Reply With Quote
You really can't be this re ed. No one is disputing the legality of the blockade. The raid on the ship in international waters was illegal.
Intercepting and boarding are not synonymous.
A third grader gets that, do you?
You really can't be this re ed. No one is disputing the legality of the blockade. The raid on the ship in international waters was illegal.
Excerpts from San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea:
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent do ents, lack necessary do ents, or destroy, deface or conceal do ents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless cir stances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
That's a legal treatise, not a law. And it doesn't apply anyways.
Not only it doesn't apply, even if it would, read that again and tell me what that means.
Burn.
I'm just waiting for the inevitable meltdown followed by dropping the Jew-hater card.... you know it's coming.
Neutral waters are 200 nautical miles out. If you were smart enough to look things up, you would know that.
durka durka mohamed jihad
I'll humor you. From your very same do ent:
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States.
That's irrelevant. It's from a treatlse on armed conflict at sea. Also, it applies to merchant vessels, not humanitarian/civilian ships. And, that's not even to get into whether the laundry list of factors even applies.
And for the money shot:
The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientific or philanthropic missions; vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and lifeboats.
Actually, I'll use this post to say I misread internal for international waters.
Then again, there's vy with the money shot.
Good I got you to look things up.
Read that again...
Outside of neutral waters...
So... since the waters were not that of a neutral player, the waters were fair game, right? They would have been safe inside a neutral country's waters.
The 200 miles I gave was "The High Seas." My plan worked to mess you up.
Whatever the legality -- Israel ed up.
A new development in this situation:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Iri...-95400359.html
The 'Rachel Corrie,' the Irish-owned ship with Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire on board, continued to sail towards Gaza waters despite Israel making it clear they were giving no guarantees about its safety.
Maguire said the deaths of ten flotilla members at the hands of Israeli commandos had not deterred her of her fellow Irish blockade-runners. "We’re not frightened, no," she said in an interview.
Meanwhile, Ireland's leader warned that the Irish government was watching the fate of the 'Rachel Corrie' very closely.
"If any harm comes to any of our citizens, it will have the most serious consequences," Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.
The Rachel Corrie, called after an American activist who died protesting Israeli actions, had been left behind the main flotilla in Cyprus for repairs and is only now approaching Gaza.
On board the boat is an aid cargo of cement, medical equipment (including a CT scanner) printing paper, schoolbooks and toys.
The ship, which was bought by the Irish Free Gaza Movement and refitted after it was abandoned in port at Dundalk, County Louth, is now heading for a showdown with the Israeli navy.
But Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin confirmed to the Irish parliament that he had received no undertaking from Israel that the 'Rachel Corrie' would be given safe passage.
"In terms of the 'Rachel Corrie', we have received no assurances other than that the ambassador has conveyed to us that the Israeli government does not want conflict or confrontation with the 'Rachel Corrie'. So one would hope that a different mindset will prevail," he said.
Martin warned the Israeli government he would take "appropriate diplomatic action" if the ship was not allowed through.
"We will be watching this situation very closely and it is imperative that Israel avoid any action which leads to further bloodshed," he said.
Prime Minister Brian Cowen reinforced the message by saying Israel "did not have a leg to stand on" and warned there would be "serious consequences" if the Irish crewmembers of the 'Rachel Corrie' were harmed.
Worked a treat... lol
Fail...
"supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population"
Gaza gets regular shipments of aide already. These supplies are not "indispensable."
Back to what I quoted:
You guys just keep failing over and over.67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
Admit it. You are OWNED!
Those godless heathens in Ireland need to be wiped off the map for talking bad about Israel.
What part of 'including' you need spelled out?
Do you know what a merchant vessel is?
What does your treatise define a merchant ship as? And based on that definition, how was the flotilla a merchant ship?
The flotilla carried humanitarian aid. Just because Gaza receives shipments of humanitarian aid doesn't mean that a ship carrying food/water/etc... isn't humanitarian aid. In fact, it probably means that what was carried on the flotilla was, in fact humanitarian aid.
Yes. The quality of life in Gaza is just scintillating right now.I love that you feel you have the authority and knowledge to state what 1,500,000 people need or do not need to survive.
The last recourse of someone who knows they're wrong and can't admit it. Bravo. You're bordering on trolldom, WC.Admit it. You are OWNED!
Come on Cobra...you did it once already...
What part of "if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67" do you not understand?
Yes, apparently you don't. It's a vessel that can carry passengers and cargo.
Merchant vessel != humanitarian ship
Is that the definition in your do ent? Why don't you post it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
