Tuesday, June 01, 2010

murder or war?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Israelis have actually gone mental. There is no clear reason for their actions in boarding the aid ships and murdering people. The consequences have been clearly laid out by Craig Murray:

"To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place
on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution."

The thing Craig doesn't point out is that Israel is absolutely not going to hand over any of its holy warriors for prosecution. Which makes me think its going to be war, not murder.

8 comments:

  1. ... and girls!

    FGS man you're a Green Party member! We've got rules on Gender equality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my defence I'm not sure if I can be reasonably expected to reword the line to conform to concepts of equality whilst maintaining the essential sarcastic tone of my reply.

    ReplyDelete
  3. man, you are so full of fucking shit.

    Israel’s Right to Blockade Gaza and to Interdict Shipping

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=1858

    Under international law Israel is within its rights to establish a maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip, since Gaza is ruled by Hamas, a hostile terrorist entity that has launched missiles into Israel targeting and killing civilians, and has also infiltrated and attempted to infiltrate into Israel in order to carry out attacks. There is therefore a state of armed conflict between Hamas-ruled Gaza and the State of Israelf, and in such a situation Israel is permitted, with certain limitations, to blockade the territory of its adversary.

    Israel is actually not fully exercising its blockade rights, since it is allowing inspected food, fuel and other essential materials from Israel into Gaza via trucks. However, Israel has announced that ships attempting to transport supposedly humanitarian supplies into Gaza would have to first dock in Israel for the supplies to be inspected, after which legitimate humanitarian supplies would be trucked into Gaza.

    The organizers of the Gaza-bound ships have consistently refused to allow their cargo to be inspected, which seems to prove that their humanitarian aid is just a pretext, and their real aim is simply to break the blockade. Whatever their aim however, Israel has a right under international law to prevent such ships from reaching Gaza.

    Even Reuters, not exactly known as a pro-Israel news source, published a brief analysis (Q&A-Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?) based on interviews with legal experts, and concluded that Israel was well within its rights to declare and enforce a blockade on Gaza. This included, according to the Reuters article, intercepting and boarding ships in international waters: "Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say."

    Such blockades have long been part of customary and even conventional international law, and the relevant legal doctrines were reviewed and codified in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, of 12 June 1994.

    The Legal Doctrine of Blockades

    Under the San Remo Manual and the laws that it codifies, blockades are a legitimate tool in armed conflicts. Of particular relevance here, paragraph 98 states that merchant vessels that attempt to run a blockade can be not just boarded but actually attacked, ie fired upon:

    98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

    Though within its rights to attack the vessels, Israel did not do so. Instead it put its own soldiers at risk in trying to board and take control of the ships.

    Here is the relevant portion of the full section on blockades:

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. as for ban ki moon, that slant eyed prick needs to shut the hell up, he's got no frigging idea........

    what about israels rights ? lebanon and iran have both vowed to obliterate israel from the face of the earth, it is also the intentions of hamas......

    and that people, is a conspiracy to commit genocide...

    --------------------------------------------------

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide..........

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm

    Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948

    Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII

    The Contracting Parties ,

    Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,

    Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and

    Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,

    Hereby agree as hereinafter provided :

    Article I

    The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

    Article II

    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    ( a ) Killing members of the group;

    ( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    ( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    ( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its fascinating to be given such an insight into the mindset of your average pro-Israeli: racism, lies, misrepresentation, bias, all the hallmarks of the close-minded retard that I expected him to be.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.