Thank you for this rephrasing. I couldn’t read it in any other way than the US somehow being specially exempt from committing piracy, rather than the fact that being state sponsored (regardless of the state) means it can’t technically, legally, be piracy.
If it helps to think of it in an 18th century swashbuckling sense, this would be an example of privateering rather than piracy.
Unless of course this was an act by state actors at the direction of the state in which case it would most logically be considered a military action and therefore an act of war, even if not yet declared
Words have meanio, and in this case the word doesn’t mean what some people want it to mean.
But yes, piracy is committed by a non state actor.
Thank you for this rephrasing. I couldn’t read it in any other way than the US somehow being specially exempt from committing piracy, rather than the fact that being state sponsored (regardless of the state) means it can’t technically, legally, be piracy.
If it helps to think of it in an 18th century swashbuckling sense, this would be an example of privateering rather than piracy.
Unless of course this was an act by state actors at the direction of the state in which case it would most logically be considered a military action and therefore an act of war, even if not yet declared