Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

Ok, simple question then - do you think that it was 'piracy' as defined by international law?

Piracy, in the strict sense, ( and discounting its modern use in the reproducion field) has to have robbery as a motive in any law I ever heard.

[William the White]

Wasn't rhetorical fancy in ten coffins in Turkey today... And it's not fancy that many people, including international lawyers, consider the actions of Israel illegal, as well as persistently cruel and morally repellant... They behaved like pirates in the essential features, the seizure by force of ships on the high seas and the killing of people on board those ships... But do continue the casuistry if you wish...

Ok, simple question then - do you think that it was 'piracy' as defined by international law?

In what sense is that a simple question? The link you posted from the Washington Post showed international legal experts disagreeing hugely, diametrically opposed, on the legality of Israel's actions. So even that's in dispute (is there very often a point of law that isn't? And, if there was, would many of you guys want to study, or try to make a living from, the blindingly obvious?) If the 'simple question' is what do I think, I've answered it above so no real need to repeat it. I will if you wish, of course. Tomorrow. Actually, i guess, later today...

If you want to get a sense of what the world is actually thinking you could try Israel Piracy in google... I did... It's true, to concede what you clearly consider to be the crucial point, not many of these articles are investigating the minutae of international law... World full of rhetoricians... Do you feel lonely

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Wasn't rhetorical fancy in ten coffins in Turkey today... And it's not fancy that many people, including international lawyers, consider the actions of Israel illegal, as well as persistently cruel and morally repellant... They behaved like pirates in the essential features, the seizure by force of ships on the high seas and the killing of people on board those ships... But do continue the casuistry if you wish...

Ok, simple question then - do you think that it was 'piracy' as defined by international law?

In what sense is that a simple question? The link you posted from the Washington Post showed international legal experts disagreeing hugely, diametrically opposed, on the legality of Israel's actions. So even that's in dispute (is there very often a point of law that isn't? And, if there was, would many of you guys want to study, or try to make a living from, the blindingly obvious?) If the 'simple question' is what do I think, I've answered it above so no real need to repeat it. I will if you wish, of course. Tomorrow. Actually, i guess, later today...

Right, there are some questions that are definitely not simple, and should not be treated as such.

The question of whether this was, in any meaningful sense, 'piracy', is simple, however. It's simple because there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday. Not sure how I can be more plain than that.

[Puskas]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

Is there a word that describes ‘pathetically naïve to the power of outer space’?

Yes.

The word is "theist".

[Gary the Enfield]

Why are Pirates called Pirates?

'cos they Arrrrrrrrghhh!

[Puskas]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

[Gary the Enfield]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

Not Ghaaaarrrrgghhhhhhna?

[Puskas]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

Not Ghaaaarrrrgghhhhhhna?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... li_pirates

[Gary the Enfield]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

Not Ghaaaarrrrgghhhhhhna?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... li_pirates

I new that. I was just trying to extend the joke. A-haaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh! Me hearties!

[Puskas]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

Not Ghaaaarrrrgghhhhhhna?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... li_pirates

I new that. I was just trying to extend the joke. A-haaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh! Me hearties!

Well don't.

Leave the being clever to me.

I want to bask in it.

[Worthy4England]

Where do pirates come from?

Somarrrrgggggghhhhhhlia.

Both piratical and topical.

Not Ghaaaarrrrgghhhhhhna?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sh ... li_pirates

I new that. I was just trying to extend the joke. A-haaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhhh! Me hearties!

Well don't.

Leave the being clever to me.

I want to bask in it.

Ok - when does it start?

[TANGODANCER]

Do iron "pyrites" capture ships to weigh in as scrap metal?

[TANGODANCER]

It's far too nice a day to be angry about anything.

[InsaneApache]

I get really angry about people not getting angry 'cos the sun is shining.

Oh and being grumpy is good for your health. I should do well then.

[thebish]

The question of whether this was, in any meaningful sense, 'piracy', is simple, however. It's simple because there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday. Not sure how I can be more plain than that.

really? can I supply you with some then?

Piracy:

Hijacking on the high seas or in similar contexts; taking a ship or plane away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it.

Pirate - commandeer: take arbitrarily or by force.

Piracy is defined by Roget's dictionary as 'robbery or illegal violence at sea'.


There are many, many more that say the same and add the condition that it is an act by a "private" (ie non-state) entity....

however - to deny the description "Piracy" to something that describes Pirate-like activity on the grounds that a strict legal definition might include a non-state condition - is mere sophistry. it is perfectly valid to describe someone (or some state) that acts like a pirate as a pirate.

(nor - contrary to your belief and Tango's - do ALL definitions of piracy include robbery. as you can see above - some allow merely for "illegal violence at sea")

I hope that is helpful.


Incidentally... the International Maritime Bureau defines Piracy as:

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.


(that seems to cover Israel's action quite comprehensively)

[William the White]

The question of whether this was, in any meaningful sense, 'piracy', is simple, however. It's simple because there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday. Not sure how I can be more plain than that.

really? can I supply you with some then?

Piracy:

Hijacking on the high seas or in similar contexts; taking a ship or plane away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it.

Pirate - commandeer: take arbitrarily or by force.

Piracy is defined by Roget's dictionary as 'robbery or illegal violence at sea'.


There are many, many more that say the same and add the condition that it is an act by a "private" (ie non-state) entity....

however - to deny the description "Piracy" to something that describes Pirate-like activity on the grounds that a strict legal definition might include a non-state condition - is mere sophistry. it is perfectly valid to describe someone (or some state) that acts like a pirate as a pirate.

(nor - contrary to your belief and Tango's - do ALL definitions of piracy include robbery. as you can see above - some allow merely for "illegal violence at sea")

I hope that is helpful.


Incidentally... the International Maritime Bureau defines Piracy as:

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.


(that seems to cover Israel's action quite comprehensively)

QED, i think, the bish...

[bobo the clown]

I'm getting angry about this thread being hijacked by things which should be on the politics thread !

QED

[Montreal Wanderer]

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

Yes. It can be argued there was a breach of international law and conversely the act was justified. Therefore I cannot say it was 'clear' but I don't think I did.

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Yes, if we if we stick to definitions in maritime law conventions where piracy is generally defined as an act by a private rather than state party. I am uncertain about the enrichment part - will Israel let all the goods and vessels go, or will it retain some of the property? I didn't say it was piracy btw, merely that it sounded very much like it (lawyers aren't the only ones to weasel out of things). However, search and seizure on the high seas could be a crime in international law (as noted above), not to mention an act of war. The deaths naturally exacerbate the situation. in terms of law, I think much depends on whether Gaza is a sovereign state and whether a state of war exists between it and Israel. Most authorities consider Israel an occupying power of the Strip, though Israel unilaterally disengaged some five years ago. It is certainly questionable that Gaza is a sovereign state and therefore the well-being of the inhabitants remains an Israeli responsibility.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The question of whether this was, in any meaningful sense, 'piracy', is simple, however. It's simple because there is not a single legal, or even plain dictionary definition of the word that can be held up as fitting the events that occurred on Monday. Not sure how I can be more plain than that.

really? can I supply you with some then?

Piracy:

Hijacking on the high seas or in similar contexts; taking a ship or plane away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it.

Pirate - commandeer: take arbitrarily or by force.

Piracy is defined by Roget's dictionary as 'robbery or illegal violence at sea'.


There are many, many more that say the same and add the condition that it is an act by a "private" (ie non-state) entity....

however - to deny the description "Piracy" to something that describes Pirate-like activity on the grounds that a strict legal definition might include a non-state condition - is mere sophistry. it is perfectly valid to describe someone (or some state) that acts like a pirate as a pirate.

(nor - contrary to your belief and Tango's - do ALL definitions of piracy include robbery. as you can see above - some allow merely for "illegal violence at sea")

I hope that is helpful.


Incidentally... the International Maritime Bureau defines Piracy as:

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.


(that seems to cover Israel's action quite comprehensively)

Which dictionaries are those first two offerings from? Even the Roget's one you mention mentions 'robbery' first and 'illegal' violence second - if the soldiers are shown to have reacted to being attacked with disproportionate force, then I suppose I have to concede that the incident fits within the possible definition you have found of 'illegal violence at sea'. But then I suppose I could be accused of 'piracy' if I hopped onto somebody's dingy and gave them a slap, according to that definition?

To say that a state cannot commit 'piracy' in international law is not sophistry, it's just a bare statement of the legal position. (Underpinning that legal position is probably the idea that piracy has to involve some kind of attempt to make private gain.) Your definition from the IMB mentions an 'intent' to commit a crime - what crime is it you think those soldiers undertook that operation intending to commit?

But none of this sterile debate really matters - if you think 'piracy' is the appropriate word to describe a botched inspection by a state military force that got ugly, then who am I stop you - you, like Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice, can use words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

Yes. It can be argued there was a breach of international law and conversely the act was justified. Therefore I cannot say it was 'clear' but I don't think I did.

I didn't say you had made such rhetorical references (indeed I went out of my way to point out my view that you rarely get carried away and use over the top language!). No, I just mean those sort of references that are peppered all over the media. Anyway, it seems you agree.

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Yes, if we if we stick to definitions in maritime law conventions where piracy is generally defined as an act by a private rather than state party. I am uncertain about the enrichment part - will Israel let all the goods and vessels go, or will it retain some of the property?

I can only assume that the Israeli authorities will not hold onto any vessels or goods. If they did, and there is no suggestion from anywhere that they have, then I agree that the behaviour could then be considered 'pirate-like'.