Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are so many out there it would be a mammoth task and in most cases human remains are long gone, plus they often do serve purposes where they are either for tourists as wreck diving sites or as artificial reefs.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:


Admiralty law is funny like that. I expect you don't know much about it.

As to the rest of your post, Your points are invalidated.

Oh my points are invalidated, because you said so? Well thank you so much for clearing that up -In future discussions, I'll be sure to remember that differing points of view aren't something that you acknowledge exists.

No, I don't know much about admirality law. I do know that laws are not infallible. I also know a lot about morals and placing the value of human life over sentiments for inanimate objects. Which is something you should educate yourself on my good sir.

I don't know admiralty law either. I do know laws are irrelevant if you can't or won't enforce them.

 Grot 6 wrote:

There is no distinction. The remains are still on the ships.

The ships belong to their respective countries. Ships sunk in battle are tombs. It is that simple. When you come across remains, your first point of departure is to leave. Any diver worth their salt knows this. THAT is the issue on the table. One of the most basic laws of diving is - do not disturb a wreck.

- Ships belong to their respective country.
- Ships are already declared protected, and the remains are already at rest, and not meant to be disturbed. ( People being people though, they ignore it and go digging around in there for illegal scrap/ "Salvage".
- disturbing these wrecks is against Admiralty Law. It is akin to attack/ invasion. I/E a ship is sovern country of origin, unless it is a declared salvage operation, capture, or recovery, and the politicos do not negotiate on the recovery.

You won't find me arguing against these being graves, but tombs and graves are excavated by legitimate archaelogists too, both on land and at sea with artefact's, sometimes including human remains being recovered, preserved and even being displayed in museums. For example, the raising of the Mary Rose which was accomplished in spite of the fact men died on her an iirc some human remains were recovered in the process too, the main difference between raising or recovering artefacts from a Tudor shipwreck rather than a second world war one seems to me to be time, the more time that passes the more acceptable it becomes.

In any case, this is a tangent to the actual story which is a clear cut case of an illegal operation and nothing at all to do with maritime archaeology.

 Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, this is a very poor area. Why not benefit the living?

3 pages late but these wrecks benefit the locals with tourism.

though then again how many people actually go scuba diving?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Honest question: if these graves are so important, wouldn't it make more sense for the governments/military bodies to recover the vessels themselves and give any remains a proper burial?

A matter of cost and practicality I imagine

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Honest question: if these graves are so important, wouldn't it make more sense for the governments/military bodies to recover the vessels themselves and give any remains a proper burial?

A matter of cost and practicality I imagine

Plus, they provide a haven for marine life and a certain degree of tourist money (from divers who want to dive by them). The only real concerns are some wrecks have things such as oil or gas that can pollute the surrounding area, but the vast majority of wrecks post no danger.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:


Admiralty law is funny like that. I expect you don't know much about it.

As to the rest of your post, Your points are invalidated.

Oh my points are invalidated, because you said so? Well thank you so much for clearing that up -In future discussions, I'll be sure to remember that differing points of view aren't something that you acknowledge exists.

No, I don't know much about admiralty law. (and why would I?) I do know that laws are not infallible. I also know a lot about morals and placing the value of human life over sentiments for inanimate objects. Which is something you should educate yourself on my good sir.

I'm afraid that it may have come out wrong, but your "Personal points" are not what I was discussing. I was discussing the added laws, cases, and examples that I added in the links provided.

Additionally, I provided the links as information in discussion of the subject, NOT to come off as an assclown. I can, however, see how I came out in that manner, and if taken offense, I apologies, but the discussion, with added links was the response. I do though, see how you might have taken the info in hindsight. Sorry, there.

The points you had were in discussion in the links provided, that was the info I was adding, but I might have given a post add, such as ;

"THIS INFORMATION DISCUSSES EACH OF YOUR POINTS, AND THIS INFORMATION IS IN RESPONSE."

I honestly see how the point can come off as a smartass, or snarky. It was not, and there is no wish here to offend, or give you a argumentative.

It is not about the points you made about the shipwrecks themselves being sentimental inanimate objects. It is about the point that, by international agreement and Admiralty law,- these ships are all, wholesale representation, legitimately internationally recognized territory of countries. and additional information provided on how far countries go to protect their "interests."
People do go to war over issues of this kind.

War wrecks are recognized, internationally as protected grave sites, just as if you planted the men in the ground in a National War Cemetery, regardless of country.
They are also legitimate representations of their respective countries.
Divers, in general, do not go in them without permission, of legitimate reason.
Marine Archeology is done under pretty strict regulations, and is done normally under legitimate written approval and in some cases, permission, grants, and follow on support, of countries.


POINT TO TARGET, all-

These wrecks are supposedly "The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations of the Law of the United States defines “sovereignty” as a State’s lawful control over a territory generally to the exclusion of other States (Restatement (Third)) §206, Comment (b) (1987)). The term “State” is further defined as any “entity that has a defined territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government, and that [has the capacity to conduct international foreign relations]” (Restatement (Third) § 201, Comment (e) (1987)). However, this term does not include the several states comprising the United States because their ability to engage in international foreign relations is limited under the Art. I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Article I, § 10 prohibits each state from:
•Entering into treaty, alliance, or confederation;
•Levying duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress;
•Keeping troops or ships of war in the time of peace without the consent of Congress; and
•Entering into any agreement or compact with another state or foreign power without the consent of Congress."
-http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_sovereign.html

LINKS- discussion of the Admiralty Law, US discussion, and scope of extent of ownerships.

http://npshistory.com/publications/nhl/world-war-ii-warships.pdf

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_sovereign.html

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

Links- about the bigger issue at hand. the ships are not just Japanese ships being destroyed and looted, Dutch, Brit, etc. are included. If there is a ship in the vicinity, expect it to be included in the list. And in the way Indochina is located, it is a hotbed of activity, in regards to the South China Sea issue.

ALL of the countries in the region are claiming stake to the areas, and everything in it. They all, also, have hair trigger fingers, and are in cold war status's at this time, with CHINA being the most overt, in making the artificial islands, staking claim with war ships, and stockpiling in the areas.

LINKS included on the broad range scope of the issue-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/three-dutch-second-world-war-shipwrecks-vanish-java-sea-indonesia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/british-second-world-war-ships-illegal-scavenging-java-sea
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/why-are-world-war-ii-naval-wrecks-vanishing-in-indonesia/8301782
http://theconversation.com/ghost-ships-why-are-world-war-ii-naval-wrecks-vanishing-in-indonesia-72799
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/18/several-world-war-ii-warships-mysteriously-disappear-from-watery-grave-at-the-site-of-battle-of-java-sea/?utm_term=.825bb4a3add2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/dutch-probe-mystery-of-wartime-shipwrecks-that-appear-to-have-go/

"“This latest example of commercially driven damage to what are maritime military graves should be a spur to international action, led by the governments of Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and the USA, over two thousand of whose sailors lie in the Java sea.”- Telegraph story

Once again, I am in this conversation as a diver, and as having legitimate interest in the discussion because it expands into other areas that I work in, NOT to come up in here and provide anything but information in the discussion. If I come off in any other way, I am not legitimately here to get into any sort of conflict over this issue. Apologies once again if anyone here takes offense to my post.

I worked in the area of POW/MIA recovery, I am an avid diver, and I have been watching this case in Indonesia with professional interest, in light of the regional governments and ... interesting turn of events that have been going on over there, as of late. Add in the point of, "Young Girls" hitting a North Korean with VX, and there is a hell of a lot to keep an eye on, in addition to this issue, as well.

 Grot 6 wrote:

I'm afraid that it may have come out wrong, but your "Personal points" are not what I was discussing. I was discussing the added laws, cases, and examples that I added in the links provided.

Additionally, I provided the links as information in discussion of the subject, NOT to come off as an assclown. I can, however, see how I came out in that manner, and if taken offense, I apologies, but the discussion, with added links was the response. I do though, see how you might have taken the info in hindsight. Sorry, there.

That's cool Grot and thanks for the reply. Sorry if I took it the wrong way. I can get a bit eh...passionate about such things. No malice intended.

 Renesco P. Blue wrote:
I fully support these people stripping these ships. The reason people are salvaging these wrecks is because they need the resources and this is the easiest way for them to go about getting them. Yes they may be grave sites, but if the governments actually cared about such things as the "honor of the dead" they've had literally decades to re-inter their soldiers back to their homelands. Instead they've left warships that are nothing but hazards to native peoples. People who are so poor some scrap metal is enough of a resource to convince them to risk the extreme dangers of underwater salvage. It seems pretty privileged to me that a bunch of people who have the disposable income to have a hobby of playing with little plastic soldiers that cost hundreds of dollars and have the free time to complain about them on the internet are riled up enough to call for the deaths of people living in the third world, where this scrap metal may mean the difference between life and death for them.

That is a really weird opinion to have. So just because people are poor it is okay for them to steal stuff? Are you okay with poor people breaking into your house and taking things you care about? Probably not. So why do you think this is ok?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Renesco P. Blue wrote:
I fully support these people stripping these ships. The reason people are salvaging these wrecks is because they need the resources and this is the easiest way for them to go about getting them. Yes they may be grave sites, but if the governments actually cared about such things as the "honor of the dead" they've had literally decades to re-inter their soldiers back to their homelands. Instead they've left warships that are nothing but hazards to native peoples. People who are so poor some scrap metal is enough of a resource to convince them to risk the extreme dangers of underwater salvage. It seems pretty privileged to me that a bunch of people who have the disposable income to have a hobby of playing with little plastic soldiers that cost hundreds of dollars and have the free time to complain about them on the internet are riled up enough to call for the deaths of people living in the third world, where this scrap metal may mean the difference between life and death for them.

That is a really weird opinion to have. So just because people are poor it is okay for them to steal stuff? Are you okay with poor people breaking into your house and taking things you care about? Probably not. So why do you think this is ok?

To Renesco;
The ships in question are legitimate territory of the countries involved. Regardless of where they are located. The ships in question are being industrial scrapped.
It is not salvaging the wrecks for feeding the poor, in how you have posted here. The Governments in question already are protected under international law, and Admiralty law, in regards to the ships, remains, and artifacts on board. There are no salvage rights to these ships, they have been outright stolen, and remains, etc, are probably on the bottom or in the illegal artifact market. I would be watching all resale sights for "WW2 Artifacts, and then you can trace them back to origin.

Your issue is invalidated by international law, maritime law, and international agreements, all around. What has been done is paramount to invasion, seeing as the ships in question count as the country of origin, and they were destroyed in such a manner. There are those of us out here that will shoot you out of the water protected under international law, as we document the offense, give warning, and then light you up. It's pretty simple out in the blue. Here is a repost of the level of "Poor" we are discussing here.

Additionally, the ships are, or were, documented war memorials/ and the remains in the ship are / or were protected. The countries in question have a legitimate case against the offenders/ pirates.

In conclusion, when the missing planes show up, and they will- they are also under the umbrella of these protections. If these brain trusts decide to "Salvage" the remains, belongings, plane, they will as well be under piracy laws, and open for attack. Much the same as when that "Seas Sheppard" decided to attack the Japanese whaling ships, THESE salvagers, are in the same boat ( pun intended) of offenses. Navies and coast guards should be taking these offenders to task, and any other open sea vessels have a duty to report these pilferers.

Article of relevance to counter the opinion;

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/the-mystery-of-world-war-ii-shipwrecks-that-have-vanished/news-story/2e13b83a950880a2f4525bc55b1441cf