What if they were Somali pirates? Do you still just wait for the authorities? I don't see how the Israel military differs signficantly from Somali pirates here (assuming what's written here is true, I haven't read anything about it other than this thread myself). And there are no authorities that were realistically going to come rescue those aid ships. barfo
Are we playing semantic games now? If it's an aid ship, they shouldn't be boarding it in international waters. If they do, the aid ship doesn't all of a sudden get to start attacking them with knives and bats and stolen guns while still claiming non-combatant status, which I don't see anywhere in the article. I see that Turkish TV says that the boarding were conducted without the israelis firing a shot until attacked by the crewmembers. Not something an aid ship does, generally.
There's a big difference b/w Somali pirates and uniformed members of a government's armed forces. To answer your question, though, I probably wouldn't endanger the lives of anyone on the ship if we were just being held hostage waiting for ransom money or something by Somali pirates. If a cop entered your home without a warrant, would you shoot him? Or just call the police? Or just be able to talk about the illegal search and seizure in your countersuit? he reason I ask is that a uniformed member of a government entity does something illegal (boarding a ship in int'l waters, illegally entering your home, etc.) If you shoot a cop, your ass is going to jail for a long time, if you survive the arrest. You think it's different with Israeli commandos? Or it being on a boat instead of in your home?
I don't think we are playing semantic games, but maybe we are talking past each other. It seems to me that the Turks have a right of self-defense, especially when attacked by, basically, pirates. You seem to be saying that even though it was an illegal operation by the Israelis, fighting back against them legally justifies more force being applied by the Israelis. That seems a little odd to me. barfo
Not if both of them are committing piracy. I suppose it would depend on the level of threat I felt from him and what I thought my chances were. If he rappelled onto my deck in the middle of the night from a helicopter, I guess I'd be inclined to laugh. barfo
Disagree. One is state-sponsored. One is a criminal element. One the UN takes care of and one is a criminal matter, which on the high seas isn't really enforced. I would think that no one on this board, even the most devout arms bearers among us, would shoot a cop in uniform who announced he was entering your home, regardless of if he had a warrant. I would think that almost all of us would appeal to a higher authority and call the cops on him, and many would sue the policeman, the police force and the City after the fact.
So you are a big believer in the power of the UN? I'm a believer in the UN, but I don't see it being incredibly effective. As for the criminal element, if they are committing crimes, I'd say they are both criminal elements. One is just better funded. It depends on whether I thought that he was there to kill me, or that he was there to conduct an illegal search. If I knew it was the latter, I'm sure I'd appeal to the higher authority. If the former, well, who knows. barfo
What if the cop had no legal authority in the country of your house? Let's say he's an Israeli cop and he forces his way into your Portland house. I don't think you need be afraid to physically defend your house by taking his gun from him. He's the one who brought the gun, not you. You are assuming the Israelis had legal authority to invade the ship. And you say the cop is in uniform, but we don't even know whether the Israelis were in uniform (as if it matters). You say the Geneva Convention requires that I, on a boat in international waters, must submit to anyone in the military of any country, who invades my boat, and let them kill me (as it appeared they would--they were armed with pistols loaded with bullets). I doubt the Convention says that.
you misunderstood me pretty badly. On international waters, to protect your noncombatant status in a act of war (which most are claiming the israelis did), you can't shoot back. You have protection under GC if you don't shoot back. If you don't believe in that protection, or think that the other country's military is committing a war crime, by all means save your skin. But you lose non-combatant status when you do so.
plus, you make some pretty wild assumptions. People are boarded all the time. Our Coast Guard boards dozens of vessels. People aren't killed, usually, unless they fight back. As an example: http://www.2010military.com/military-news-story.cfm?textnewsid=2593
I'm trying to understand. A military force illegally (international law) invades my vessel. It has no legal rights and I have the right of ownership. They shoot at me. If I grab one of their guns and shoot back, I am now a combatant, which gives them the legal right to shoot me. So they should just provoke me into pulling off one of their guns so another soldier can shoot me. It's too easy for them. Any military force can invade a foreign country and make themselves legal. They can slaughter at will this way. You are sure that international law allows this? This is like, if a burglar enters my house and shoots me, I am in the legal right, unless I swipe his gun and fire back. Now I'm the bad guy and he's the good guy. That gives him the legal right to finish me off and he won't be charged with murder. He will claim self-defense, as the Israelis did. Let's say I invade a Coast Guard cutter because I don't like the absence of drugs on their boat. I shoot one and then one sailor takes my gun and shoots at me. This makes it legal for me to kill the rest of them. This is legal, right?
Didn't the Israelis board the aid ship while it was dark out? Sorry, but if I'm on a ship that is suddenly getting boarded by people propelling from fucking helicopters while it's dark (and I'm assuming they didn't identify themselves as the Israel Military, either) then I'm not going to sit and be like "GUYS! GUYS! LET THEM BOARD! WE WILL FILE PAPERWORK IF WE ARENT DEAD LATER OKAY". That's just ridiculous.
The ships were trying to get through a blockade that's been in place for what, three years? They should count themselves lucky that Israel didn't just sink them. There should be a US Carrier Group sitting right on the line defined by the laws instituting the blockade.
People are boarded all the time in the middle of the night by commandos dropping from helicopters? This part is interesting: "Night-vision footage released by the military showed..." Note the "night-vision" part. So night-vision was necessary to show the proceedings, but the people on the ship, using their lame human eyes, should have quickly recognized that a "legitimate government" was boarding them like thieves in the night, quietly submitted and waited to submit paperwork grievance?
You're right, considering the track record of amazingly retarded, heavy handed, dictatorial and draconian tactics Israel has. It doesn't matter what Israel did, just that they did it in international fucking waters. Also: something tells me if this was a ship full of white, American activists, there would be a very different slant to this story.
This. It's funny how the news stories don't mention there's a joint Israeli/Egyptian blockade on Gaza in place to stop Hamas from procuring more missles to send across the Israeli border (10,000+ so far). This was a setup; a direct provocation sponsored by Turkey, Hamas and Iran to force the Israelis to respond, thereby putting international pressure on them to drop the blockade and allowing Iran to send all the weapons they want into Gaza. Remember, the Israelis or Egyptians aren't stopping food, medicine or other peaceful goods from entering Gaza, only weapons. Here's some more news, analysis and opinions of the situation http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...-right-to-board-the-gaza-flotilla/?cid=hp:exc http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/useful-idiots-condemn-israel.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/28/ha...audia-rosett.html?boxes=opinionschannellatest http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026427.php http://volokh.com/2010/05/31/pollak-on-uniquely-israeli-stupidity/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/31/reporting-israels-side-flotilla-incident http://theothermccain.com/2010/05/31/it-was-not-violence-violence/ http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/31/israels_increasingly_untenable_situation I concur with the opinion that Israel was right to stop the ships, but did so in a stupid and clumsy fashion. Here's my favorite idea: Have Israel send aid for the Kurds via ship to the Turkish coast and see how the Turks respond. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-about-convoy-to-turkey.html
Minstrel, is it your contention that this incident was undertaken with innocent motives, i.e., just to get Gaza humanitarian aid? If so, I'd like your reasoning why you believe that condition to be so.
Yes. One of my links has a photo of what was confiscated. They were minor, but of course carrying weapons on this trip wasn't the point. It was to run the blockade or force the Israelis to respond. If the blockade becomes null and void, then you start bringing in the serious weaponry.
