Violating the UN mandate to protect civilians, pretext by which NATO has intervened in Libya, and also violating the Law of the Sea, which obliges all ships, including military ones, to help other vessels in need, NATO operatives deployed near Libya systematically ignored help calls from a stranded ship carrying migrants that had suffered a broken engine, allowing them to die one after another in an atrocious crime lasting 16 days.
Only 11 passengers survived.
The 72 passengers of the broken ship included children, women and political refugees. According to the testimonies of the few survivors, people died one after another, they left the bodies for 24 hrs. on deck before throwing them to the sea.
On March 29 or 30, they met a NATO aircraft carrier (most likely French ship Charles de Gaulle - left). Two airplanes flew over them but no help arrived.
On April 10 the ship and the few survivors beached at Ziltan, near the besieged town of Misrata. One of them died in prison.
Source: The Guardian.
On 29th and 30th of March the French Minister of Defense, Gérard Longuet, visited the aircraftcarrier Charles de Gaulle. He even assisted in the catapult launch of a few planes.
ReplyDeleteWould they have had time to be concerned with rescuing poor people whilst having such an Important VIP on board?
Oh, there was a recon-flight by Rafale-jets, the 29th.
Probably a 'Say hello, wave goodbye'-flight...
That's something I did not know. It does not change anything though: they had an obligation or two. If you don't want to take them at home, at least tow them back to the coast, right?
ReplyDeleteYOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WAY THINGS WORK UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.
ReplyDeleteHuman Rights Law Judges would never say that a western navy could just put a line on a boat and tow it back (especially as people were dying on the boat). No, they'd be responsibile for the people onboard which could only mean taking them in, caring for them and bringing them back to a French port.
The lawyers are going to say the passengers were in effect claiming asylum and of course the procedures for that would have to be followed.
They are mainly young men and of course they are going to settle in the western country and get jobs and women. That means some European men are going to go without jobs and women - genetic death.
Aircraft carriers are just militarily useless prestige items anyway, spending money on them instead if controling their borders by any means necessary just shows that European states are living in a dream world.
They're helpless in the face of mass immigration because of the moral idealism that western elites have imposed on the common people.
No, they didn't leave them to die, they wouldn't. That's why Europeans will become a minority in their homeland.
MORE LIES! You're a dirty Nazi propagandist or a total ignorant or both. I'm fucking tired of your jerkiness, Ken.
ReplyDeleteThat is not that way. They are only obliged, like you or me, to assist people in danger. Similarly if I stumble on a road accident I am obliged to assist them... but not to host them at my home.
Whatever the case, the Law obliges any ship on range to assist them and they are committing a crime not doing it.
While your right that that a ship on the high seas is not the same as the soil of country and a Nato ship aiding a sinking boat would not be legally obliged to take the passengers home the seriously ill passengers could not simply have been towed back to the coast of their homeland - dying off on the way.
ReplyDeleteThe situation was that people needed immediate treatment; a rescuing ship with medical facilities would be obligied to provide the passengers with medical care by taking them onboard a NATO vessel.
Once aboard the 'refugees' would have no incentive to say they were fit enough to go back to their death trap boat. I very much doubt that it would be possible to return them without using force and the naval officers would know that returning refugees to a unseaworthy boat where people had already died would cause uproar.
NATO don't imprison arrested Ethiopian pirates because they're worried they would claim asylum if taken back to a Western country.
I think the truth is that the NATO ships didn't know about the conditions aboard the refugee's boat because their supersonic toys are not spotter planes and because they didn't want to know. But my point about the moral idealism of Western law remains true. There is no way to stop this ever increasing inflow of refugees.
A Nazi would say there is a way that Europeans can remain a majority in Europe, I don't; nothing can stop Europeans becoming a minority in their homelands.