It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MV Rachel Corrie being boarded NOW

page: 28
61
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
. . .

The blockade is illegal.


WRONG!

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 document 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.

And here is a link for you to read, though I know you won't.


You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by twitchy
 


Are you trying to imply that there is no armed conflict between Gaza and Israel?


That's exactly what I'm implying...



It's not a conflict, it's a massacre, and more than one Israeli PM has stated through the years that their intention is to create a humanitarian crisis there.
Take a look...
www.monabaker.com...
You expect the world to defend and uphold this kind of crap?
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
-- David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.



[edit on 5-6-2010 by twitchy]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I dont know whats behind this all of a sudden but the Free Gaza Movement is looking at relocating as Cyprus has decided to ban ships from sailing to hamas ruled Gaza to protect its vital interests...

www.news.com.au...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
and for anybody still interested in a wrap up, here are some pics, vids and audio from the Rachel Corrie up to disembarkation of crew and passengers...

IDF SPOKESPERSON



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 




Yeah . . .


Here is a better pic:




Quit eating the propaganda from both sides.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim


You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.



It is considered the common law of the sea. For Christ's sake, the UN uses it.

Quit playing semantics here.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim


You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.



It is considered the common law of the sea. For Christ's sake, the UN uses it.

Quit playing semantics here.


Would you mind providing a source to support your assertion that the United Nations recognizes the San Remo Manual as law? Also, the San Remo Manual has nothing to do with whether or not the blockade is legal. It implies that if the blockade is legal, military action outside of territorial waters to enforce it would also be legal.


[edit on 5-6-2010 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
IN A LATE BREAKING STORY! Hamas is now upgrading its troops through international seas with what can only be described as "weapons of indescribable power". The descriptions of these weapons that will soon be finding their way into this terrorist groups hands include kitchen knives , wood axes w/ broken handles , and the ultimate death tool... Pieces of boat railing taken off 60 year old fishing boats. If we do not stop this flood of weapons.... the whole Middle East will soon be in danger. key IDF officials report.


Can any of you imagine this story? Yet that is exactly the kind of brainwashed vitriol you are spewing. It is almost funny how deluded this is.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
I'm sure my post will get lost amongst the side-to-side bickering, bantering, grandstanding and debate. *sigh*

Having my disclaimer out of the way, here are my true thoughts:

The Irish did the right thing. Be true, honest with your intentions, but don't back down -- and don't be stupid.

Can *ANYONE HERE* tell me why, WHY it's taboo and nearly a CRIME to question Israel? The second anyone questions their actions or motives, it seems an entire entourage of pro-Israeli folks lay down heavy handed responses.

Questioning government action by a country does not mean racism against an ethnic group!


This is *bleep* for brains thinking people. It's as if the world is brain-washed into thinking that Israel can never do ANY wrong, and questioning their actions is tantamount to treason.

I'm glad the Irish kept to their intended mission -- and I agree that Israel has the right (due to Palestine not keeping their people in check) to inspect the cargo.

Israel needs to make major concessions to ensure peace. Israel needs to remove themselves completely from disputed territories. Palestinians as well need to make huge concessions as well. POLICE YOUR RADICALS! Israel would not feel it necessary to be so heavy-handed if they could keep their people in check.

Sadly, it'll never happen. There are to many generations of blood-soaked killing that has tainted the very core of both sides.

I still do not understand how one cannot question the political/military actions of Israel without a S-storm of "you anti-semite!"???


I question my own government and I'm not called a "traitor" -- I'm called a concerned American citizen. I'm not sure when racial issues became so infused into the body politic of Israel -- but it NEEDS TO STOP.

.3


Totally agree, and I believe this is one of the reasons why the so called "hate Israel" group are so angry. Not supporting this kind of aggression displayed is seen as a personal attack, which it is not, everybody here would prefer to see this ongoing War resolved, peacefully from BOTH sides.

But that will never happen as long as they both fight Fire with Fire.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim


Would you mind providing a source to support your assertion that the United Nations recognizes the San Remo Manual as law?


Well, considering the manual is basically a reaffirmation of International Humanitarian Law, as put forth in the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions (which the UN Charter is based off of, and must follow) . . . you do the math.

Never mind the fact that the opening words to the manual are:

SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW

1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.

2. In cases not covered by this document or by international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience.

Link

In other words, all parties involved are bound by International Humanitarian Law, which the manual is a part of, which the United Nations enforces.



Also, the San Remo Manual has nothing to do with whether or not the blockade is legal. It implies that if the blockade is legal, military action outside of territorial waters to enforce it would also be legal.


No, it has provisions on when a blockade is legal. Read it again. There is no "implications." It is all in there.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim


You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.



It is considered the common law of the sea. For Christ's sake, the UN uses it.
Quit playing semantics here.


Sine when did Israel become a stickler for UN rules?
They've willfully broken about 66 resolutions.

If you want to follow the manual as the "common law of the sea" however, then Israel is DEFINITELY in the wrong.

How?

Aside from the fact that the manual deals with two States at war and Hammas isn't a State, as I've said before, that very manual states that any blockade such as the one Israel has instituted isn't permitted.


Finally, specific mention must be made of the fact that the Manual lays down that starvation blockades are unlawful and requires the blockading power to allow relief shipments if a secondary effect of the blockade is that civilians are short of food or other essential supplies.

International Committee of the Red Cross.org


The blockade itself is in violation of UNSC resolutions and Articles of the Geneva Convention.

The San Remo Manual, Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, all show that the blockade is in violation of international law as collective punishment.

If the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.
Therefore the actions of the commandos were illegal and claiming self-defense is a joke.

- Lee



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Never mind the fact that the opening words to the manual are:

SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW

1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.

2. In cases not covered by this document or by international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience.

[url=http://www.ilrg.com/subject/lawofwar/13sanremomanual.html]Link[/url


From your link:


102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:


Soooo...

- Lee

[edit on 6-6-2010 by lee anoma]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this has been presented to the members of ATS, but this song has been around for a couple of years before the MV Rachel Corrie ever was bought and named.



Take what you will from that song ... but it was appropriate that the ship was named after her. After watching all of this ...

I still hang my head in a noose of knots, realizing that even their cost will never be enough or even make a dent upon the hegemonic, deep rooted layers of hate.

We are all human, that is what it should always boil down to.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Isreali brings out a new song mocking the fortilla aid convoy "we con the world" on youtube



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


You might like to read this
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...




A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth.


The jews are once again being lead by the same zionists who saw millions of them killed and you would think they would know better by now any yet i see so few of them speaking out.

Hamas is no more a terrorst organisation than MOSSAD and the party got more votes to represent the people than our leader in the UK got and they are not going into other peoples countries 1000s miles away to bomb people but want iserail to stop taking any more of their land.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
When will this all stop?

I hate coming here to ATs as soon as i see the pain and death Israel cause i voice my opinion and turn into the **** i oppose.

I hope for humanity Israel is disbanded by the UN and the Zionists wake the hell up befour they are sent to hell.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
. . .
The blockade is illegal.


WRONG!

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 document 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.

And here is a link for you to read, though I know you won't.


You cited the San Remo manual which has nothing to do with whether the blockade is legal. It is a non-binding document which suggests that boarding a vessel on the high seas which intends to run a legal blockade is acceptable. Two very different things. Nice try, though.


Partially correct.
The San Remo manual does address acceptable methods of blockades by sea in general, and the Gaza blockade appears to be in compliance with these rules. While not being a binding document, the manual is a reiteration of the existing laws, and as best I can tell, the sea blockade rules were never addressed at all in existing law. They were added into the manual to provide more protection than the existing laws do.

By expressing that the manual is not binding, you actually reduce the protection afforded by the manual, and bring the rules back to the original laws, which do not address rules of sea blockades at all.

Meanwhile, it is true that the manual does not address Gaza specifically.

The Oslo Accords do.
The Oslo Accords gave Israel complete control of Gaza's external security, including exclusive control of access to Gaza from the sea. That appears to be the binding document addressing the legality of the blockade.



[edit on 6/6/10 by makeitso]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma

Sine when did Israel become a stickler for UN rules?
They've willfully broken about 66 resolutions.

If you want to follow the manual as the "common law of the sea" however, then Israel is DEFINITELY in the wrong.

How?

Aside from the fact that the manual deals with two States at war and Hammas isn't a State,


That appears to be incorrect.
The manual says; "The parties to an armed conflict".

Not "Two States at war".



Originally posted by lee anoma
as I've said before, that very manual states that any blockade such as the one Israel has instituted isn't permitted.


Finally, specific mention must be made of the fact that the Manual lays down that starvation blockades are unlawful and requires the blockading power to allow relief shipments if a secondary effect of the blockade is that civilians are short of food or other essential supplies.

International Committee of the Red Cross.org


That also appears to be incorrect.

The manual states that it is prohibited if; "it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population"
That does not appear to be the sole purpose of the Gaza blockade.


Originally posted by lee anomaThe blockade itself is in violation of UNSC resolutions and Articles of the Geneva Convention.

The San Remo Manual, Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, all show that the blockade is in violation of international law as collective punishment.


That also appears to be incorrect.
Article 33 says that; Collective penalties are prohibited.

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.

Mass killings of villagers in reprisal to the efforts to break the blockade have not happend.

Additionally, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860 does not address or have the words "collective punishment" in it.


Originally posted by lee anomaIf the blockade isn't legal neither is enforcing it.
Therefore the actions of the commandos were illegal and claiming self-defense is a joke.

- Lee


As shown by the combined San Remos Manual, and the Oslo Accords, there appears to be no law broken.

This can also be deduced by reading the statement of the U.N. Security Council on the matter. It does not claim that any law was broken. As high profile as this was, we can be sure if it thought a law had been broken, they would have written that in their statement.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. In being so, they represent the state. What you are trying to imply is that it is like the Democrats fought in WW2, so the US was technically not involved.

Preposterous.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Lee's preceding replies are excellent but I still have some technical issues with your assertion on it's own grounds.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim


Would you mind providing a source to support your assertion that the United Nations recognizes the San Remo Manual as law?


Well, considering the manual is basically a reaffirmation of International Humanitarian Law, as put forth in the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions (which the UN Charter is based off of, and must follow) . . . you do the math.


The source you cite above does not say that the San Remo Manual is a subset of International Humanitarian Law. In fact, the relationship is reversed: The San Remo Manual stipulates that International Humanitarian Law is to be adhered to, not the other way around.



Never mind the fact that the opening words to the manual are:

SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW

1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.

2. In cases not covered by this document or by international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience.

Link

In other words, all parties involved are bound by International Humanitarian Law, which the manual is a part of, which the United Nations enforces.


This is what I can't find a good source for. I am interested in the truth so if you would be so kind, I would love to see a source that supports your assertion above (that the San Remo Manual is acknowledged as a component of International Humanitarian Law and not the other way around).




Also, the San Remo Manual has nothing to do with whether or not the blockade is legal. It implies that if the blockade is legal, military action outside of territorial waters to enforce it would also be legal.


No, it has provisions on when a blockade is legal. Read it again. There is no "implications." It is all in there.


I did. You must be referring to this part:



SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

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.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.


The above does not dictate when the establishment of a blockade is legal, it dictates conditions in which it would or would not be considered legal by virtue of how it is enforced on the High Seas. In fact, if you read the above very carefully, you'll find this snippet:


103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.


Which indicates that the blockading belligerent must allow passage of the vessel after applying reasonable conditions (i.e., search). It does not say that the blockading belligerent may confiscate the goods and deliver them on it's own.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join