Reply With Quote
How did they go down?
Quote in international law where it says they have to be unarmed?
They can be armed. However, there has to be a REQUEST for inspection.
Boy you're both dumb and dense.
How did they go down?
Point 2 is international law. Crews are en led to use water-guns, and even fire-arms if boarded without proper jurisdiction. I believe that even with proper jurisdiction, you need to have a permit to board merchant ships, but not sure on this one. I'll later find out.
Ok, from what I'm told, only in your own waters you can board other countries ships. You must show proper do entation, though. Then you are allowed to inspect the cargo, and you can check the crew's papers.
Only the UN can inspect ships in international waters, I guess. Problem here is that after 9/11, a lot kinda changed. Well, "changed". More like it was "ignored".
Here is a good read, if people care to know.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n29237459/
makes sense
also the Interpol and some other organizations: DEA, etc. Probably can board ships to look for contraband/drugs and they will only board if allowed by the boat's crew. They are not going to force their way into the boat in the middle of the night, that is just plain crazy.
If the boat's crew were to deny them boarding, they are probably will be in deep as they will be followed to their destination.
DEA simply can't. Is a strict US agency. But I know of cases they've shared intel, training and expertise in some countries. Even then, only when permitted by the host nation (so only in that country's national waters). Interpol has more freedom, yes, but has no juridisdiction in international waters. Needs permission from host country, I guess.
In case of Interpol, they can't act solo, need to be joint-ops.
I'm guessing is the same with the DEA, most probably.
wait, international waters means they don't belong to any country. So no need to ask permission?
I saw the Interpol boarding a boat in international waters in Lord of War
The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?Why don't you tell us how you really feel, ray?
The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?
Maybe giving those damned women a right to vote wasn't that wise after all, uh?
What conversation are you in. Obviously not this one.
I remember that movie. And I remember that scene.
If I'm correct, Nicholas Cage is an arms dealer, moving weapons to Colombia.
He is not in international waters, but in colombian waters. See that speedboat Ethan Hawke is in? Rewind that part, I bet the speedboat came from a colombian destroyer.
Even if he still in international waters, if the ships is sheduled/in the logs headed to Colombia, maybe they can be searched. From what I know, the whole international waters statutes is such a mess... I'd not be surprised of exceptions and different countries approachs, which would all be as well admitted into it.
I honestly can't say if what Israel did was right or wrong. If they were on their right or not, I mean. Of course, Turkey is rightfully pissed. You just don't hop on someone else ships, specially not in international waters.
Imagine it like this. You are in open sea, international waters, in a american aircraft carrier. You are cleaning the deck, all is quiet. All of the sudden, russian commandos assault the bridge and try to take control of the ship!
Woudn't you be pissed? I know one thing is a carrier and another a floating crap. But it's the same thing, Turkey should feel offended, and rightfully should do something about it.
If not, it's a message you can board turkish boats whenever you feel like it... AND HERE LIES THE PROBLEM! Turkey, by pride, has to do something. Flex some muscles. Show determination. Israel, as stupid as the operation went, can't just back down. If the Prime Minister back downs, he'll lose support of the hard-liners...
There'll be no war (crosses fingers).
But Israel will be further isolated in the political arena.
Sorry, ray, I'm just following your lead...The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?
What conversation are you in. Obviously not this one.
What ever rings you bell.
According to what I understand of the maritime law, ship in international waters is essentially soveriegn territory of the nation whose flag it flies.
In this case, if that territory was invaded by another country's military that is essentially a hostile invasion.
It doesn't matter that the boat was going to attempt to run a blockade or deliver beanie babies.
Israel should have simply shadowed the ships and intercepted them inside Israeli waters, then it would have jurisdiction.
UN Law of the Sea - High Seas
Check Article 110...
Somewhat, yes. But not as you put it.
An embassy is sovereign territory, thus untouchable.
The International Waters statutes is not as definitive and clear.
Still, is not something you can pull off without some expected backlash after the fact.
I think Israel could have rightfully requested to inspect the ships in international waters, claiming su ion of any number of stipulated reasons (pirate activity, broadcast, etc).
This is what I wanted to discuss from the get go. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the noise.
My previous post was an aswer to RandomGuy.
Thanks for the link. Is more or less what I though it would be.
I admit is more clear on some matters than I though it would be, though.
You can't tell me after reading it that Israel couldn't have come out standing a lot better from this whole thing, and even possibly prevented some of this.
Read my previous posts. I agreed that Israel should have planned this better. As I said in the other thread that covers this incident, I´m not biased on either side. To me, both sides "suck balls".
No, McCarthy was wrong, and provably so. McCarthy accused so many people that some of them were bound to be actual communists.
The problem for McCarthy's conspiracy theory is that it collapsed under its own weight, just as the 9-11 truth movement has.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/4199607"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. . . .What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. . . ."
"Compare that passage to this more recent expression of the same sentiment:
In fact, conspiracy is very plausible. People who control a grossly disproportionate share of the world's wealth will take measures to consolidate their position. They will destabilize the public by inciting a series of wars and other mind-boggling hoaxes. . . . The government-inspired 9-11 atrocity proves Bush and his accomplices are criminals, traitors and impostors. . . ."
The first quotation is from Senator Joe McCarthy, speaking in 1951 about the vast army of Communists he claimed had infiltrated the U.S. government. The second is from the Web site www.rense.com.
Pfft. Only a fellow conspiracy theorist would find validation in McCarthy's claims.
If you look at my exchange with Shastafarian on the other thread when the news broke out, you'll see you and I are in complete agreement.
Yeah, it was poorly handled by Israel.
They got suckered by someone looking to make news.
I doubt they could have made the "piracy" case though. I read through article 110, and it didn't address a blockade.
What I mean is, they could have used any number of those exceptions listed to request inspection of the ship at sea (you know, to ensure there were no missiles, etc). Israel merely has to say: "That white civilian flag is bull and we're su ious that there are military in there", and that's it. The ships have to allow the boarding and the inspection, and if they do not, then Israel is fully justified to do what it did, and can point to that Article and say they were compliant.
It was a up. They took the bait and swallowed it whole.
True.That's the law
There really isn't an exception under art. 110 that Israel could use.
Even if Israel violated the article, there's no enforcement mechanism ... Our laws always provide a remedy for breach, i.e. jail. That's obviously harder to do with laws international in scope. The point being: why the does israel care if it breaks international law?
Reuters seems to think it was legal.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?
9:16am EDT
By Jonathan Saul
LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.
What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized do ent called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."
Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling en y of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling en y, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.
WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?
Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.
There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.
"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial 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.
CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?
Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.
"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.
Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.
Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.
The use of force may also have other repercussions.
"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.
"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."
OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?
No, as under international law it was considered a state action.
"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?
None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.
"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.
For links to the maritime declarations click on: here!OpenDo ent
here
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
