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.

 

International Law Requires Turkish Investigation-Prosecution of Criminal Israeli Attack on ships

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

International Law Requires Turkish Investigation-Prosecution of Criminal Israeli Attack on ships


www.sot t.net

"A word on the legal position, which is very plain. 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 term
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

[edit on 6/6/2010 by semperfortis]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
This seems extremely cut and dry, and the man stating these laws has some very good credentials and seems to be someone with no hidden agenda. Now all that seems left to do is see if the countries are gonna abide by the law as set up in treaties worldwide and includes many American allies. I do not see how America can bypass these laws without giving up their seat at the table. No one is to be above the law. I have stated before that Israel is wrong, not out of hate, but merely in the way they conducted their blockade and the resulting actions. I would think being in their position they would have someone intelligent enough to know the laws and a way to accomplish their mission peacefully. Putting their Navy ships in the way of the flotilla would have sufficed and forced it to turn around. I'm sure they could have continued to block it, then any attempt by the flotilla to ram them would have put Israel in the right to defend against an agressive action. Just not a very smart move on their part all the way around and now the law is clearly against them. Not necessarily people, THE LAW!

www.sot t.net
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Jeah, the Israel propaganda machine is in full swing. I see all these people making excuses for Israel on the internet, disregard this bit of crucial info.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by letscit
This seems extremely cut and dry, and the man stating these laws has some very good credentials and seems to be someone with no hidden agenda.


Argument from authority


Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true.
2.Source A is authoritative.
3.Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).


Notice how he never states what specific law was broken?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Reply to post by makeitso
 


Indeed, it is plain and exact. I wonder how the OP and his source came to the wrong conclusion.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


he does state the laws. there a more than one that was broken. did you even read the article? sorry but the snippett section wasnt big enough to include the full laws and the explanation of them. you have to read the article and the laws themselves.

the turkey ship was in international waters, flying a turkey flag so it is considered turkey territory. this everyone knows to be true and cannot be debated. furthermore, turkey has the sole responsibility to carry out any and all investigations according to UN peace treaties.

WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRES:
•As the incident occurred on a Turkish flagged ship in international waters, thus on Turkish "flagged territory" only a Turkish inquiry has standing. Any attempt by Israel to apply law or investigate and produce a finding would be farcical.


•As we know a state of war does not exist between Turkey and Israel, not yet at least and that the Israeli government authorized the raid, those responsible, not only in participation but in planning and authorization are technically "war criminals" and subject to extradition to Turkey and punishment under applicable Turkish law.


•Refusal on the part of Israel to comply with such procedures would automatically enact NATO provisions requiring military support for Turkey and an immediate blockade of Israel from air and sea.

REQUIRED NATO RESPONSE:
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
as far as the man stating these facts credentials go :Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK's current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Craig Murray, Maritime Law Specialist stated that ..


There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.


He`s not pre-empting any outcome .


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."





As we know a state of war does not exist between Turkey and Israel, not yet at least and that the Israeli government authorized the raid, those responsible, not only in participation but in planning and authorization are technically "war criminals" and subject to extradition to Turkey and punishment under applicable Turkish law.

Refusal on the part of Israel to comply with such procedures would automatically enact NATO provisions requiring military support for Turkey and an immediate blockade of Israel from air and sea.


[url=http://www.sott.net/articles/show/209975-International-Law-Requires-Turkish-Investigation-Prosecution-of-Criminal-Israeli-Attack-on-ships]link[/u rl]



[edit on 6-6-2010 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by letscit
 


Yes, I read the article.

Nowhere does he state what specific law was broken.
He only says law of the sea.

If the law is so exact, what exact law of the sea was broken?

He does not say. He simply continues on and postulates what the reaction should be to the unspoken law.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by letscit
as far as the man stating these facts credentials go :Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK's current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Is've posted.lands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.


That is an appeal to authority. It is a logical fallacy, as I've posted. It does not mean he is correct.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Yes, I read the article, thank you.

First he makes a claim, ommiting what specific law was broken, then he goes on to postulate the possible outcomes.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
why does no one ever take into account contract law,

they were on the seas, therefore admiralty law applies, international law is just a facade to keep up the illusion,

in admiralty law contracts are king,

i dont know too much of what happened with this incident, but i would guess that what happened could be justified as such:

- Isreal navy (IN) told gaza aid ships (GAS) not to come into those waters or they would be stopped

this is infact a verbal contract and the GAS three options:
/refuse contract
/accept contract
or
/conditionally accept contract


-most likely the GAS just totally ignored the "warnings" (ie contract) of the IN

-by ignoring they chose to accept the contract by default

-therefore the GAS contracted to let the IN shoot them down

im not a legal expert, im not a student of legal affairs, this is just my interpretation of the facts based on my knowledge of the said materials, enjoy!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
International waters are normally 22 km but countries can pick any number they want, as we saw with Libya that once claimed all of Gulf of Sidra as their territorial waters. We also see this with the 370 km economic zone many countries enforce.

So basically they can do what they want and only a show of force frrom another nation would counter it as we saw with Libya.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


You are correct in that just because an "expert" says something is true, it is not necessarily true. However, courts of law like to defer to authority.

Common law courts do not just follow binding precedent, but they often defer to other authorities like: courts in other jurisdictions, administrative agencies, and treatises written by prominent legal scholars. Civil law courts do not follow precedent as closely as common law courts, but they too look to authorities.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tankthinker
 


Wouldn't the GAS be refusing the contract by refusing to dock?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


im not sure as to what specifically happened, so i cant say for sure



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Under international law Israel had the right to stop and board the ships who had in advance declared their intent to run the blockade. President Kennedy use the same law in the cuban missle crisis.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Ah-huh.

So legal warfare is better than illegal warfare?

Right... that must make a lot of people feel better at night, especially those who go to sleep in 'legal' warfare zones.

The law is not worth the paper it is written on, unless it is enforced. What a friggin' joke. Planet Earth doesn't have World Police (yet), so what's the point of International Law?



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join