Letter to Jon Bellish-Enrica Lexie

Mr.Jon Bellish, I have been following the Enrica Lexie case right from the beginning through news on internet. Only today while searching I got your post.
You have given that " The words “terror,” “terrorist,” or “terrorism” do not appear at all in the operative clauses of the SUA Convention, nor do they appear in any portion of India’s SUA Act. Thus Mr. Matthew’s argument that legal classification as a terrorist is a prerequisite to be charged under the SUA Act appears at odds with the text of the SUA Act itself and the Convention upon which it is based."
Sir, the SUA Act was made to deal with terrorism and piracy which has become very rampant for these last thirty or forty years. Hence is it necessary to specify that it is for dealing with terrorism. For other crimes there laws already existing.
Here when the Italian Marines shot at the boat St.Antony they had no intention of terrorism in their act. It is plain murder at sea. It was killing due to misunderstanding and it should be dealt with as such.
I was just thinking. A carpenters chisel is for cutting wood and shaping it into required objects. You can use for cutting vegetable also. But you don't use it for that purpose. Similarly SUA Act is for dealing with terrorism and hence it is used for dealing with terrorism and not for other criminal activities which are obviously not an act of terrorism.
Which country should try the marines should be decided as per international conventions for a murder at sea. Even though most of my fellow Indians feel that India has jurisdiction to try the case, I am of the opinion it is Italy which has the jurisdiction. The marines were on an Italian ship and from that ship the shots were fired. It is the act which is to be punished and not the result. So Italy should try the case. I am more convinced of my thinking is right because Mr.Haren Rawal, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Government of India that India has no jurisdiction for which he was castigated and the charge of representing Centre was entrusted to another. Mr.Rawal could not have told this to the court unless has gone through the law and was convinced of the fact.
Guptan Veemboor