Options

UN Report on Gaza Flottila is out.

12346»

Posts

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    the fact that israel jumped the gun and attacked the flotilla even before it entered israel's waters seems like clear evidence of preemptive hostility.

    I'll grant you its preemptive status, but your wording would seem to imply the hostility wasn't instigated until Israel arrived.

    You don't have to be caught red-handed to be considered doing something wrong. That's not how moral hazard works.
    Boarding a ship without permission is a hostile act by fucking definition. It doesn't matter whether the boardees surrender or not.

    That's not at all to what I was referring.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I apologise. I completely misread your post.

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I apologise. I completely misread your post.

    No biggie.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    TeeSamTeeSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I apologise. I completely misread your post.

    No biggie.

    So I'm going to talk to my friends tomorrow and tell them I was reading a debate on the public internet about an action undertaken by Israel. They'll mostly nod, although someone may ask, "Why?" Then I'll say, "I learned new facts, saw some people shift slightly from their original positions, was swayed by some well-reasoned arguments myself, no one was grossly insulted, and someone apologized for a minor misunderstanding." and they'll laugh me out of the room.

    TeeSam on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    TeeSam wrote: »
    I apologise. I completely misread your post.

    No biggie.

    So I'm going to talk to my friends tomorrow and tell them I was reading a debate on the public internet about an action undertaken by Israel. They'll mostly nod, although someone may ask, "Why?" Then I'll say, "I learned new facts, saw some people shift slightly from their original positions, was swayed by some well-reasoned arguments myself, no one was grossly insulted, and someone apologized for a minor misunderstanding." and they'll laugh me out of the room.

    Yeah, they'll be all, "And then what happened? Did a unicorn steal a leprechaun's gold?"

    Atomika on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In response to the "action taken before entering Israeli waters" point, I seem to remember reading something saying that a legitimate blockade could be enforced in such a way.

    Hypothetically, a ship carrying guns toward a legitimate blockade could be intercepted as it has shown intent to break the law.

    Of course, I don't view the Israeli blockade as anything but aggravating a humanitarian crises caused by Israel's behavior as a dangerous rogue state, and the actions of the Israeli forces were nothing short of barbaric.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In response to the "action taken before entering Israeli waters" point, I seem to remember reading something saying that a legitimate blockade could be enforced in such a way.

    Hypothetically, a ship carrying guns toward a legitimate blockade could be intercepted as it has shown intent to break the law.

    Of course, I don't view the Israeli blockade as anything but aggravating a humanitarian crises caused by Israel's behavior as a dangerous rogue state, and the actions of the Israeli forces were nothing short of barbaric.

    I just hate for an argument with this much potential import to be parsed down into a GPS dispute.

    It seems like basing one's position solely on whether or not the raid occurred inside Israeli waters or not is a little outside the pertinent issue.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    ChopperDaveChopperDave Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In response to the "action taken before entering Israeli waters" point, I seem to remember reading something saying that a legitimate blockade could be enforced in such a way.

    Hypothetically, a ship carrying guns toward a legitimate blockade could be intercepted as it has shown intent to break the law.

    Of course, I don't view the Israeli blockade as anything but aggravating a humanitarian crises caused by Israel's behavior as a dangerous rogue state, and the actions of the Israeli forces were nothing short of barbaric.

    I just hate for an argument with this much potential import to be parsed down into a GPS dispute.

    It seems like basing one's position solely on whether or not the raid occurred inside Israeli waters or not is a little outside the pertinent issue.

    Again, it's not. As Ketherial rightly argued, civil law differentiates between the act of shooting someone who is in your house threatening you vs. shooting someone who is on your lawn about to threaten you vs shooting someone on the sidewalk shouting about illegal things he plans to do later that night. The first is justified self-defense, the latter two are murder. Hell, if a burglar enters your house unarmed and begins stealing your shit without ever presenting a significant threat to you, if you shoot him that'll be murder too.

    If location can qualify a case in civil law, why shouldn't it in international naval law?

    Granted, it's not the worst or most important part of this particular incident, but it's important information and clearly demonstrates Israel's preemptive intent.

    As for the "legal experts" who argue that it's okay for blockaders to raid a ship on international waters if they suspect that it is carrying contraband to a blockaded territory, I suspect they are in the minority of the legal community. Or I hope they are, anyway. That sounds to me like the same kind of reasoning that justifies preemptive doctrine and torture -- "well I think they might present a threat, and even though I have no evidence to back my position up let's act on my suspicions..."

    ChopperDave on
    3DS code: 3007-8077-4055
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In response to the "action taken before entering Israeli waters" point, I seem to remember reading something saying that a legitimate blockade could be enforced in such a way.

    Hypothetically, a ship carrying guns toward a legitimate blockade could be intercepted as it has shown intent to break the law.

    Of course, I don't view the Israeli blockade as anything but aggravating a humanitarian crises caused by Israel's behavior as a dangerous rogue state, and the actions of the Israeli forces were nothing short of barbaric.

    I just hate for an argument with this much potential import to be parsed down into a GPS dispute.

    It seems like basing one's position solely on whether or not the raid occurred inside Israeli waters or not is a little outside the pertinent issue.

    Again, it's not. As Ketherial rightly argued, civil law differentiates between the act of shooting someone who is in your house threatening you vs. shooting someone who is on your lawn about to threaten you vs shooting someone on the sidewalk shouting about illegal things he plans to do later that night. The first is justified self-defense, the latter two are murder. Hell, if a burglar enters your house unarmed and begins stealing your shit without ever presenting a significant threat to you, if you shoot him that'll be murder too.

    If location can qualify a case in civil law, why shouldn't it in international naval law?

    Granted, it's not the worst or most important part of this particular incident, but it's important information and clearly demonstrates Israel's preemptive intent.

    As for the "legal experts" who argue that it's okay for blockaders to raid a ship on international waters if they suspect that it is carrying contraband to a blockaded territory, I suspect they are in the minority of the legal community. Or I hope they are, anyway. That sounds to me like the same kind of reasoning that justifies preemptive doctrine and torture -- "well I think they might present a threat, and even though I have no evidence to back my position up let's act on my suspicions..."

    Of course, I'm here in Texas, where shooting someone who isn't threatening you and isn't on your property isn't actually illegal, so there you go.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Its common knowledge everyone just uses the same textbooks they print in Texas anyway.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    As for the "legal experts" who argue that it's okay for blockaders to raid a ship on international waters if they suspect that it is carrying contraband to a blockaded territory, I suspect they are in the minority of the legal community. Or I hope they are, anyway. That sounds to me like the same kind of reasoning that justifies preemptive doctrine and torture -- "well I think they might present a threat, and even though I have no evidence to back my position up let's act on my suspicions..."

    There is well accepted guidelines that allow for the interception and boarding of a ship when there is reasonable belief that it will not be diverted from breaking the blockade. Caveat of course is that the blockade itself is considered legal, ships were warned, etc.

    Good summaries of the law are here and here. Some good primary sources would be the U.S. Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations and the San Remo rules.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    In response to the "action taken before entering Israeli waters" point, I seem to remember reading something saying that a legitimate blockade could be enforced in such a way.

    Hypothetically, a ship carrying guns toward a legitimate blockade could be intercepted as it has shown intent to break the law.

    Of course, I don't view the Israeli blockade as anything but aggravating a humanitarian crises caused by Israel's behavior as a dangerous rogue state, and the actions of the Israeli forces were nothing short of barbaric.

    I just hate for an argument with this much potential import to be parsed down into a GPS dispute.

    It seems like basing one's position solely on whether or not the raid occurred inside Israeli waters or not is a little outside the pertinent issue.

    Again, it's not. As Ketherial rightly argued, civil law differentiates between the act of shooting someone who is in your house threatening you vs. shooting someone who is on your lawn about to threaten you vs shooting someone on the sidewalk shouting about illegal things he plans to do later that night. The first is justified self-defense, the latter two are murder. Hell, if a burglar enters your house unarmed and begins stealing your shit without ever presenting a significant threat to you, if you shoot him that'll be murder too.

    If location can qualify a case in civil law, why shouldn't it in international naval law?

    Granted, it's not the worst or most important part of this particular incident, but it's important information and clearly demonstrates Israel's preemptive intent.

    As for the "legal experts" who argue that it's okay for blockaders to raid a ship on international waters if they suspect that it is carrying contraband to a blockaded territory, I suspect they are in the minority of the legal community. Or I hope they are, anyway. That sounds to me like the same kind of reasoning that justifies preemptive doctrine and torture -- "well I think they might present a threat, and even though I have no evidence to back my position up let's act on my suspicions..."

    Of course, I'm here in Texas, where shooting someone who isn't threatening you and isn't on your property isn't actually illegal, so there you go.

    Even if they are a child and are fleeing.

    Molesting a child in texas: Life in prison
    Shooting a child in the face and/or bludgeoning them to death with a crowbar while they beg for mercy: Not illegal

    override367 on
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Of course, I'm here in Texas, where shooting someone who isn't threatening you and isn't on your property isn't actually illegal, so there you go.

    Even if they are a child and are fleeing.

    Molesting a child in texas: Life in prison
    Shooting a child in the face and/or bludgeoning them to death with a crowbar while they beg for mercy: Not illegal

    Wait, wait - seriously?!? I know Texas is a 'castle' state, but under what circumstances can you actually beat someone to death, outside of the (impossibly rare) instance of self defense or home invasion, and not have any legal consequences?

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    TeeSamTeeSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Of course, I'm here in Texas, where shooting someone who isn't threatening you and isn't on your property isn't actually illegal, so there you go.

    Even if they are a child and are fleeing.

    Molesting a child in texas: Life in prison
    Shooting a child in the face and/or bludgeoning them to death with a crowbar while they beg for mercy: Not illegal

    Wait, wait - seriously?!? I know Texas is a 'castle' state, but under what circumstances can you actually beat someone to death, outside of the (impossibly rare) instance of self defense or home invasion, and not have any legal consequences?

    If they attempted to steal something of yours, or looked at your wife funny. It's still illegal, it's just that a jury won't convict you.

    Oregon's kinda the same way, but it's a bit more of a crapshoot. A guy shot a 17-year old kid in the back who ran away after being told to halt by the owner of the car he had broken into. Kid died, guy walked.

    TeeSam on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    TeeSam wrote: »
    it's just that a jury won't convict you.

    Basically this. The Joe Horn case wasn't so much an instance of a guy defending his neighbor's property as it was a jury not caring that two drug-running illegal immigrants got mowed down while committing a crime.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Wasn't there one where it was a kid who was stealing candy?

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Wasn't there one where it was a kid who was stealing candy?

    That was in Philadelphia, I believe. The kid had robbed a corner store, and when the cops drew down on them, he reached into his pocket and pulled out something metal.

    After gunning him down, they realized it was the metal foil on some cake he had stolen.

    Atomika on
Sign In or Register to comment.