Is it also your contention that the Mv Mavi Marmara was a merchant vessel?
" but everything they did in their own country was seen as legal."
I’m not an expert on Nazi Germany legal history but I am aware of the existence of the Nuremberg Laws, yes.
“everything Germany did [within their own country] was not in violation of international or domestic law.”
I’m not sure, I can’t confirm or deny that because I don’t know.
“I guess as long as it’s legal you can do whatever you want.”
The only conditions where this is not true is where there is another power that says otherwise.
“I thought it was pretty specific.”
Honestly, I think it’s pretty loose, you’ve got all sorts of clauses that act as expanding principles: commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, some people would say the welfare clause, power to tax and spend, power to borrow…
“The government has done a lot of things and enacted a lot of laws that were legal. Slavery, segregation, prohibition, etc.”
True, and those laws were changed over time with the use of the system.
“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.”
Because I suppose I place a higher value on laws than I do morals.
“Is it also your contention that the Mv Mavi Marmara was a merchant vessel?”
Yeah, it was a cargo vessel. They were moving goods.
But even if you want to classify it as a humanitarian vessel under Article 3, paragraph 47 clause ii, they were still in violation when they refused to submit to identification and inspection according to article 3, paragraph 48, clause b and then attacked the IDF.
"Classes of vessels exempt from attack
- The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(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;
Conditions of exemption
- Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:
(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and"
“Is it your contention that those aboard the Mv Mavi Marmara were informed by the Israelis of the date when the blockade would end?”
You mean like a specific date? I don’t know. The rules of the blockade only say there must be a specified duration, not a specific date of beginning and end. It also doesn’t say that the duration cannot be conditional.
“Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.”
I suppose the duration is the time that Israel and Hamas are still in an armed conflict.
The Swedish activites on a press-conference when they returned said the soldiers where firing as they where comming down. Good luck making a head-shot when you are haning in a rope under a helicopter…
The first casusalty of war is the truth.
All parties involved in this are fascist statist mudering voodoo believing lying fucks…
Good luck making a head-shot when you are haning in a rope under a helicopter…
Right, you’d just be spraying into the crowd on the way down, the back of the head shots would be to the wounded lying on their stomachs once you’re on deck.
From the title of this thread one can deduce the rest of the discussion. (“In case there was any doubt…”)
I also like how apparently there it total disregard for evidence (because according to socialists like Ben from the pro-protectionist thread, Israel is always wrong. ‘Shame on Jews, after all, for not letting people drop rockets on them in peace. Don’t they know their place as minority? Don’t they know, that by having a higher standard of living due to more capitalism, they should expect resentment and bear it? Don’t they know, that they should forgive and forget?’)
It is not matter of evidence, apparently, that is, when it comes to Israel-bashing. It is like in the Soviet Union: the evidence doesn’t matter.
Post this again, since apparently ‘headshots’ vs. ‘spraying’ are now the theme of this ‘serious discussion.’
i personally dont care much about israel or that entire region
its better to stay neutral to a statist conflict
Who knew your closet was a place of business, or that your car becomes a freighter when you carry groceries home?
Bloomj31, your excessive citation of law is ultimately irrelevant because the IDF was outside of its jursidiction. They have no more right to stop ships going to Gaza than Mexican police do over vessels heading to Guatemala. Worse yet, if that it were within their jurisdication, that makes Israel instantaneously guilty of a slew of criminal offenses to every person living within Gaza; irrespective of whether one is consider international or Israeli civil and criminal law.
Again, another post against Israel based on absolutely nothing.
As far as the discussion is about international waters: sovereignty is a Hobbesian concept, it has no relevence to reality as an economic concept, as shown by Condillac. As a political concept it has no more truth: if the boats are going to assist Hamas, a military organization, then Israel can defend itself where it wants to defend itself; deal with it.
“Bloomj31, your excessive citation of law is ultimately irrelevant because the IDF was outside of its jursidiction. They have no more right to stop ships going to Gaza than Mexican police do over vessels heading to Guatemala.”
Maybe you should actually read the links I posted before giving me a lecture on what the law says about jurisdiction.
“Worse yet, if that it were within their jurisdication, that makes Israel instantaneously guilty of a slew of criminal offenses to every person living within Gaza;”
Blockades are established forms of warfare, one of the legal rights of blockading countries is to stop and search any and all ships that attempt to breach its blockade. Israel is guilty of nothing. The guilty party is the gaza flotilla for deliberately trying to breach Israel’s blockade of Hamas.
It should also be pointed out that Israel is not the only country that has maintained a blockade on Hamas, Egypt follows a similar policy because they don’t want anything to do with Hamas either.
“irrespective of whether one is consider international or Israeli civil and criminal law.”
Which laws will you be citing to justify your claim? The laws of Bohemian?
“Who knew your closet was a place of business, or that your car becomes a freighter when you carry groceries home?”
This post, I think, reveals your lack of anything relevant to say but If you’re talking about American law as it relates to the regulation of commerce, any and all activity that can be shown to have a substantive effect on interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress. I haven’t really researched this but I think individual states have their own internal regulations as well.
I don’t think too many people are actually concerned about the nationalistic legalism that you seem concerned with (even though people seem to be biting on it); hence the unproductive wonky dialoge. To bring up a past example on Nazi Germany; nobody else discussing this would care about the law in that particular situation (in the context of this thread).
What is of concern is what happened and how it happend, and to see if it can be defined as an act of barbarism; if it happened under barbaric draconian laws, so be it, but I do not think that is the main point. If you seem to think what was done was , for a lack of a better term is “socially justifiable” (by whatever standard you use) or the scenario has been misconstrued so be it, but Israeli and/or international legalism is of auxillary concern at best to theactual point of the specific thread (I think).
If all you happen to care about is the legalistic aspect in any incident, that is fine, that is your position and definitions of what constitutes as “acceptable” by you. Both parties really ought to immediatly end the discussion in this thread right there though as the conversation can almost certainly not advance to much beyond that point. An appeal to an arbitrary authority for the sake of appealing to an arbitrary authority is a dead end conversation if someone disagrees with the appeal.
“What is of concern is what happened and how it happend, and to see if it can be defined as an act of barbarism”
Dondolee, I agree, If this is truly the question then I am not interested in the discussion and I will bow out.
[CONTENT DELETED: SAVE THE DRAMA FOR THE ISSUES FORUM]
“bloom, your cherished legal positivism is a joke.”
Good post ERO, good post.
[CONTENT DELETED: SAVE THE DRAMA FOR THE ISSUES FORUM]
“Right, I mean it would be pointless to try to get you to learn something.”
You have nothing of value to teach.
bloom, your cherished legal positivism is a joke.
If this thread is indeed about legality than Bloom, whether right or wrong, has some some serious points to be addressed that he brought up in a serious manner.
I guess he could first address the false organismic analogy of countries having rights, which basically destroys any argument he will ever make.
“I guess he could first address the false organismic analogy of countries having rights, which basically destroys any argument he will ever make.”
Per usual, you’re bringing a moral argument to a gun fight. Maybe you could explain to me how you somehow have the power to declare the legal rights of states invalid. O wait, you have no power, you’ve just got a silly moral argument.