you copied sub-section 47.
here the NEXT sub-section:
You're missing half of sub-section 103.
Oh well, I'm sure we'll get more than one conflicting reading of the San Remo Manual:
Here's one!
Note, I am only quoting the exact wording from the document, and highlighting one sub-section. Make of it what you will:
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.
Conditions of exemption
48. 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
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.
For those questioning which section of San Remo I cite, try "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:"
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.
Gotta love the Non Prof John Argument of, "The Israelis have guns, they can do whatever they want!"
So to Somalia pirates and bank robbers, but guns provide them no legitimacy.
And why engage in forum pissing contests, others and not us will decide, and I suspect this will very soon hit the UN. And I also suspect Israel is going to lose badly there.
If nothing else, Israel may lose a very valuable ally in Turkey. And may cause the UN to forward the Goldstone report to the Hague for prosecution.
Only time will tell.
Question for you Lemon Law.
The SWAT teams breaks down your door, do you:
A. offer no resistance and comply with their orders
or
B. Charge at them with baseball bats screaming "you have no right to be here"
A. causes you a little inconvenience while B gets you killed.
Which would you choose?
But it appears in this case the Israeli troops had the equivalent of a warrant and international law justifying the boarding and search so your analogy sucks.Well, what if this SWAT team were operating outside of their legal jurisdiction (equivalent to international waters) and w/o a warrant from a judge.
Say they were doing so because they suspected you had drugs but a just completed and legally sanctioned search of your house (equivalent to the customs checks) specifically said otherwise.
you copied sub-section 47.
here the NEXT sub-section:
You're missing half of sub-section 103.
But it appears in this case the Israeli troops had the equivalent of a warrant and international law justifying the boarding and search so your analogy sucks.
But what were they doing on the ship in the first place in international waters?
if the swat team knocks on your door and you open fire on them, whether or not their initial knocking was legal is going to be a far distant concern.
as a neighbor, I have a hard time condemning a soldier for responding to gunfire with gunfire.As a neighbor, how would you feel about it?
What would you envision the resulting publicity to be like?
Would you think it would be a victory for those police, or not?
These are some highly relevant strategic questions when you consider, on balance, the wisdom of this particular Israeli move.
as a neighbor, I have a hard time condemning a soldier for responding to gunfire with gunfire.
BAHAHAHAHA
Woke up this morning and the headlines were exactly what I expected, and exactly what the Gaza activists wanted.
Mission accomplished. Thanks Israel!
the ship announced their intent to break the blockade. Israel offered to bring the supplies to Gaza themselves and the activists refused.Only Israel would claim that in attacking another ship, THEY are the victims. I guess when you get used to killing children, the thought of someone fighting back is a surprise.
Only Israel would claim that in attacking another ship, THEY are the victims. I guess when you get used to killing children, the thought of someone fighting back is a surprise.
Only Israel would claim that in attacking another ship, THEY are the victims. I guess when you get used to killing children, the thought of someone fighting back is a surprise.
You should watch:You should watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo