^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with>

Cut and paste, yes, to prevent inaccuracy, and thank you.

To an ante of coin based in fact you raise in fiat of opinion. I addressed
opinion already. Don't like facts? How about polls? Opinions were all you laid down.
.
As such, and from the website of the International Committee of the Red
Cross at:

<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument>

<Forum of adoption International lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno (Italy)>

<The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.>

Good enough for the Red Cross.

Israel had and has an extant blockade...Simply, there was no attack. Termed
a Visit within the language of the manual and is evidently reflective of Maritime
Law. Israel was within their proper bounds per the above.

All the harangue amounts to posturing. Mission(s) accomplished. This, by the
way, is the only opinion I have offered.

You're missing the point there. They boarded at international waters, that is a crime

This statement is factually incorrect. The blockading of a group involved in an armed conflict is legal. Hamas (controlling Gaza) and Isreal are in a state of armed conflict. Maritime law allows the boarding, siezing, and ATTACKING of ships in international waters - even those flying neutral flags - when there is reasonable cause to believe their intent is to violate a blockade. Greta Berlin (flotilla spokesperson) openly stated the purpose was not to deliver relief, but to make a polical statement. The flotilla refused repeated offers to unload the goods in Ashdod. The vessel captains ignored repeated warnings and orders to divert courses - which were all full steam ahead to violate the blockade. There were videos previous to the ships leaving port of groups of known militant activists shouting death threats about Isreal. The passenger manifests were filled with persons with known histories of anti-Isreal activity, Hamas ties, and other terrorist affiliations.

The picture some people are trying to paint of the flotilla being an innocent bunch of peaceful college professers and celebrities on their was to deliver food is a blatant lie. There were probably some of that kind of useful idiot along for the ride, but the overt stated purpose of the entire flotilla by its sponsors and leaders was to illegally violate the blockade to Hamas and provoke a confrontation with the intent of obtaining sympathetic media coverage. End of story.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]

With all due respect, there are alot of feelings and opinions being expressed here. I sought facts and found this that may be read in its entirety at

<http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/05/31/was-israels-boarding-of-the-gaza-flotilla-a-violation-of-international-law/>

I like facts, especially when legality is at issue.

<According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

Here’s the bottom Line:

* A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. 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.

* Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

* A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

* The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

* In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

* Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

* Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

* A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

* Note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

* Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

* Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

* Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the “protesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.>

Being from the maritime provinces I have become in all honestly both annoyed and embarrassed from the seal hunt. I'm annoyed that the fisheries ministers from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have associated their policies vastly erroneously with those on the northern territories.
#1.The vast amount of people who hunt seals in the maritime provinces are not native people; it's not a native economic issue. (it's a false correlation).
#2.Three Department of fisheries studies in a row proved that seals are a minute factor in th depletion of fish stocks and killing them as an excuse is irrelevant as they are an adaptable mid-level predator.
#3.Within our own models from the department of fisheries we're killing off our top predators faster than we can replace them....and we've increased sea farming as a response. No correlation to science.

So in conclusion the fisheries policies of the maritime provinces are based on myths, propagating thru short term jobs and mascaraeding as science.

No all I know of our friends to the North is Montréal. I'm looking forward to seeing the country off the port side for a couple of weeks. I'm fascinated by the further reaches of the continents. Probably picked some of that fascination up from you.

In reply to this comment by JesseoftheNorth:
I'm battling a nasty cold at the moment, but otherwise I'm doing great. I head back to the great white north in April which is fast approaching! I'm definitely going to miss Denmark, but I know I'll be back eventually. I'm already bracing myself for the inevitable culture shock I'm going to go through when I return.

Nova Scotia, huh? Sounds like it'll be a great trip. You been before? The maritimes are beautiful in the summer. I went to Lunenburg a few years back and had a fantastic time. Halifax is a great city too - had lots of fun there.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Good, good! And yourself? When are you coming back to North America, Jesse? I'm sailing from Connecticut up to Nova Scotia in June, I can't wait.

In reply to this comment by JesseoftheNorth:
Glad to hear it. It is a cinematic gem. How ya been, Schmawy, my man?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
101 Reykjavik, great flick. Watched it last night.

I'm battling a nasty cold at the moment, but otherwise I'm doing great. I head back to the great white north in April which is fast approaching! I'm definitely going to miss Denmark, but I know I'll be back eventually. I'm already bracing myself for the inevitable culture shock I'm going to go through when I return.

Nova Scotia, huh? Sounds like it'll be a great trip. You been before? The maritimes are beautiful in the summer. I went to Lunenburg a few years back and had a fantastic time. Halifax is a great city too - had lots of fun there.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Good, good! And yourself? When are you coming back to North America, Jesse? I'm sailing from Connecticut up to Nova Scotia in June, I can't wait.

In reply to this comment by JesseoftheNorth:
Glad to hear it. It is a cinematic gem. How ya been, Schmawy, my man?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
101 Reykjavik, great flick. Watched it last night.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'happy catchy power pop from canadas maritimes' to 'happy, catchy, power pop, from, canadas, maritimes' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

This is an important statement coming from somebody who might actually move the decriminalization movement forward (the Vice Chair of the US House Committee on Homeland Security and Chair of the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism).

However, let's not put words in her mouth.

She hems and haws quite a bit in order to not give a good soundbite that can be used against her when the inevitable ignorant backlash occurs. The closest she comes is: "Maybe it would be a good pilot program to see how that regulation of marijuana might happen in California, since the populace, the majority of Californians believe maybe that should happen."

I know I'm being a bit anal, I just think quotes should be used only when you are actually quoting. Unless you are being "ironic".

I wonder if the side launches is some ancient maritime ritual to prove it's properly buoyant from the start. Kind of like testing a jumbo jet for the first time by pushing it off a cliff.

Yeah, and with the Russians who drove their tank across the narrow maritime border that separates Palin's front porch from the Kremlin.

It turns out that John McCaine has a small maritime border with space. Which in the end, has got to be all about job creation.

The video starts off with local Japanese protesting our presence in their city - Odd because we went to a Japanese ISDF base. Then it's to a news cast of our gear being unloaded from Maritime readiness ships (Which are what allows Marines to wage a war/deploy to an area anywhere in the world in 24 hours). From there, it's our guns section setting up shop with laying the gun, and Cpl. Mehall using the PanTel to sight in. The Marine you see moving the ammo around hunched over is Cpl Granados, who is setting up the ammo pit and fusing rounds with Point Detonating rounds. From there it's just a random fire mission, and then the female you see was a combat photographer who was there that we let fire the gun.
After that was more fire missions, then Japanese Press.
And of course, when Marines get bored, we goof around. You see one Marine firing his homemade bow and arrow made with 550 cord and a stick. (Probably Mehall)

Sgt Day and Mehall butt heads for a minute, and then Day treats Mehall like a bitch.

Gotta love Marines, eh?