Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

[mises]

[Big_Bird]

[Big_Bird]

I've just been reading some of the (66 page long) UN report on the flotilla incident. Paragraph 170 was of particular interest. I have to wonder whether they were acting under orders, and if so, what was the rationale? Or did these lads just 'feel like it...'

Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance*

168. In such circumstances the use of less extreme means, such as available less-lethal weaponry, would have been sufficient to achieve the required objective as required byPrinciple 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. 79 A well-trained force such as the Israeli Defense Force should have been able to successfully contain a relatively small group of passengers armed with sticks and knives and secure control of the ship without the loss of life or serious injury to either passengers or soldiers.

169. A large number of injured passengers received wounds to critical areas of the body containing vital organs � the abdomen, thorax and head. Furthermore, a number of passengers who were clearly not engaged in any activities to resist the boarding by the Israeli forces, including a number of journalists and persons who had been sheltering from the fire, received injuries, including fatal injuries. It is apparent that no effort was made to minimize injuries at certain stages of the operation and that the use of live fire was done in an extensive and arbitrary manner. It is difficult not to conclude that, once the order to use live fire had been given, no one was safe. Under the circumstances, it seems a matter of pure chance that there were not more fatalities as a result. Principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials stipulates that �whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall: (a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved; and (b) Minimize damage and injury and respect and preserve human life�.

170. The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution. Furkan Doğan and İbrahim Bilgen were shot at near range while the victims were lying injured on the top deck. Cevdet Kili�lar, Cengiz Aky�z, Cengiz Song�r and �etin Top�uoğlu were shot on the bridge deck while not participating in activities that represented a threat to any Israeli soldier. In these instances and possibly other killings on the Mavi Marmara, Israeli forces carried out extralegal,arbitrary and summary executions prohibited by international human rights law,specifically article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.80

171. It is apparent that a number of the passengers on the top deck were subjected to further mistreatment while lying injured. This included physical and verbal abuse some time after the operation to secure control of the deck had concluded. Furthermore, these passengers were not provided with medical treatment for two to three hours after the cessation of the operation. Similarly injured passengers who were inside the ship at the end of the operation of the Israeli forces were denied proper medical treatment for a similar length of time despite frequent efforts by other persons on board, including flotilla organizers, requesting such assistance to be provided. Other passengers suffering from chronic medical conditions were also denied access to their required essential medicines. The Israeli forces failed to meet the requirement to provide proper medical treatment to all those injured as rapidly as possible.

81 Furthermore, the use of firearms should have been preceded by clear warnings of the intent to do so.

82 While the circumstances of the initial stages on the top deck may not have been conducive to the issuance of such warnings, later stages in the Israeli operation to secure control of the ship certainly were possible and necessary.

172. The Mission is satisfied that much of the force used by the Israeli soldiers on board the Mavi Marmara and from the helicopters was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers. On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence, at least six of the killings can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions. As such, the conduct of the Israeli forces amounted to violations of the right to life and of the right to physical integrity, as stipulated in articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

173. The Mission is also concerned with the nature of the force used by the Israeli forces in the interception of the three further vessels in the flotilla:

Challenger 1, Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios. One each of the vessels some of the passengers merely used passive resistance techniques � placing their bodies in the paths of the Israeli soldiers � as a symbolic gesture in opposition to the respective boarding. However, in securing control of these vessels the Israeli forces used significant force, including stun grenades, electroshock weapons, soft-baton charges fired at close range, paintballs, plastic bullets and physical force. This resulted in a number of injuries to passengers including burns, bruises, hematomas and fractures. One passenger who was not participating in passive resistance activities, a photo-journalist, received burns from an electroshock weapon. The Mission has found that the force used by the Israeli soldiers in intercepting the Challenger 1, the Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate, and amounted to violations of the right to physical integrity, as stipulated in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

(b) Right to liberty and security of person and treatment of detainees, including torture and other cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

174. Article 9, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. Since the Mission considers the Israeli interception of the flotilla was unlawful, the detention of passengers on board each of the vessels was also prima facie unlawful.

175. The deprivation of the liberty of the passengers further meets the criteria for being arbitrary in nature in accordance with the definitions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Deprivation of liberty is considered category I arbitrary detention: �When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty.�

176. The mass detention of more than 700 passengers and crew on board the six vessels had no basis in law, was arbitrary in nature and is a violation of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


177. Furthermore, no one on board the flotilla was informed of any reason for their detention. Article 9, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons While detained on board the vessels of the flotilla, a period which lasted up to 12 hours, all passengers should have been informed of why they were being subject to detention and the natures of the specific charges being brought against them. This was not done and in some instances passenger requests for such information were met with verbal abuse or physical violence. As such, the concerned Israeli forces violated article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

178. During the period of detention on board the

Mavi Marmara the passengers were subjected to treatment that was cruel and inhuman in nature and which did not respect the inherent dignity of persons who have been deprived of their liberty. This included a large number of persons being forced to kneel on the outer decks in harsh conditions for many hours, the physical mistreatment and verbal abuse inflicted on many of those detained, the widespread unnecessarily tight handcuffing and the denial of access to basic human needs such as the use of toilet facilities and provision of food. In addition there was a prevailing climate of fear of violence that had a dehumanizing effect on all those detained on board.

On other vessels in the flotilla there were additional instances of persons being subjected to similar severe pain and suffering, including a person being seriously physically abused for refusing to provide his passport without a receipt. Principle 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states: �All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person�. In addition, Principle 6 states: �No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment�.

179. The Mission is particularly concerned with the widespread use of tight handcuffing of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara in particular and to an extent of passengers on board the Challenger 1, Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios. Numerous passengers described the pain and suffering caused by being shackled by plastic handcuffs (also known as ��plasticuffs�) in an overly tight manner, frequently behind their backs, causing further suffering. Many were experiencing neurological damage up to three months after the events of the flotilla. As has been highlighted, the manner in which handcuffs were used on passengers on board the flotilla is consistent with the systematic use of handcuffs by the Israeli forces in a manner that causes pain and injury.83 The Mission is satisfied that the manner in which the handcuffs were used was clearly unnecessary and deliberately used to cause pain and suffering to passengers.

180. Torture is prohibited under the non-derogable article 7 of the ICCPR. Furthermore, article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention emphasizes the absolute prohibition of torture:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Insofar as these abuses amounted to the deliberate punishment of the passengers, or were an attempt to intimidate or coerce one or more of the passengers for participation in the flotilla and/or activities to prevent the interception of the flotilla, the treatment tended towards torture.

181. The Mission thus determines that the treatment of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara and in certain instances on board the Challenger 1, Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios, by the Israeli forces amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and, insofar as the treatment was additionally applied as a form of punishment, torture. This represents a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

(c) Possible violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international humanitarian law

182. In addition to the international human rights violations set out above, the Mission considers that the same factual circumstances provide prima facie evidence that protected persons suffered violations of international humanitarian law committed by Israeli forces during the interception, including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[mises]

[Fox]

[El Exigente]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Fox]

[caniff]

Al Jazeera reports:

[shinramyun]

I applaud the jews for actually having guts to do something like that.

[caniff]

Yes, it was a very intelligent and brave. Also productive (if you are trying to hasten the Second Coming of Christ or something along those lines).

[TheUrbanMyth]

Gotta love how they say "Meanwhile the Israeli enemy reportedly condemned the arson attack.." (italics are mine)

Most reputable newspapers would say "authorities" or "government" or something along those lines.

And this despite quoting 2 authorities who state clearly that this attack would be investigated and who condemned it.