“But laws don’t matter because people have the power to break them and escape consequences.”
I think you mean “laws don’t matter if people have the power to break them and escape consequences” and of course I agree with you. But if the Fed were declared unconstitutional and the government never abolished it, it would be a very different situation from the one we have now.
Normally Israel flops big time, but this was one of the rare non-flops. Assuming away the fact that Israel is a state (just for the argument), and hence that its every action is illegitimate, ‘it’ has every right to stop things form going on on its territory, hence to impose embargoes on whatever country it likes, search whichever ship it pleases and shoot whoever it finds to be guilty of anything.
If hitting unthreatening soldiers (who haven’t even touched down from the rappel) with clubs is what passes f or ’activism’ these days, well that we need a new dictionary. Those commandoes where far to patient in shooting so late (I’ve herad, but take this with a gram of salt, that the soldier where armed with paintball guns and only the officers had handguns, precisely to avoid such a incident). I myself would have been much more trigger happy.
Again, assign away Israel’s being a state (turning this into a minarchist argument of sorts)one either a) attacks Egypt for closing ITS border with the ‘Palestinian brethrens’ or b) shuts up and agrees to Israeli rules to send help through Israeli territory. I see no contention about this episode, apart from the obvious one that Israel is a state and has no right to act at all.
"United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has conveyed a proposal to Israel to set up an international commission of inquiry into the raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla a week ago.
The head of the committee would be former New Zealand prime minister Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law. Committee members would include representatives from the United States, Turkey and Israel.
Senior officials at the Foreign Ministry said Israel should consider the idea favorably.
Top officials in Jerusalem and European diplomats said Ban’s preliminary proposal, which he made in a phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, does not precisely define the committee’s mandate. But it is certain to consider whether Israel’s takeover of the ship the Mavi Marmara contravened international law."
Well, if the hypothetical situation I described is analoguous (that is the same moral act in only superficially different situations; like two different people eating shellfish or pork), and I believe it is, then there is no possible way that IDF could be considered moral. In the the hypothetical situation, divorced from politics of Israel, no Jewish person would sanely disagree with the assertion that it was immoral. Nor would they defer it to some moral ambiguity or beyond their power of decision. And they could point out who the immoral actor/aggressor is, since it is inherent in a sequence of time not to some other ambiguous consideration. You can make the decision, alright. And it is not because of the stereotype that all Jews are lawyers.
“no Jewish person would sanely disagree with the assertion that it was immoral. Nor would they defer it to some moral ambiguity or beyond their power of decision.”
My sanity is often challenged on these forums so I don’t really care if it’s challenged in this thread as well. I maintain my position of moral indifference. I do not have the moral authority to pass moral judgment on the IDF, all I can do is interpret their actions in reference to the law and I’ve spent the last four days pouring over maritime law and I’m relatively certain that the San Remo is the relevant source (it’s an amalgamation of various international naval handbooks) and according to San Remo, Israel did nothing legally wrong.
I don’t think you are insane. I think you are sane and know the truth. You know that I am correct.
And there is no such thing as moral indifference. Theists and secularists know what is wrong in easy cases like theft/murder.
As for my charge of terrorism, it is actually precisely relevant to my hypothetical situation.
Here is international terrorism defined.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
Yep, it’s terrorism alright. Imagine if I flew a helicopter over a boat and jumped into the ship with a big gun; pointing it at all and sundry. What if Al-Qaeda did it? What if anyone did it? It would be illegal in the United States. It is terrorism plain and simple. But on the other hand, so is the US government period. But the definition is still informative.
“Who says it’s unconstitutional? In what Supreme Court case has the Fed been ruled unconstitutional?”
Where in the Constitution is the power of judicial review given to the Supreme Court?
So the united states is a terrorist organization?
“Where in the Constitution is the power of judicial review given to the Supreme Court?”
Explicitly? It’s not.
But Article 3, Section 2 says:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."
The power of judicial review was found in Marbury v Madison and has become an established power of the Supreme Court since then.
"that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;"
Blockades are a legally recognized form of naval warfare, they’re found in San Remo and the UN’s Security Council has the power to declare them under Article 42 of the UN charter. Here is a list of recent blockades that I found just on wikipedia.
I don’t care about this issue either way. Both parties involved are iffy but I take issue with the idea of shooting to disable. When it comes to firearms you always shoot to kill if you feel that your life is threatened. There is no shooting to disable nonsense. If you think you just need to disable someone then the person being shot at isn’t much of a threat to begin with and doesn’t need to be shot. A guy shot in the arms or legs can still be as much of a danger to you. It is not like in the movies where you shoot someone and they are immediately stunned. As for the multiple shots to the head and body. The IDF was probably using automatic weapons that were set to shoot in burst fire which is pretty standard in any military operation.
Ess, it says my response to your post is awaiting moderation. Just letting you know.
So, ‘we are against the zionist imperialists’ threads are somehow popping up on economics forums now, one after another? Isn’t it heartwarming… As was in our Russia, “I have not read/seen/heard such and such’s fill in the blank, however, such is and such is a fill in the blank. Besides, such and such is not proletarian. It is not a matter of evidence; he is a Westernizer/Zionist/Imperialist. Grr. Grr. Grr.”
Facts:
Not even close.
Neither Gaza nor international waters are “part of their terrority”.
No person or government has the right to search “whichever ship it pleases” or to “shoot whoever it finds guilty of anything”
Seriously, that was just inane.
Israel did nothing legally wrong
…and neither did Nazi Germany.
If Israel has a law on the books that says all foreigners who trespass into their borders will be shot on site, would you consider any action taken by that law acceptable?
Who says it’s unconstitutional? In what Supreme Court case has the Fed been ruled unconstitutional?
This actually made me chuckle. The government hasn’t declared it’s own operations and control of power unconstitutional, and therefore it’s legal and coincides with the constitution. No more debate. The government is right.
"2) No person or government has the right to search “whichever ship it pleases”
"SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS
Basic rules
In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.
As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
(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."
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
“…and neither did Nazi Germany.”
According to international law?
“If Israel has a law on the books that says all foreigners who trespass into their borders will be shot on site, would you consider any action taken by that law acceptable?”
If it’s not found to be in violation of international or domestic law, it would be acceptable.
“The government hasn’t declared it’s own operations and control of power unconstitutional, and therefore it’s legal and coincides with the constitution. No more debate. The government is right.”
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you had the legal authority to override the government. O wait, you don’t. These issues are to be decided by the Congress and the Courts, if you don’t agree with their decisions, it doesn’t really matter. The courts haven’t found the Fed to be in violation of the Constitution and I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution nor the Amendments where it bans Congress from emitting bills of credit. Perhaps they should’ve been more specific.
EDIT: An originalist interpretation of the Constitution, it seems to me, must be limited to the actual words of the document, the original text. It seems impossible to me to try and interpret the document from original intent. I don’t see anything in that document that expressly limits the Congress from emitting paper money, I do see a limitation on states. If the Founders intended to limit the Congress in this respect, they should’ve said so.
“…and neither did Nazi Germany.”
According to international law?
I wasn’t referring to international law, but everything they did in their own country was seen as legal. Do you agree with these lines?
“If Israel has a law on the books that says all foreigners who trespass into their borders will be shot on site, would you consider any action taken by that law acceptable?”
If it’s not found to be in violation of international or domestic law, it would be acceptable.
Well, as far as I know, everything Germany did [within their own country] was not in violation of international or domestic law. I guess as long as it’s legal you can do whatever you want.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you had the legal authority to override the government. O wait, you don’t. These issues are to be decided by the Congress and the Courts, if you don’t agree with their decisions, it doesn’t really matter. The courts haven’t found the Fed to be in violation of the Constitution and I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution nor the Amendments where it bans Congress from emitting bills of credit. Perhaps they should’ve been more specific.
I thought it was pretty specific. The government has done a lot of things and enacted a lot of laws that were legal. Slavery, segregation, prohibition, etc. I’m not sure why you are so insisted to stand by what the government says and does based on the point that it’s “legal” by the government’s own laws.
Bloomj31,
Is it your contention that those aboard the Mv Mavi Marmara were informed by the Israelis of the date when the blockade would end?