3 ms·

> It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nigh

by vacri 10y ago

> It specifically does not violate the treaty for the United States or Morocco to wage war against each other That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". In any case, the treaty you link says that passengers and goods shall be released unmolested and allowed to pass on a vessel belonging to that party (article 3). Morocco taking a US prize runs directly counter to this. Thanks for finding the link, by the way. I forgot to look for the treaty itself.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". Well, I imagine in the event of war between the United States and Morocco it would be understood that merchants couldn't safely dock, despite the fact that the treaty doesn't specifically provide for that. There are notable advantages to having the treaty still in effect during war, though; article 16, as I mentioned before, protects Americans captured in war by Morocco from enslavement and in fact guarantees that they must be made available for ransom, and I'd be happy to have that protection (I'd be even happier if, as specified by the treaty, my ransom was limited to "one hundred Mexican dollars"). Plus, the existence of the treaty significantly simplifies the process of transitioning from war to peace, as you can just default back to the terms of the still-valid treaty. I agree that Morocco taking a US prize, or allowing another Barbary pirate to dock in Morocco with a US prize (without immediately confiscating it for return to the US), directly violates the treaty as long as Morocco is not at war with the US. Did that happen? The wikipedia articles were less than fully comprehensive. (Even assuming it did happen, there are certainly diplomatic benefits to glossing over it.)

by vacri 10y ago

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> That's like saying "anyone is welcome in our nightclub (port), as long as they can get past the bouncers (pirates)". Well, I imagine in the event of war between the United States and Morocco it would be understood that merchants couldn't safely dock, despite the fact that the treaty doesn't specifically provide for that. There are notable advantages to having the treaty still in effect during war, though; article 16, as I mentioned before, protects Americans captured in war by Morocco from enslavement and in fact guarantees that they must be made available for ransom, and I'd be happy to have that protection (I'd be even happier if, as specified by the treaty, my ransom was limited to "one hundred Mexican dollars"). Plus, the existence of the treaty significantly simplifies the process of transitioning from war to peace, as you can just default back to the terms of the still-valid treaty. I agree that Morocco taking a US prize, or allowing another Barbary pirate to dock in Morocco with a US prize (without immediately confiscating it for return to the US), directly violates the treaty as long as Morocco is not at war with the US. Did that happen? The wikipedia articles were less than fully comprehensive. (Even assuming it did happen, there are certainly diplomatic benefits to glossing over it.)