign, because it's insignificant and meaningless to do so.

Re:It's not a nation

[TheRaven64]

The British courts ruled that it was outside of their jurisdiction?

Yes, they did in 1968, but that doesn't mean that it is sovereign. It would be covered by the same laws as a ship with no flag. When it fell inside the UK's territorial waters, it would be bound by these same laws and fall under the UK's jurisdiction until such a point as it moved into international waters.

Re:It's not a nation

[LWATCDR]

Just a pair of wire cutters.
Well unless they are going to pay for satellite link but then they will have to find someone willing to sell them satellite service.
I guess they could do TCP/IP over HF but that will be slow..

Re:It's not a nation

[tragedy]

I think you're missing the point that, if they constructed their claim to legitimacy before the territorial waters expanded, the expansion can't ex-post facto remove that legitimacy. No-one can say that they're inside UK territorial waters and therefore not sovereign, they have to go back to the founding and work forward to the present. If they were sovereign, then the expansion of the territorial waters of the UK doesn't apply to them as they have their own territorial waters that intersect with those of the UK and they have to find a diplomatic way to split the difference (even big, clearly established sovereign nations have a _lot_ of trouble doing this with each other). If Sealand's original claim to sovereignty is illegitimate, then the expansion of the territorial waters of the UK is irrelevant since it changed nothing.

Re:It's not a nation

[shish]

What about most of the Netherlands, 25% of which would be sea if not for man's engineering?

Re:It's not a nation

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't both claim to not be bound by the law *and* seeks it's protection.

There is no argument that they are not bound to international law. The argument is that they are outside of UK jurisdiction, and thus not subject to UK laws.

Neither are Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, but the British navy will still capture and arrest them if they pose a serious threat to British (or, really, any) shipping.

Re:It's not a nation

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still the issue that Sealand is not actually a territory. A man-made structure is not territory. Period.

Tell it to the Dutch.

Re:It's not a nation

[DerekLyons]

I think you're missing the point that, if they constructed their claim to legitimacy before the territorial waters expanded, the expansion can't ex-post facto remove that legitimacy.

Only if their claim to legitimacy is itself legitimate - and that doesn't appear to be the case.

If they were sovereign

That's a mighty big if - because their whole claim rests on the decision of a Court that is neither competent (in the legal sense of the word) nor has the standing to rule on the sovereignty claim. Not that the Court ruled on the sovereignty issue anyhow... not having jurisdiction over a person or the location a crime was committed is not the same as pronouncing their soi disant 'nation' sovereign. Sealand's whole claim is based on the wistful hope that nobody ever notices that.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

Neither are Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, but the British navy will still capture and arrest them if they pose a serious threat to British (or, really, any) shipping.

Oh, I've never maintained that the UK wouldn't annex Sealand, or that anyone would particularly give a shit if the UK actually did (unlike when Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait).

Re:It's not a nation

[tragedy]

What about the Netherlands? Tokyo Bay? Most of Boston? Kansai airport in Japan? All of those are on reclaimed land. Does it count as territory? Kansai airport is basically a big concrete box in the ocean filled in with dirt and rock. Does it count as territory? What about the Santa Monica pier? Is it territory? It's certainly considered real estate. Where exactly is the line drawn between territory and not territory?

Fort Roughs, which is now Sealand, is basically a sort of super awkward boat with two large columns on it that was sunk onto a sandbar. The columns are hollow and contain living space above and below sea level. A platform is supported on top of the columns. So, from a certain point of view, Sealand consists of two small islands of reclaimed land with circular dikes around them and a pier-like structure built off those islands. In that way, it's equivalent to large parts of the Netherlands.

Now, you could work off the theory that, land or not, you need a certain minimum size to support a claim of sovereignty, but you'd probably be picking the size based merely to exclude Sealand. The next time some country wants to use an even smaller rock to extend its fishing rights, there would be an argument over it (or an exception granted that ignores the fact that it's unfair to Sealand). The other argument you could make is that reclaimed land can only be territory if it's added to existing territory rather than made. That is, again, essentially designed just to discriminate against Sealand.

Re:It's not a nation

[kiwimate]

You state yourself that as long as someone else doesn't come in and kick you out, you have sovereignty.

No, I don't. To claim I do is inaccurate.

Should you read your own posts [slashdot.org]?

Err, you link to a post by Sycraft-fu (314770). I'm Kiwimate.

Re:It's not a nation

[tragedy]

I think you're missing the point that, if they constructed their claim to legitimacy before the territorial waters expanded, the expansion can't ex-post facto remove that legitimacy.

Only if their claim to legitimacy is itself legitimate

I think you missed the point again. I _said_ it only matters if their claim is legitimate in the first place. I'll try this again:

* They made a claim to sovereignty while they were in international waters.

* If their claim was legitimate, then they stopped being in international waters and started being in their own waters.

* Later, the UK expanded its territorial waters.

* If their claim was illegitimate, then the expansion didn't change anything, so it's irrelevant to their legitimacy.

* If their claim was legitimate, then the expansion didn't change anything, since the expansion of the territorial waters of the UK over Sealand's territorial waters would have been illegitimate, so the expansion is irrelevant to their legitimacy.

That was my point. The expansion of the UK's territorial waters that you brought up is irrelevant to the legitimacy of Sealand's sovereignty. Either Sealand wasn't sovereign anyway, or the expansion over their waters wasn't legitimate.

If they were sovereign

That's a mighty big if - because their whole claim rests on the decision of a Court that is neither competent (in the legal sense of the word) nor has the standing to rule on the sovereignty claim. Not that the Court ruled on the sovereignty issue anyhow... not having jurisdiction over a person or the location a crime was committed is not the same as pronouncing their soi disant 'nation' sovereign. Sealand's whole claim is based on the wistful hope that nobody ever notices that.

Oh it's a huge if, no doubt about that. I was just constructing a logical argument and considering all possibilities. The problem ultimately is that there aren't really any courts competent to rule on the claim. Nations may have laws, but when it comes to their dealings with other nations they act on principles of anarchy, might-makes-right, loose agreement and CYA. Pretty much all nations sovereignty is based on soi dire. Sealand's claim isn't based on the wistful hope that no-one notices the court doesn't have a particular power since no-one has that power. The best anyone can get is UN recognition and that's not necessarily binding on anyone. Ask Taiwan and China. What makes a sovereign nation a nation is that it's self-evidently a nation. That can mean all kinds of things. If Sealand built an approximately 19-mile wall around themselves and pumped out the water, "recovering" about 28 square miles of land, then moved in 50,000 people, made them citizens and bought a few thousand tons of military hardware, all of a sudden their claims of being a sovereign nation would have a lot more weight. Their claim from last century to be sovereign would be evaluated in light of present circumstances too. Now, that's not very likely to happen because the UK would squash them before they even got close. If they weighed anchor (I don't know if the original pontoon system is in any condition to be re-floated) and moved outside the 12 miles (if there's anywhere shallow enough) and then did that, however, who knows what could happen? It would cost tens of billions of dollars, but it woul be a very interesting experiment.

In the end Sealand is a nation in the same way that Pastafarianism or Discordianism are religions. Its existence throws the entire idea of what a sovereign nation actually is into sharp relief. In hundreds of years, for all we know, most of the world might be living under a brutal noodly theocracy and the Atlantic empire of Sealand might be one of the last democratic states. Likely? No. Entirely impossible? Knowing humanity, not a chance.

Re:It's not a nation

[snowgirl]

Oh... so it is.

Anyways, the sentiment is still true. Sovereignty is the right to self-rule, which you pretty much have unless someone else comes in and kicks you out of power, or assert their sovereignty over you.

You don't really need anyone else's recognition to self-rule with no authority above you. You just need to have no one else come in and tell you that you're wrong. (e.g. Iraq had sovereignty until the US came in and destroyed their government... then we handed sovereignty over to a new government following a short period where our military ran their government.)

Re:It's not a nation

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still the issue that Sealand is not actually a territory. A man-made structure is not territory. Period.

What about an embassy?

Re:It's not a nation

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

I don't think this term you keep using means what you think it does.

Unless the nation can act in the best interests of it's citizens without requiring the assistance of other nations, it's not a sovereign nation.

Declaring yourself a nation, and being able to back it up are to completely different things.

(and just for the record: I support Sealand in becoming a nation of it's own. I feel that we SHOULD be able to declare separate nations in today's world, when the nation we belong to stops serving our interests. I'm also NOT america.)

Re:It's not a nation

[tragedy]

I don't think any of those definitions disagree with our usage so far. The article you linked to is all over the map on its definition.

Re:It's not a nation

[Tastecicles]

The Royal Navy is only there to protect British shipping, for the simple reason that when a vessel flies the Jack it is bound by UK Maritime Laws and falls wholly under UK jurisdiction, hence also expects and enjoys its protection both legal and physical. Anything that threatens the Jack on the open sea becomes fair game to the Navy. The only reason that the pirates aren't sunk right there and then is because to arrest them and haul them into a court involves less paperwork than attempting to justify wasting a nine million Pound torpedo on a thirty thousand banana piece of shit rustbucket.

Re:It's not a nation

[Tastecicles]

well, no. Sealand has its own flag. As with any Sovereign State or individual, it is governed by its own set of Laws.

Self-governance does not preclude trade, and is the entirety of Sovereignty.

Re:It's not a nation

[Tastecicles]

When a State or individual makes a Statement of Intent and Claim of Right to Sovereignty, the State it is seceding from has a fixed amount of time to raise objection (usually thirty days) otherwise by virtue of lack of response, the Claim is regarded as accepted by implication thus satisfied. The 1968 ruling, however, was an express acceptance of the Sealand Claim, only a complete reversal of that decision would be any kind of indication that the UK does not recognise the Sovereignty of the principality.

Re:It's not a nation

[Tastecicles]

As I mentioned earlier: both implied acceptance and express acceptance of Sealand's Claim of Right of Sovereignty have occurred. To repeat myself yet again: Sealand HAS been LEGALLY RECOGNISED IN BRITISH COURTS as a Sovereign Principality by virtue of the 1968 finding *and* by specific LACK of ANY finding or declaration to the contrary.

Re:It's not a nation

[Tastecicles]

Tell that to the Arab Emirate of Dubai.

Re:It's not a nation

[TheRaven64]

And we're back to international recognition. Sealand needs to be recognised as a flag state, which means signing a couple of treaties (and the other signatories accepting you). Sealand has not done this. It will be no more regarded as a flag state than a ship flying the jolly roger.

I can think of dumber ideas

[YrWrstNtmr]

Not many, but there are some. Moving it to Mogadishu, for instance.

Re:I can think of dumber ideas

[shutdown -p now]

That's where the backup servers will be.

What?

Re:I can think of dumber ideas

[rvw]

Not many, but there are some. Moving it to Mogadishu, for instance.

I think Alcatraz beats Mogadishu.

On the other hand...

[ForgedArtificer]

If they were to move some FAKE servers out into the middle of the ocean and just wait to see what happened, the results might be very interesting.

I'd imagine they could prove a very good point about the lengths governments will go to in order to censor information - or at least take some attention off of the actual servers.

Re:On the other hand...

[Translation Error]

I think the only appropriate response would be to drop a FAKE bomb on them.

Hacker Community?

[cosm]

Multiple sources within the hacker community

WTF does that even mean? I understand Fox is trying to tie the negative connotations of the modern day usage of the word hacker to WikiLeaks, but who the flying fuck is this conglomerate of the hacker community such that Fox can claim them as reputable sources, much less assume that these people speak for the community as a whole, assuming that there is a uniform grouping of people that aren't just an amoeba group of a couple people who claim to be 'hackers', and thus the whole community is now tied to WikiLeaks via Fox's shitty sourcing in the first couple sentences that catch eyes.

Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Fuhrer. Ein News Channel.

Re:Hacker Community?

[ForgedArtificer]

Knowing them, "hacker community" is "anyone under the age of 30 who owns a computer"

Re:Hacker Community?

[Jawnn]

Knowing them, "hacker community" is "anyone under the age of 30 who owns a computer"

Yeah, you know, smart people, i.e. "the liberal elite".

Re:Hacker Community?

[bussdriver]

Article is a Troll; Fox isn't News is American PRAVDA.Ru.

Modern political power groups have a process they follow in taking out their enemies and its all "peaceful" social warfare similar to what is done during campaigns then falling down into dirty Karl Rove style propaganda. Exploitation of the US press is so easily done today they can do that at the start with no effort. If all those games fail to lower the threat to a manageable level then more drastic measures are added to the mix; abusing broken legal systems and political systems. This abuse is usually enough and does not have to go to the extreme where it is obvious to the public (that is those who are not always watching reality tv.)

Wikileaks is now at this phase in the process.

The next step after all the peaceful warfare is ineffectual, is accidents and premature natural deaths to friends, family, and/or the leadership of the group; the most extreme of course is to just label them some evil group and outright attack them based on lies. This rarely has to happen (except for nations, insert sanctions before war) because all the other methods are so effective and the few times such extreme measures are taken the propaganda lead up to it provides plenty of cover so people don't realize there is a planned progression. This culture is so well engineered to be anti-conspiracy they can't even realize that their politicians conspire full time for a living (except the occupy movement who is just behind Wikileaks in the process.) People here think the FBI and CIA conspiracies only can exist in simplistic movies and TV shows (unaware the #1 job of the FBI is criminal conspiracy and the CIA largely operates in conspiracy; most of which are beyond an action movie.)

The open exploitation of corrupt officials in the EU seemed like desperation to me as they were doing a lot of damage already-- I think they feared more huge leaks and needed to terrorize anybody from doing something like that again. If they could they would "rendition" the wikileaks leadership and big supporters PUBLICLY but they knew that would end up having the opposite effect; which is why I think that was not done back during the Bush years; the law or the paranoia had no part in preventing it.

Re:Hacker Community?

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah it was some 13-year-olds in an IRC chat room having fun with them, as usual...

Re:Hacker Community?

[Tastecicles]

For a definition of "13-year-olds", read: "44-year-old disgruntled single-portion-shopper FBI agents".

Re:Hacker Community?

[johnsie]

I think the reporter has seen too many B movies.

Re:Hacker Community?

[johnsie]

An obvious attempt by Murdoch inc to get people to take a side. (probably the wrong one)

A really bad idea...

[tnk1]

Besides the fact that Sealand is only there because the UK government chooses to ignore it, my study of the brief history of Sealand has shown that it's simply a pretty unsavory place to do anything. It *may* work for now, but even if some government doesn't "invade", there is simple risk to the equipment from the sheer sketchiness of the endeavor.

And let's face it, even if Sealand takes off, all they have to do is be considered to harbor terrorism and an actual invasion is certainly in the cards. It's not like being sovereign stopped Iraq or Afghanistan from being overrun once even slightly plausible links to terrorism were defined.

Just what we need...

[davegravy]

...is to give the US more reason to incorporate off-shore into their "territory".

Hosting company would be more secure.

[harl]

Yeah this is way out there but . . . .

A hosting company would be more secure. A large hosting company with onsite staff and cameras. With redundant trunks and power. For anything to happen it would have to be nice and legal. Maybe secret can't talk about it NSL but legal.

Taking out power or net to Sealand would be trivial with a small covert group. Take control of the whole place would be trivial. It was done already by amateurs. There would be no way to tell what happened in the event of a problem. A small covert group would allow denyability.

Frankly I don't think the government cares enough about wiki leaks for any of this to happen.

Sealand is a novelty. It exists because governments refuse to acknowledge it not because they respect it's sovereignty.

Re:Hosting company would be more secure.

[bughunter]

Gee. They tried that first. The hosting company was called Amazon.

Look how well that worked out.

Re:Hosting company would be more secure.

[harl]

Thank you. That article argues my point. Everyone knows what happened.

With Sealand it would simply be "Wikileaks is offline." followed by "Wikileaks' servers were destroyed."

Re:Hosting company would be more secure.

[bughunter]

Wikileaks' servers were destroyed.

Hmm, I wonder what the HTTP Response Code for 'servers destroyed' is?

Re:Hosting company would be more secure.

[harl]

503 seems to be an understatement in that case.

Good deal on a ship

[zule666]

I think Costa Cruise lines has a good deal on a slightly used ship Wikileaks could use.

Re:Good deal on a ship

[Anonymous Coward]

And just like the site, the ship is leaking!

Re:Good deal on a ship

[Anonymous Coward]

Costa Concordia: Comes with leaks

Satellite in Orbit

[debrain]

Wikileaks should put a server on a satellite in orbit if they want autonomy.

Re:Satellite in Orbit

[cpghost]

It's way too expensive for WikiLeaks to do this alone. However, there's already a satellite in orbit, and it's called the moon. HAM operators have been bouncing RF waves off the moon for ages now, and that was with old technology. Imagine what you could do with current tech!

Re:Satellite in Orbit

[debrain]

Some suggest that you can put a satellite into space for $8,000. I don't know how credible that price is.

Bouncing RF waves off the moon seems more cost effective and reliable.

Re:Satellite in Orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but can you do it without housing the data? No. You need to have the data right there with you, so that you can send it through a dish towards the moon. The same problem exists: where do you put the servers? The ones serving up offending content.

If you put the server on a satellite, a nation would have to disable your satellite to get at the offending content. If you bounce your data off of the moon....people aren't going to blow up the moon. They'll take your servers, take your radio dish, and then maybe take your freedom as well.

Re:Satellite in Orbit

[Tastecicles]

3000+ms lag would be a bitch.

Get you own Sealand email address

[synthespian]

http://www.sealandgov.org/announcements/get-a-sealand-email-address

Let's make Sealand a financially stable nation. :-)

Re:Get you own Sealand email address

[Anonymous Coward]

.org is within the jurisdiction of the US. They should have applied for a TLD.

Anybody but me who noticed...

[internetcommie]

... that this story came from FAUX News???? Nothing about it makes any sense at all. Apart from that moving the servers to Sealand would be illogical and stupid, it would take more than one boat as they already are in many different locations. And investors who might consider buying a boat for the purpose must have so much money that it is likely they already own at least one boat that could do the job. In addition, of course, boat can be hired or rented. Somebody are trying to drum up hysteria about Wikileaks again; probably to cover up something that is really happening. NOT news, but normal operational practice for media.

Re:Anybody but me who noticed...

[mjr167]

You can reuse boats. They don't disappear after moving one batch of servers.

Re:Anybody but me who noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you never noticed that more than one media outlet carried the story. Here is another source. Thank you for your faux insight.

Wikileaks considering move 'truly offshore,' where only maritime law applies

And investors who might consider buying a boat for the purpose must have so much money that it is likely they already own at least one boat that could do the job. In addition, of course, boat can be hired or rented.

Apparently you've never heard of shipping companies. Ship the servers to a port. Put the servers on a boat.

Thank you again for your faux insight.

Re:Anybody but me who noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I called BS the moment I read the word Fox

Re:Anybody but me who noticed...

[johnsie]

They are just trying to scare people. They love making out that Fox are only trustworthy source of information. It keeps their cult-like following cult-like.

Planet Starbucks....

[Rooked_One]

And next, the Army of the MPAA.

Re:Planet Starbucks....

[ForgedArtificer]

Plenty of "private defense contractors" (read:mercenary organizations) out there already, why not? The way the world is going, private armies are practically an inevitability.

Lame joke warning

[andrewa]

Brings a whole new meaning to the name Wiki 'leaks'....

It's easy to see how this will pan out...

[dfenstrate]

If the ongoing activities at Sealand ever bother a major power, they'll work with the UK to simply demolish the platform.

Makes takedown far easier ...

[drnb]

It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.

A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.

It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.

A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.

It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.

If you don't recognize Sealand's sovereignty then it is well within the UK's territorial waters, so it's not "a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas".

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[MightyMartian]

No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.

Cool, what court case do you have to substantiate this position? Because there are already two UK court cases that explicitly disclaim Sealand as being under UK jurisdiction...

I understand that no one has made any positive recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, but it has acted with de facto sovereignty for a number of years already now, and modern international law does not require anyone's recognition of your sovereignty.

Sealand has fallen through a weird legal crack, that the UK could easily pave over at any moment, but until that time, Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[tripleevenfall]

The legislative conditions that created that stemmed from a time when the UK's territorial waters only extended 3 miles beyond the coast. This is no longer the case, so while it was not within their jurisdiction at the time it would be today.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[PRMan]

No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.

Cool, what court case do you have to substantiate this position? Because there are already two UK court cases that explicitly disclaim Sealand as being under UK jurisdiction...

I understand that no one has made any positive recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, but it has acted with de facto sovereignty for a number of years already now, and modern international law does not require anyone's recognition of your sovereignty.

Sealand has fallen through a weird legal crack, that the UK could easily pave over at any moment, but until that time, Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.

And as such, if you thought the US beat Iraq easily in the first Iraq war, just wait until you see what they can do in this one.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

Sealand is 6 miles away from the coast of the UK, and thus lies within the UK's territorial waters. It is UK territory and best described as such.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

The legislative conditions that created that stemmed from a time when the UK's territorial waters only extended 3 miles beyond the coast. This is no longer the case, so while it was not within their jurisdiction at the time it would be today.

Agreed, if Sealand were to attempt to construct its sovereignty now, it would fail, because the territory would already be under the jurisdiction of the UK.

However, Sealand constructed its sovereignty when it was not UK territory, and thus has rights to establish its own sovereignty.

One could argue that when the UK extended its territorial waters from 6 miles to 12 miles, that it annexed Sealand, and Sealand is now properly territory of the UK, however this has not been established by any legal rulings, and the UK continues to not assert any jurisdiction over the territory, while Sealand continues to operate with de facto sovereignty.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Bert64]

On the other hand, sealand was built and "founded" at the time territory extended only 3 miles out...
Now most countries claim 12 miles of sea around their land...
Sealand is about 7 miles out afaik, and the owners of sealand claimed 3 miles of surrounding sea at the time, which means there was 1 mile of international water between the uk and sealand. When the uk extended their claim to 12 miles, so did sealand... But i don't believe that extension can cover any territory that's already claimed by someone else.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Aryden]

Not according to the British High Court.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DrXym]

I expect the UK's position is that Sealand isn't worth the effort to take to court. In the extremely remote event that it became a threat to the UK they'd simply land special forces on the platform and remove everyone and then use the platform for target practice.

But I doubt it would even come to that. It's a rusting deathtrap in the middle of sea. Let some nuts occupy it if they want since their plans and delusions are not likely to come to much.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[es330td]

And as such, if you thought the US beat Iraq easily in the first Iraq war, just wait until you see what they can do in this one.

The problem of Sealand truly has a one bomb answer.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[X0563511]

I don't think too many people would cry if Sealand was invaded and forcibly annexed.

Just saying.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

I don't think too many people would cry if Sealand was invaded and forcibly annexed.

Just saying.

Oh no, I totally agree with you. Sealand would be screwed if the UK ever decided to assert its jurisdiction.

They exist in a sort of quasi-legal crack, that could be stamped out at any moment, and the only reason why they aren't, is because the UK views it as worthless scrap... as in, it would cost us more to do something about it, than to leave them alone.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

Which ruled in 1968, when the UK's territorial seas only extended 3 miles. That case has been superseded by the Territorial Sea Act of 1987 which extended the territorial sea to 12 nautical miles.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/49

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Aryden]

Until it goes to court again, the original ruling stands. This is the way of the law.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Half-pint HAL]

However, Sealand constructed its sovereignty when it was not UK territory, and thus has rights to establish its own sovereignty.

One could argue that when the UK extended its territorial waters from 6 miles to 12 miles, that it annexed Sealand, and Sealand is now properly territory of the UK, however this has not been established by any legal rulings, and the UK continues to not assert any jurisdiction over the territory, while Sealand continues to operate with de facto sovereignty.

Sealand declared its sovereignty, but "constructed"? It was never recognised by anyone.

It also declared its sovereignty before international laws were put in place declaring that buildings and constructions at see don't give any territorial rights, but again, it was never recognised. That the legislation doesn't make a named exception for Sealand means that, de jure, Sealand is not a country.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[jythie]

*nods* and this highlights the problem with any legal argument over Sealand. Once you throw concepts like 'annex' in we leave the realm of law and enter into international diplomacy. In the end, Sealand has no mechanism to stop the UK (or any other nation) from simply taking it since there realistically is no court that covers actions like that.

The only way Sealand would be able to survive is either be not worth dealing with (its current state) or get allies that have enough leverage to cause the UK to back off (unlikely).

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

No, that's not how it works in the Anglo-American system. A duly-enacted statute can override a previous high court decision.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/49

And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of land around the Strait of Dover...

The act contains no words that I could find pertaining to French territorial waters, nor Sealand explicitly.

The UK could of course just claim that this annexed the territories claimed by Sealand, but then that claim has no more merit than Sealand's claims... except for that it has a larger military backing it up.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of water around the Strait of Dover...

There... fixed that for myself...

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DragonWriter]

Cool, what court case do you have to substantiate this position? Because there are already two UK court cases that explicitly disclaim Sealand as being under UK jurisdiction...

Both of which predate the UK extending its territorial claim from 3 miles to the 12 miles permitted on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The retired HM Fort Roughs (the object claimed as the territory of the so-called "Principality of Sealand") is now entirely an artificial structure within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I understand that no one has made any positive recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, but it has acted with de facto sovereignty for a number of years already now, and modern international law does not require anyone's recognition of your sovereignty.

Interpretations of modern international law include a pretty fundamental conflict between adherents of the declaratory theory which does not require recognition and the constitutive theory which does; the constitutive theory which does. Both have considerable currency in modern international law and see direct support in the rulings of modern international tribunals.

Sealand has fallen through a weird legal crack, that the UK could easily pave over at any moment, but until that time, Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.

In practical terms, an "unrecognized sovereign territory" is nothing more than an entity that asserts sovereignty over a territory where no one has bothered to take official notice of the claim. That's not much of a substantive shield for someone seeking to take up residence there as a means of protection against action by nation-states that are already targetting them.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[tripleevenfall]

The UK would probably just need to send the case before a court, the legal grounds seem obvious. It probably hasn't done so due to not wanting to bother with the expense and trouble of policing this situation.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DragonWriter]

It also declared its sovereignty before international laws were put in place declaring that buildings and constructions at see don't give any territorial rights

Strictly speaking, the relevant treaty declares that such items constructed in certain places don't (the exclusive economic zone) don't have their own territorial waters, that the coastal state has the exclusive right to construct them, and that the coastal state has jurisdiction over those that are constructed. It's arguable about whether it has any effect on the status of pre-existing structures, even if they are within the relevant zone, and especially if they are pre-existing sovereign territory of another nation-state (note that I am not saying that HM Fort Roughs is sovereign territory of the Principality of Sealand or even that the Principality of Sealand exists as a state, merely stating that if it did before the current version of the UNCLOS was ratified, its a giant stretch to claim that the ratification fo the UNCLOS would change that.)

That the legislation doesn't make a named exception for Sealand means that, de jure, Sealand is not a country.

Sealand's sovereignty can'tbe determined by a treaty to which it is not a party. If it was a state before the UNCLOS, the UNCLOS couldn't have caused it to stop being one without its agreement.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

In practical terms, an "unrecognized sovereign territory" is nothing more than an entity that asserts sovereignty over a territory where no one has bothered to take official notice of the claim. That's not much of a substantive shield for someone seeking to take up residence there as a means of protection against action by nation-states that are already targetting them.

Oh, quite indeed. But then even such recognition means jack when the US decides that it's going to invade you. Iraq was a recognized sovereign territory, and we just waltzed in there like we owned the place...

So, the weird thing about nation-states is that it's kind of more of a "as long as someone with a bigger bat doesn't come and hit me" situation. Just about everyone is only protected by their own ability and the willingness of others to prevent invasion...

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DragonWriter]

And yet, if both France and the UK asserted a 12 mile territorial water boundary, they would both claim the same chunk of land around the Strait of Dover...

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (which was a motivating factor in the UK extension, and to which both the UK and France are parties) addresses this.

The UK could of course just claim that this annexed the territories claimed by Sealand

Or, more likely, that it brought the abandoned structure that was formerly outside of UK territorial waters within it.

but then that claim has no more merit than Sealand's claims... except for that it has a larger military backing it up.

While otherwise considered a fallacy, appeal to force is a fairly traditional method of settling disputes over the the legality of claims of sovereignty (both whether it exists at all for an entity, and the exact territorial extent over which it does.)

After all, sovereignty is, stripped of all the decorative flourishes which distract from the ultimate reality, nothing more than the capacity to control action within a territory by force and to exclude others from doing so.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[jtownatpunk.net]

Their sovereignty is only as strong as their ability to defend it. McHale's navy could take this place down. Heck, Gilligan and the skipper would have a good shot with the professor providing coconut bombs.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

It doesn't have to deal with Sealand specifically, as it applies and any boundary issues with France are irrelevant to the Sealand issue because Sealand is clearly closer to England. There are later modifications to the law setting specific coordinate boundaries at some locations.

Honestly, Sealand has no legitimate sovereignty under any orthodox interpretation of international law or UK domestic law.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

Or, more likely, that it brought the abandoned structure that was formerly outside of UK territorial waters within it.

Meh, different words for the exact same action. Like when the US blockaded Cuba, which is an act of war... oh wait, no, we did exactly the same thing as a blockade, but we were QUARANTINING Cuba, so it was no longer an act of war.

Much of everything can be seen through many lenses. From Sealand's point of view, the UK will be annexing their territory, but from the UK's point of view, they're likely to say what you said... either way, it's the exact same action, just different words, and viewpoints.

While otherwise considered a fallacy, appeal to force is a fairly traditional method of settling disputes over the the legality of claims of sovereignty

It's basically because fallacies only matter within logical arguments. Those have little bearing on natural law (as an example: "the guy with the most force wins." We cannot change this law: it is a fundamental fact of reality.)

Dealing between sovereign nations is basically a complicated dance... if I break a treaty, who will hold me accountable to it? You? You and your friends? How will you hold me accountable? Anything short of forcing me to do so means more or less nothing... So, everything is done by getting the other side to consent to doing what you want them to do, whether by force, coercion or rational agreement of mutual best interest. Unfortunately, while the later is the one we all attempt to argue is the only reasonable way to settle anything, it cannot make someone do something that they do not consent to... no matter HOW good an argument is made.

It's almost like the rules of the playground, or the Lord of the Flies... telling the bully who is hitting you that it's not acceptable for him to hit you won't ever solve anything.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[alreaud]

Please explain the concept of British dominion of the Falkland Islands then.

Another idea is that this would not be piracy in the sense of Jolly-Roger flying Somalians. This would not be running drugs, trafficking in humans, or all those other crimes that would allow a vessel to be boarded. This at most would be digital contraband, and somebody would think of sinking ships and killing humans over it?

The perspective seems mighty twisted, IMHO.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[mug funky]

Occupy Sealand! they are the %0.0001!

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[mug funky]

laws typically do not apply retrospectively.

this would clearly violate a sovereign state, such as it is.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

It was never a sovereign state, though; the UK certainly never recognized it as such.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[kenj0418]

No one that counts recognizes Sealand's sovereignty. It is within the UK's territorial waters, it belongs to the UK.

Sealand is best described as an unrecognized sovereign territory.

(Not saying you are one, but) I don't understand the people that think Sealand is some magical law-free zone. If the US administration decided to take down WikiLeaks servers on Sealand it would play out one of two ways:
Option 1:
Obama: Hey Dave, is this 'Sealand' place part of your country?
Cameron: Yes. We've let them goof off and pretend like they are a country, but they are really part of the UK.
Obama: Great. Can you go seize all the WikiLeaks servers from there for us. I'd really appreciate it - and you know blah-blah treaties and whatnot.
Cameron: No problem. Consider it done.

Option 2:
Obama: Hey Dave, is this 'Sealand' place part of your country?
Cameron: No. We let them break off a while back. We've learned its best to let places do that when they want to leave the empire. (chuckle)
Obama: OK. It's too bad we don't have a giant navy or I could take care of this myself then. (chuckle)
(click)
(hits speed dial button for Pentagon)

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Professr3]

Not many people would cry if your house was invaded and forcibly annexed, either. Just because you're not the target doesn't mean you should support the practice.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[nomadic]

True, there are a lot of grey areas in international law; I just don't think Sealand is anywhere near one of these grey areas. Under every legitimate theory I am aware of Sealand is the property of the UK.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I would pick Venezuela

Obama: Hi Hugo, this is Obama
Chavez: Who?
Obama: Obama, President of the USA
Chavez: giggle (click)

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Dan541]

I think if Sealand attempted to build a military force the UK would treat it no different than if someone built their own military on the UK mainland. The same is likely to apply to crime committed aboard sealand, try growing drugs on it. I expect the UK police would raid it like any other property within the UK.

I don't think Sealand is as well protected as people think. It's just that they're minding their own business so nobody cares.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Tastecicles]

probably an oversight... the limit was extended very recently if I recall, 1986? '87? Plenty time since for someone to spot and correct it...

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Tastecicles]

that's right... oh, and British sea territorial limits, in that area at least, only extend 6 miles. To extend 12 miles would overlap France's 12 miles coming the other way by 3-4 miles. Sealand's is still only 3 miles. There is a dead zone around Sealand of 3 miles radius which the British Government have studiously demapped. I've not been able to find it on my Ordance Survey. That thing has plenty other close offshore features such as the North Sea wind farms...

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Tastecicles]

Apart from the fact that Falklanders are British in every sense of the word? They might live the other side of the planet (almost), but they are as one vocal in their wish to remain British.
They carry British passports.
They depend on Britain for defence, for a lot of supplies, and Britain is the sole primary export destination for raw Falkland sheep wool.

The more I'm reading this the more I'm thinking that the UK would have to open a diplomatic channel to Sealand for any legal process - as a result of those two judgments and through some quirks in domestic and international law (previously discussed). To invade (which is what any storm of the structure would be) would be an overt act of war, even if it's against a single man armed with a .22 rifle. He is still, literally, master of all he surveys.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Tastecicles]

ONLY if it is made retroactive. Which is RARE.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could equally argue that, when territorial waters were extended, part of the UK fell under Sealand's jurisdiction.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[X0563511]

I think it would actually be a problem, because my house happens to be well within the sovereign territory of a superpower.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me just one case where extending the territorial seas to include another nation allows you to declare sovereignty over that nation.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several countries never recognized Israel as such. Do you really want the opinion of the neighboring countries to decide whether or not a place is a sovereign state?

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

True, there are a lot of grey areas in international law; I just don't think Sealand is anywhere near one of these grey areas. Under every legitimate theory I am aware of Sealand is the property of the UK.

Pretty much there with you... but as far as micronations go, Sealand has the best arguments. And really, the only thing that Sealand has going for it is possible inertia, in that it constructed its sovereignty before international law made it impossible. So, there is an argument that you can't just dissolve a sovereignty without its permission, so Sealand still has a right to its own sovereignty.

But, the only question that matters is: would anyone care? And unfortunately for Sealand, the answer is "highly unlikely".

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

To invade (which is what any storm of the structure would be) would be an overt act of war, even if it's against a single man armed with a .22 rifle. He is still, literally, master of all he surveys.

True, but no one else would see it as an invasion, because no one recognizes the sovereignty of Sealand. Other countries recognizing your sovereignty basically means that they agree that you should be treated the same as them.

Every country's perspective is that It's not invasion for the UK to land on a rogue steel structure within their territorial waters and seize control of the facility. It's only Sealand that would disagree...

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

I don't understand the people that think Sealand is some magical law-free zone.

I don't think Sealand is a law-free zone at all. Even by it's own account, it is a sovereign state with its own constitution, and royal decrees declaring laws. Sealand is no more a law-free zone than Afghanistan is.

The fact that anyone could easily invade it and usurp any government in place does not make it any less of a sovereign state, much like how the US invasion of Iraq didn't make Iraq not a sovereign state prior to our invasion.

Seriously, the two scenarios that you present could be played out with all but maybe two or three countries around the world to nearly similar effect. (Iraq had something like the third largest military in the world, and we squashed it like a bug.) So, this makes Sealand nothing special in that regard.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[man_of_mr_e]

Those court cases occured at a time when Sealand was outside the internationally allowed limit for claimed waters. Since then, the limit has been increased and Sealand now is within the claimed jurisdiction of the UK.

The founder of sealand claims that since he claimed sovereignty before that happened, Sealand is still independant. But, since nobody recognized their sovereignty I doubt that flies.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DragonWriter]

Pretty much there with you... but as far as micronations go, Sealand has the best arguments.

Given that its far from established that a man-made object in the sea can be the sole territory of a sovereign state, I think the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has a better claim, having actual undisputed natural land over which it asserts a claim.

And really, the only thing that Sealand has going for it is possible inertia, in that it constructed its sovereignty before international law made it impossible.

It certainly asserted its sovereignty, but "constructed" sort of begs the question.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[DragonWriter]

So, the weird thing about nation-states is that it's kind of more of a "as long as someone with a bigger bat doesn't come and hit me" situation. Just about everyone is only protected by their own ability and the willingness of others to prevent invasion...

That's not weird, it applies to individual rights under internal laws as well. The difference is that usually, the nation-state with the laws is the person with the bigger bat (though you can sometimes find cases where this isn't true), whereas in the realm of international law there is no international government (particularly, there is not true standing international force policing nations, though there are institutions that serve some of the other functions of government to a certain extent), making all enforcement something that is done by the equivalent of an ad hoc posse.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[snowgirl]

Given that its far from established that a man-made object in the sea can be the sole territory of a sovereign state, I think the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has a better claim, having actual undisputed natural land over which it asserts a claim.

Given that the GLKCSI was founded on territory of Australia, and subject to Australia's jurisdiction, the international law position of "you cannot construct your sovereignty on territory of another sovereignty without its permission" kind of applies. Plus, they seem like a defunct micronation now anyways (at least their webpage is).

It certainly asserted its sovereignty, but "constructed" sort of begs the question.

I am aware that the words carry some connotations with them. But the only difference between a nation asserting its sovereignty and anyone else recognizing them, is that someone else recognizes them. That does not mean that Sealand did not construct its sovereignty.

Even if the UK military came in and reasserted Sealand as their territory, from the perspective of Sealand, it would have annexed or invaded the territory, violating their sovereign rights, and an illegal aggression. The fact that no one would care and come to their aide or agree with them is trivial.

Sealand has de facto sovereignty... this much is a clear fact. As long as Britain keeps ignoring them, and they continue to assert their sovereignty, then they continue to have de facto sovereignty.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[anyGould]

I don't think Sealand is as well protected as people think. It's just that they're minding their own business so nobody cares.

+1 Obvious Truth.

Equally obvious - international recognition doesn't make you a country (or principality, or whatnot). The ability to hold and defend claimed territory is.

Sealand being on manufactured land isn't the problem - it's that they have zero defensive capabilities, so they can't stand against any claim to their sovereignty. No-one has bothered because they have nothing they want. When that changes, Sealand will be forced to defend their claim or more likely, simply disappear.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their sovereignty is only as strong as their ability to defend it. McHale's navy could take this place down. Heck, Gilligan and the skipper would have a good shot with the professor providing coconut bombs.

I wouldn't count on it! A real armed group maybe, but note that Sealand has fought against armed invasion before.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[Professr3]

There are two tiny things you may not have heard of, then - "no-knock warrants" and "confiscation of home and assets".

"Sorry we stormed the wrong address and killed everyone for 'resisting'" doesn't really bring a lot of comfort after the fact.

Re:Makes takedown far easier ...

[X0563511]

How does that apply? A foreign government can't just enter the sovereign territory of another and take your shit - not without treaties or other arrangements.

What you speak of would be exercised by my own government.

If it's a micronation...

[eternaldoctorwho]

...why not send MicroServers?

Re:If it's a micronation...

[phrostie]

10,000 raspberry pies?

Not safe, especially not safe there.

[EasyTarget]

One of the purposes behind the MegaUpload action was to test the ability of of the Corporate states of Americas to gag anybody who gainsays them by proving that cloud services can be disrupted if attacked hard enough.

Another of it's purposes was sexual gratification; those NSA/NRA/GOP/MPAA/RIAA thugs get a stiffy when they see this much force being applied.

And yet another was it's use for the chilling effect of 'sending a message to our enemies' (ie people who have genuinely achieved free speech) .....

There were many purposes..protecting copyright probably being the least of them.

Re:Not safe, especially not safe there.

[gregulator]

a) WTF does the NRA have to do with anything? If you are looking for freedom, the citizens with guns are generally behind you.

b) The GOP? It was Obama's DOJ and FBI that applied all the force to Megaupload.

This isn't as simple as Rednecks vs Liberals.

Re:Uh Oh - Serving from a different kind of Cloud

[riondluz]

Hi

If not a Monty Python skit, then maybe closer to
this fantastically dark and over the top peek into the relm of the implausible:

The American Way(1986) (aka Riders on the Storm)
http://articles.latimes.com/1988/may/13
      May 13, 1988|MICHAEL WILMINGTON

      "Riders of the Storm" (selected theaters) is a surprise: a little ragged blast of a science-fiction film that packs more energy and ideas in its shots than many pictures twice its size. It won't be to everyone's taste; some will
      find it either crude, misogynistic or tasteless. There are lots of script problems and stereotypes; some of this movie is quite bad.

  But the best of it has an almost raving, full-throttle comic intensity, like a "Saturday Night Live" sketch suddenly taken over by genuine maniacs.

[snip]

      It's one of those overheated, hyper-intense films--crazy, tasteless, but daring--that almost seems to be blowing apart at the seams: political satire-fantasy with an edge. In the movie, Dennis Hopper and a Strangelove-ian planeload of counter-culture Vietnam veterans run the ultimate outlaw TV station from a bomber in the sky. Their name is S & M TV, their logo is a goony cartoon eagle with a bomb in its talons, and their programming philosophy seems derived from MTV, Wolfman Jack, New York's Ugly George and Abbie Hoffman. They bombard the airwaves with rock 'n' roll videos and terrorize evangelical broadcasts and news programs with unannounced incursions of sex and violence

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL10C98154240E4B11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qebqNtHe5Ng
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6HnWLo4rt8

Force OR diplomacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You repeat yourself.

Are you not aware that government is defined by its special "right" to employ force (or threat thereof) as a business model? Anybody else who does so is a criminal.

Force is what makes government. It is nothing less than the essence and key prerequsite of government.

Not a Nation, a State

[hakioawa]

There is a difference. I don't think anyone is claiming the inhabitant(s) of SeaLand are made of a distinct ethnic, cultural, or religious group. It is also worth nothing that even without land, groups can have rights under international law. Take the Palestinians for example.

Excuse me, but...

[Speck'sBacon]

Wasn't this the plot to a James Bond movie?

Don't know if troll...

[HotTuna]

It would be way cheaper for Wikileaks to just push their servers off a pier and into the ocean - Which is exactly where they're going to end up after the cruise missile strike on Sealand. Wikileaks' 'investors' are seriously overestimating respect for sovereignty and international law in 2012.

Re:Don't know if troll...

[MightyMartian]

No one recognizes Sealand as a sovereign state.

Re:Don't know if troll...

[Anonymous Coward]

But that does't have anything to do with anything.

Iran?

[Quila]

The only way to be safe from the US shutting it down would be to host it in a country willing to stand up against the US to protect it. I don't think there are very many countries on that list.

Iran would gladly host that information. However, WikiLeaks would have to stick to anti-Western information. If anything embarrassing to the Iranian government gets posted, then anybody in Iran associated with WikiLeaks would be strung up after a quick show trial.

I know, dual WikiLeaks. WikiLeaksEast, WikiLeaksWest. The one in the West only publishes info about the East, and vice versa. The US would likely claim "First Amendment" if dirt on Iran were dished within our jurisdiction and Iran demanded it be taken down. Iran would claim interference by the Great Satan if the US claimed likewise.

This story sounds FAKE

[tekrat]

I call shenanigans. The story has all the hallmarks of being manufactured.

#1) It's from Fox News, a known organization that will lie, lie, lie, violate the law, lie some more, and then lie to cover up the law violations. Oh, and they lie.

#2) "According to sources in the hacker community" == something I heard on Reddit. A rumor.

#3) You don't have to physically move machines to a new host -- There's this thing called FTP I'm sure the author knows nothing about.

#4) Wikileaks is already redundant across the globe. What would be the point of putting machines on Sealand? This is also something the author doesn't understand.

#5) Sealand, if they were to be the sole host, like the author implies, doesn't have the bandwidth to serve Wikileaks.

Re:This story sounds FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

#5) Sealand, if they were to be the sole host...

I cod that joke, chum.

Re:This story sounds FAKE

[johnsie]

+1 shenanigans. Bottom line is that mad Murdoch hates alternative media companies.

It's worse...

[Maury Markowitz]

Imagine that SeaLand did actually have internet, etc. And that someone wanted to set up whatever on it.

Ok, now imagine which is more difficult:

1) a raid on SeaLand that steals a bunch of servers.
2) a raid on RackSpace in a secure downtown building that steals a bunch of servers.

Or for that matter:

1) cutting IP to a platform in the middle of the ocean.
2) cutting IP to a underground facility with multiple high-speed fibres pulled through old manholes by robots?

And when you're done answering that, which do you think is more likely to work

1) getting SeaLand to make a diplomatic request to return your servers?
2) getting the Canadian government to make a diplomatic request to return your servers?

Dumbest. Idea. EVAR.

Come and get it

[frovingslosh]

Good move, because the United Stated would never send a bunch of it's thugs there to just take what they wants.

Bank of America more likely to take it out ...

[drnb]

Oh, sensitive information about the United States government that they consider to be a threat to national security? Yeah, good luck with that. The US will take out anybody in Pakistan (or a number of other countries) in the middle of the night if they want to, I highly doubt they'd be worried about slapping some thermite to some servers out in the middle of the ocean and calling it a day -- which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?

A far more likely scenario is that some Bank of America middle managers who want to win favor from upper management will land on the island, shove the occupant aside, unplug the servers and toss them into the ocean.

huh?

[Nyall]

So many posts making fun of this, but does Sealand really have an internet connection?

Re:huh?

[ehintz]

Many many years ago (like, 2002 or something), from memory, they had a sat feed and a radio link to the UK shoreline. Last I heard they'd quietly moved more or less everything to a data center in London and there's pretty much nothing left there anymore.

Will the US recognize Sealand's Sovereignty?

[blackC0pter]

I have major doubts that the US will recognize or abide by Sealand's "sovereignty". The US has a history of violating sovereignty and getting away with it. Extracting Bin Laden from the nuclear armed nation Pakistan without permission? Flying drones in Iranian airspace? If someone or something is labeled an enemy of the US, sovereignty or nuclear weapons won't stop them from invading or entering that area. If nuclear weapons aren't even a deterrent (Pakistan), then what makes you think that Sealand, with absolutely no defenses, will be able to protect its servers?

Those issues aside, how do you protect the internet connection or power connection to your mini island? Anyone supplying power or internet to Sealand will be deemed responsible for supporting their actions and the US will step in and stop them. Also, the US could setup an embargo against Sealand. US embargos against nations work extremely well. Iran is extremely scared at the prospect of the US imposing sanctions against them and setting up an embargo. How is North Korea doing with their isolation? Sealand doesn't stand a chance. It will only help the US. They'll be able to step in and take the servers and only risk the wrath of Sealand citizens (do they even exist)?

Alternate Question

[brit74]

I have a question about this. Let's say that some group was doing something that we all legitimately disagree with. Let's say that some criminal organization was involved in money laundering, stealing and selling credit card numbers, distributing viruses and controlling those viruses using servers hosted on Sealand, etc etc. What would we hope/expect that governments would do to Sealand in those cases? Would/Should governments just throw up their hands and say, "Well, they're a sovereign nation, we can't do anything about it."?

I'm just curious because it seems like we either have to say:
- Sealand is sovereign and can do whatever they want (regardless of any real damage they do to anyone or everyone), or
- Sealand's sovereignty is dependent on not doing illegal/bad things and governments could (fairly or not) come down on Sealand for doing those things - and this could involve capturing people on Sealand and putting them on trial, cutting off internet access, etc.

Re:Alternate Question

[Tim C]

Well, even assuming that Sealand's claim to sovereignty is legitimate, history has shown us time and again what happens when a sovereign nation sufficiently annoys another, more powerful sovereign nation and doesn't have enough powerful-enough friends willing and able to back it up.

Ultimately sovereignty, like everything else, depends upon you having enough force on your side to prevent other people from messing with you. If Sealand pisses off the wrong government enough they're not going to enjoy the experience.

I call BS.

[modf]

Sea Land was long dead and gone complete with fires and mysterious missing funds.

ThePirateBay

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't TPB already considered this and then realized it wasn't worth it?

Hanlon's Razor

[JazzHarper]

I think someone fed this old canard to Fox... and they FELL FOR IT!

And when Sealands ISP goes dark?

[BlueCoder]

Sealand couldn't possibly have guaranteed internet connectivity. All they will need to do is cut off internet access. Sealand will easily cave in at that point.

It would be better if they turned their service into an "app" and distributed their data into a torrent like cloud. The app would just be a frontend to browse/search the data.

Micronation stands till...

[Nyder]

... and accidental bombing/drone filled with explosives crash into the "micronation".

USA apologizes for what they say is an accident.

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The US will send some seals in there to seize what and who they want with nobody being able to protest.

Law of the sea

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been a while since I've read the UN law of the sea convention..from what I remember the following are true:

All claims on man made structures in open waters are invalid. You can't make your own artifical island and claim it and surrounding waters. I believe there is even a clause which explicitly declared all signatories must activly reject these claims.

Anyone operating under an invalid flag (ie sealand) is considered flagless which severly curtails their rights vs a "warship".

Anyone operating pirate voice radio or television broadcasts can be arrested by either the flaged nation or from ANY nation from which the pirate signal can be received. The wording for "voice radio" was specific and I wondered at the time if it was applicable to data/internet transmission.

Just to be sure I recommend a LOLz boat with working LOL cannons, a real low orbit ion cannon and some of those Gungan elephant creatures with shield generators.

Re:Law of the sea

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. Just making land does not extend territory, and certainly there's nothing on the books about trying to insist a completely artificial structure can make any claim to sovereignty.

All these examples of airports and reclaiming land from the sea don't help Sealand at all, as in all these cases, these projects are well within territorial waters.

Anyone who wants to know about the intricacies of this should look into the Spratly Islands dispute in the South China Sea, which involve serious issues about control and access of resources.

Re:Law of the sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that sealand is built on a skerry, so it does in fact have land. The reason it was built right there was because there was something to built on!

You just don't see it because the made structures cover the whole thing.

"®, matey."

[Anonymous Coward]

If the servers on Sealand host copyrighted works, could they be boarded as pirates on the high waters?

Neal Stephenson was right in Cryptonomicon

[n0tWorthy]

There is going to be a market for a super-secure digital vault that is outside of all nations legal influence. It doesn't meant that the US gubment won't still try to sieze their DNS records or something but you can always get there by using an IP address..

Re:Neal Stephenson was right in Cryptonomicon

[Tim C]

...until the US (or the UK, China, etc, or in a truly dystopian future a corporation) decides to take the installation by force.

If you're going to piss people off that have guns and the willingness to use them, you'd better have access to enough guns of your own to dissuade them from using theirs.

US law applies in a special way to Guantanamo

[DragonWriter]

US law doesn't apply in Guantanamo, which is why they used it.

US law does, in fact, apply in Guantanamo (at least, according to the US it does.) However, Guantanamo nevertheless not part of the United States (it is foreign territory to which the United States has a perpetual lease [whose validity is disputed by the current government of Cuba, but that's another issue.].) As a result of that status of "outside of the US", US legal precedent (which is also US law) which holds that foreign combatants detained by the US military and held outside of the US do not have generally have recourse to US courts applies to Guantanamo, which is why it was used to handle certain detainees.

Send Sean Connery

[Brainman Khan]

Every Bond Villain ever has tried this, Without a government to protect him he's left with the label of Terrorist or Pirate ("of the Caribbean" kind not the "I haz MP3" kind) and nada for political protection. I'm sure "they" already have cells in "undisclosed location" awaiting arrival of the micronation terrorist pirate hackerz.

How about the Cook Islands?

[John Sokol]

I have some contacts for setting up servers their, I haven't a clue how good they would be for something like Wikileaks. International Law is a out of my field.

Hackers

[Anonymous Coward]

Neocon News just wanted to equate Wikileaks with the "evil,lawless hackers." Just more sheep herding.

Can you defend it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This all comes down to one basic question: Can you defend it?

If you decide that X is soverign, it really only is if you can defend X, or if you can fanagle laws around so that Y defends X. The simple solution is taken from the Cold War: Make it, then defend it with such forces that it would cost the attacker far more than its worth. (Note that this doesn't work with nukes, but firing a nuke at a site in the Atlantic would lead to all sorts of reprocussions, so it's a different deal.)

Re:Can you defend it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the UK haven't attacked proofs that it cost the attacker far more than its worth otherwise the whould have done it. And people have tried to sieze sealand and failed. They have actually defenced themself agains every attack.

Sealand = MI6 plaything, and freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Sealand has caught fire before. Who's to say some guy didn't climb aboard in a wetsuit, and set fire to an oily rag or whatever? It'd be much simpler and smarter for a (misguided) government than starting a blockade, or engaging in sovereign-level politics and therefore implying sovereignty.

As for wikileaks moving there... WTF, wikileaks? Haven't you ever heard of freenet? It's a MUCH more sensible choice.

I totally thought they were moving to seaorg

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the slavery and human trafficking wing of the Church of Scientology?

What, no TLD?

[gawaino]

A real measure of (Internet) sovereignty would be a two-letter top-level domain. Maybe they could get .sp ...

Shock-n-Awe

[Geezle2]

Don't assume that the USA won't just apply a little Shock and Awe to Sealand with one of these things: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/31/1818215/pentagon-30000-pound-bomb-too-small

One little drone-strike later...

[VJmes]

and the nation of Sealand becomes a reef.

This Would Protect the Servers how?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sealand" would be one of the most vulnerable location to host the wikileaks servers. The location is indefensible and no country would lift a finger if a US special forces team hit the site.

Thought this through?

[DarthVain]

Does "Sealand" have a Navy?

Because the USA has one. A big one.

Right now the only afforded protections they get are from the UK, meager that they are. However without that, they have nothing, unless they feel like living in some other sponsor nation. I am sure there are those out there, however some might be nicer than others. They could probably go to NK and get immunity, and be the biggest expert computer user in the land!

Or

[jawahar]

start your own country