Turks Shot Multiple Times On Gaza Aid Ship: Forensics

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

ANKARA — All but two of the nine Turks killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot more than once, and five died from bullet wounds to the head, according to forensic reports.

The documents, penned this month, were made available to AFP Tuesday by lawyers for the victims' families, who have petitioned Turkish prosecutors to investigate the May 31 bloodshed on the Turkish Mavi Marmara ferry.

"The findings make it clear the Israeli forces shot to kill the activists and not to overpower them," one of the lawyers, Yasin Divrak, told AFP.

The youngest victim, 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, a dual Turkish-US national, was shot five times, including twice in the head, the report said.

A bullet that pierced his face was fired from close range, it said, adding he was hit also in the back of the head.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0629/turks-shot-multiple-times-gaza-aid-ship-forensics/

[uppityperson]

1. k&r

[peacetalksforall]

2. How many does there have to be to be able to say 'massacurists'?

It was a raid with threats, torture, death, theft, and lies. Pure piracy.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Interesting is the difference between how Turkey and the U.S. respond to the...

...same killings of their own citizens. The Turkish PM also commented on the lack of outrage from the U.S. on the matter but, really, with our troops dying left and right in Iraq and Afghanistan for absolutely useless, expensive wars, why should he expect us to show any more of a response over this citizen's murder?

It's funny but if you think about it, Turkey and Israel both respond about as strongly to the killings of their own citizens abroad, much more so than the United States does, now.

PB

[Braulio]

4. Turkey hasn't really responded

Turkey hasn't really responded to the Israelis. However, I'd say this increases the possibility that sanctions can be imposed on the Israelis. It's evident the US will try to protect the Israelis, and our media is fairly well muzzled, which means public opinion slants towards Israel no matter how murderous its behavior, but Israel seems to be digging itself into a well deserved status as a pariah state.

[Poll_Blind]

6. The Turkish government has several outstanding demands which have not been...

...addressed by Israel and which the Turkish government continues to penalize Israel for not complying with:

:bluebox: Israel to apologize for the deaths and injuries
:bluebox: Israel to compensate the victims' families
:bluebox: Israel to agree to an international inquiry
:bluebox: Israel to release three Turkish vessels seized in the operation
:bluebox: Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza

Every one of those requests have been flatly denied by Israel, with the possible exception of returning the hijacked Turkish vessels.

Given the timing of the attack on Turkish citizens, which coincidentally coincided with a PKK terror attack on Turkish troops, and Israel's attempt to inculcate the Turkish dead, etc., the Turkish people will not soon let this drop from their radar and so further punishments will continue, insofar as Turkey is able to mete them.

PB

[gerenimox]

16. It all depends on who kills whom

if it was America who killed those nine Turks, the Turkish PM couldn`t even say a word about it.

[SunnySong]

5. according to an Israeli video I saw that Turk actually swallowed those bullets nts. nt

[fascisthunter]

8. really? Have a link?

[SunnySong]

9. Yeah I was being a smidgen sarcastic above.... nt

[fascisthunter]

10. got me

[The Stranger]

7. Five shots into someone without a firearm is murder.

[Kurska]

12. Do you have any idea how a assault rifle works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0mNJwRbS_o&feature=player_embedded

Thats how fast a assault rifle is emptied, holding the trigger for 2 seconds is murder?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

34. So the assualt rifles were REAL then?

hasn't there been a claim for a while now that the assault rifles was of the 'paintball' variety and the only real weapon they had was the sidearm?

[The Stranger]

42. I suppose you could try that as an affirmative defense.

But there is no time limit on how long it takes to commit murder.

It's still murder.

[Pavulon]

15. Lesson One, dont bring pipes and knives to a gunfight

second about 30 seconds into the video you have seen with the guys zip lining on board and being smashed with pipes is when the USCG would have opened fire with a door gun or deck mounted 50cal.

They wanted a fight, they provoked it, they died. Unlike the other ships, where no incident occurred.

[Braulio]

19. I guess they could have carried flamethrowers

Cooked the Israelis as they came aboard. Does that suit you better?

[Pavulon]

22. Don't pick a fight then bitch when you get beaten

its annoying an obvious to most people. Well most people who think beyond the 8th grade level.

[On the Road]

26. That is True

The only sane strategy for the ships would have been to offer absolutely no resistance if they were boarded by the Israelis.

Having said that, if I go to the South Bronx at night, start mouthing off to the locals, get knifed and die, the guy who did it is still a murderer.

[Pavulon]

36. Not if you hit him with a metal pipe first

then it is justifiable homicide. If he was just to smash your head with a pipe and you were unarmed, then it would be murder. However it is a stupid strategy, in both the raid and the bronx.

[On the Road]

40. OK, But to Abandon the Analogy,

a heavily armed group of Israelis boarded the boat. The crew had every right defend themselves. It was just not a wise strategy IMO.

[provis99]

31. the Israelis first shot from the helicopters on unarmed people.

The Israelis started the killing, not the victims. But you don't let the facts get in your way, do you?

[Pavulon]

38. The victims who planned the raid on tape,

who acted violently on tape, and who were then shot with pistols, a last resort weapon. Yep tape shows all that.

Do you have tape to show your position? Remember the other boats who did not attack them with pipes and knives? Yea, they were all just fine.

You are the victim of a public relations stunt.

[Kurska]

11. That is normally what a fully automatic assault rifle does, yes.

What a nonstory, if you get shot with a assault rifle at close range, of course you are going to get hit multiple times.

[Taverner]

13. Waiting for this to go to the dungeon...

And where are the Likud apologists now?

[Kurska]

14. I'm curious how getting hit numerous times by a weapon designed to fire 30 shots in 3 seconds

proves anything about the intentions of the person firing the weapon. Is it that if they wanted to avoid a confrontation they would have used the single round setting?

[bahrbearian]

17. Boarding a ship in International waters = piracy.

[Kurska]

18. Addresses this article how or what I said how?

Thanks for the canned response, for a second I was flirting with the idea you might have a unique mental thought.

[bahrbearian]

21. Boy are you dense or what?

They boarded a ship in international waters, armed with assualt rifles. Duh! = Piracy

[Pavulon]

23. Nyet. They are running a blockade, which while unpopular

is quite legal. So they can be boarded. Those are the laws that apply. Emotional arguments are not so relevant.

[bahrbearian]

27. If they bordered them on territorial waters not International waterer's =piracy

International waters + armed aggression = piracy. Piracy is not legal in any court. expect maybe your dense mind.
You guys put on the best dog and pony show, its too funny.

[Pavulon]

35. Opinion and fact are confusing

your opinion is notes. However the fact stands that they can enforce a blockade legally.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Technically it wasn't piracy since it was a state action

Also since it was a declared blockade runner, the boarding was legal under the CLOS.

May not make it right, but there is decent legal coverage for the actions.

[bahrbearian]

28. Legal in who's court, if they boarded in territory waters maybe

it was armed aggression against un-armed men.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Read up on it...surprised me too

[bahrbearian]

30. No, I asked in who's court , You tell me . Are you going to take me back to Civil War Law

Are you going to take me back to Civil War Law? That is 150 years old, lets get back to reality. Who santioned it?

[melm00se]

37. OK, let's look at the actual law/treaty so there

can be more than just school yard finger pointing.

The law covering this is codified in San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, specifically in Part IV: METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA, section #2 (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument):

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

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:

(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.

104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.

Zones

105. A belligerent cannot be absolved of its duties under international humanitarian law by establishing zones which might adversely affect the legitimate uses of defined areas of the sea.

106. Should a belligerent, as an exceptional measure, establish such a zone:

(a) the same body of law applies both inside and outside the zone;
(b) the extent, location and duration of the zone and the measures imposed shall not exceed what is strictly required by military necessity and the principles of proportionality;
(c) due regard shall be given to the rights of neutral States to legitimate uses of the seas;
(d) necessary safe passage through the zone for neutral vessels and aircraft shall be provided:
(i) where the geographical extent of the zone significantly impedes free and safe access to the ports and coasts of a neutral State;
(ii) in other cases where normal navigation routes are affected, except where military requirements do not permit; and
(e) the commencement, duration, location and extent of the zone, as well as the restrictions imposed, shall be publicly declared and appropriately notified.

107. Compliance with the measures taken by one belligerent in the zone shall not be construed as an act harmful to the opposing belligerent.

108. Nothing in this Section should be deemed to derogate from the customary belligerent right to control neutral vessels and aircraft in the immediate vicinity of naval operations.

====================================================================================

Now the questions are which of the above were and/or were not met by both sides.

have at it

(edited to add a link)

[provis99]

32. it is not legal, since Israel is not at war.

You have your facts confused.

[The abyss]

20. Purveyor thanks for this latest story!

Recommend!

[Rex]

24. Did anyone really expect that Israeli forces would shoot to stun?

No way, they were going to kill those activists even before they stepped foot onboard. That is like expecting an America soldier to shoot someone in Iraq in the leg! Center mass is center mass, afterall.

[Fumesucker]

33. Last time I checked, the head was not at the center of mass of a human being.. n/t

[Pavulon]

39. That is where the third shot goes

sidearms are not even issued to most infantry. At least they weren't in the Army 10 years ago. But the standard failure to stop drill is two shots center mass then a shot to the head if a person is still smashing you with a pipe or stabbing you.

[hayu_lol]

41. In no place so far...

I have not seen exactly where these people were killed...or been told where.

If the fight that broke out on the bridge is the prime location, then the individuals were out of bounds. Control of the ship can only be done on the bridge. Only the crew is supposed to be there. If shooting happened on the bridge, there was obviously fighting going on that should not have taken place.

You can moan, groan, and whine all you want about the dead, but if on the bridge--they were clearly in the wrong.

Illegal boarding? Not according to the San Remo Manual under the conditions it was done. You can hoot and holler, but the IDF was correct in stopping a proclaimed Blockade Runner in International waters. The burden is on the people attempting to stop the LEGAL boarding.

Had HAMAS done the boarding, there might have been as many as 300 dead and injured. The troops of the IDF did practice restraint as shown by the low number of casualties. They were disciplined troops and followed their legal orders.

You can continue to bend the facts to suit your personal fantasies, but the facts remain.

[Tripmann]

43. @pauvalon, would the shot go into the back of the head "if the person was still smashing you"?

Seems a bit unlikely, unless you are contesting the person was trying to push the soldier overboard with his arse.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

44. Isn't it obvious, those shot in the back of the head was trying to gass the soldiers *sarcasm*