Israel has of course been saying that its commandos acted in self-defense in the killings of 9 humanitarian activists. Now the autopsies show that the majority of the dead were shot in the back or the back of the head.#### #### First, this shows that the commandos were AIMING for the head, in other words, aiming to kill, not to disable.#### #### Second it’s difficult to imagine scenarios where someone is both an imminent lethal threat and also can be safely shot from behind. It’s difficult to imagine a plea of “self-defense” working in any standard murder trial where the alleged attacker was shot in the back.#### #### Finally, you don’t need to shoot someone four or five times to disable them, and commandos of course know this and can use weapons accurately.#### The only reasonable explanation is that the Israelis killed a few civilians to get the rest to surrender; standard practice in Gaza I would imagine.#### #### source:#### http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-autopsy-shows-gaza-activists-were-shot-a-total-of-30-times-1.294255####
The autopsy results showed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back, the Guardian said.
A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has U.S. citizenship, as shot five times from less than 45 cm away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, it said.
Two other men were shot four times. Five of those killed were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, the Guardian quoted Buyuk [forensics vice-chair] as saying.
“The only reasonable explanation is that the Israelis killed a few civilians to get the rest to surrender;”
So why is it that only 9 people were killed and all those nine people were on board the one ship where the “peaceful activists” attacked the IDF while the five other ships were searched first without incident? Clearly, these idiots provoked the IDF and so they got shot. No one on any of the other five ships were harmed at all. If the IDF had to kill a few “activists” on the ship where they were attacked to get the rest to calm down, who says they’re not allowed to do that?
“It’s difficult to imagine a plea of “self-defense” working in any standard murder trial where the alleged attacker was shot in the back.”
When did you become an expert on criminal trials? What legal standard are you going on that describes an optimal number of bullets to be used when eliminating an aggressive criminal or the optimal place to shoot said criminal?
You’ve gotta put these things in context instead of cherry picking out facts and you need to show what the legal standards are here before you make assertions about what is and what is not an example of necessary force.
EDIT: The other thing that needs to be pointed out here is that the “activist” story doesn’t add up. They say they were shot at first but why didn’t the IDF fire on any of the other ships? I mean why did they suddenly become violent once they reached the last ship?
bloomj, let’s say a burglar robs 10 houses in a neighborhood. But only the 10th ends in a murder.
The 10th provokes the burglar (in self-defense) and the burglar shoots the man. None of the other houses are awake (since it is the middle of the night).
Tell me how this is a different situation than the one above. The shooting in the back is irrelavent in my opinion. And defending yourself against a burglar does not negate your status as peace-lover (or activist, if that is the case). This is just icing on the Israel-as-criminal cake. They very well should have been in their rights to shoot every single one of the IDF until they retreated, died, or someone came to detain the members of the IDF in a prison.
bloomj’s interests aren’t in justice for all. His interest is in nationalism. In his eyes, Israel can kill nearly everyone on the planet if it’s to the benefit of Israel, and that’s ok with him. If i were you, I wouldn’t waste time. But then again, that’s up to you.
“bloomj, let’s say a burglar robs 10 houses in a neighborhood. But only the 10th ends in a murder.”
Israel has the legal right under maritime law to stop and search all ships that attempt to breach its blockade. There were no problems on any of the ships except for the last one. Clearly, the people on the Mavi Marmara are the ones who broke the law, not the IDF. They were acting with their legal rights with their stop and search. When the activists on the Marmara attacked the IDF, they’d already signed their death warrants. As the poster below points out, I don’t really care how many of these people got killed because they broke the law.
Either way, Israel is not being charged with theft so your analogy is useless.
The issue is whether or not Israel had the right to board those ships, search them and redirect them to Ashdod and the answer, according to maritime law, is yes.
“They very well should have been in their rights to shoot every single one of the IDF until they retreated, died, or someone came to detain the members of the IDF in a prison.”
Says who? Where do they get these legal rights from? Nowhere. These people had no legal right to try and breach the blockade, they were criminals from the time they left port. Israel, in my mind, would’ve been fully justified in blowing all the ships out of the water. But they didn’t do it because they handle these people with kid gloves.
“Israel can kill nearly everyone on the planet if it’s to the benefit of Israel, and that’s ok with him.”
Not really true but irrelevant either way. My personal views have nothing to do with the law.
This is the law:
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;
Blockade
A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
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.
A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
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.
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.
A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
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 documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(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.
“And yet you support the Federal Reserve as a useful tool even though it’s unconstitutional?”
Who says it’s unconstitutional? In what Supreme Court case has the Fed been ruled unconstitutional?
Moreover, does not the Congress have the power to coin money and has not the Congress been found to have the power emit bills of credit?
The only legal question that seems pertinent in regards to the Federal Reserve has to do with delegation of legislative power. But I don’t know of any Supreme Court case that’s found that the Congress cannot delegate the power to emit bills of credit, do you?
As far as I know, Israelis aren’t being charged with anything. Not surprisingly. You might also be aware that we discuss things here other than what the state has decided is right for us. Or what their decisions about matters are. For instance, few of us are going to jump down on the side of a police officer that murders a pot smoker, simply because the draconian War on Drugs has put this ill-advised policy into place. We could also discuss the illegality of Israel’s occupation in a different meta-discussion, that I won’t get into here.
I am talking about the morality of the action. Answer that. It’s the same situation. And what is significant in my analogy is not the theft, but the fact that only one person fought back and it is absurd to say the burglar is defending themselves. It’s also absurd to say that one is against peace for firing on an attacker. The person killed by the burglar doesn’t need to be killed to calm down the rest of the neighborhood so that that person’s thuggery can continue.
In the situation in the house, you’d either fire back until they were dead or until they retreated. They should have fired a rocket at their helicopter. Since there was beyond reasonable suspicion that IDF were about to commit a terrorist attack when they came in that close to ambush.
“As far as I know, Israelis aren’t being charged with anything.”
No, not yet. Turkey and many UN members are insisting on a UN Security Council led probe into the events. The UN really has no teeth but if Obama sides with them, their finding will carry weight.
“You might also be aware that we discuss things here other than what the state has decided is right for us.”
Yes, I’m aware of that.
“I am talking about the morality of the action. Answer that. It’s the same situation.”
I am not fit to judge morality, only God can make that judgment. I can only try to judge legality.
" And what is significant in my analogy is not the theft, but the fact that only one person fought back and it is absurd to say the burglar is defending themselves. It’s also absurd to say that one is against peace for firing on an attacker."
You do not have the authority to determine attacker from non-attacker. The law makes that determination and it’s clear in the law that the aggressor is the party attempting to breach a blockade. As far as the thuggery accusation goes, I again refer you to the San Remo manual as it lays out conditions under which neutral vessels (even in international waters) can be attacked. Although, it looks like the IDF only attacked once they were set upon by violent extremists posing as peace activists.
“They should have fired a rocket at their helicopter. Since there was beyond reasonable suspicion that IDF were about to commit a terrorist attack when they came in that close to ambush.”
Under what law is this considered a terrorist attack?
Esuric, only the states are explicitly prevented from making anything other than gold or silver coin money. It does not say that Congress is bound by these same rules and it was found in a series of cases: Knox v Lee, Parker v Davis and Juilliard v Greenman that the Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 did not violate Article 1.
EDIT: It’s also worth noting that technically the Bureau of Printing and Engraving (which is under the Treasury) actually makes the money, it’s just printed and issued at the behest of the Federal Reserve. Essentially the Fed has delegated legislative power and that might be an issue as article 1 expressly limits legislative power to Congress. However, I do not know of any cases where independent agencies have been found to be unconstitutional along these lines.
I actually think it is an issue. I can oppose the Fed on economic grounds, some might oppose it on moral grounds, but is it actually vulnerable on legal grounds? I don’t think so.
“The government clearly has the power to keep the federal reserve in place, so they do.”
Yes. But it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional either.