Iran tries to capture Americans(?)

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Disputed means that both the Iranians and the Iraqis claim it.  It's the wild wild west, don't go there and you won't have any problems.

I wouldn't believe our own DoD 100%.  It appears that in a way, both the Iranians and the MoD were correct.  And Iran did admit that British sailors ended up there accidentally.  Iran kept them out of Iranian Courts, and Iran and the UK are going to discuss the disputed waters.

Iran kept them out of the courts because we have a President with an itchy trigger finger and an extreme distaste for terrorist nutjobs.  Make no mistake about it, those two carrier groups hanging out in the Straits of Hormuz had more to do with Iran's Easter "gift" than anything.

[cannon_fodder]

So we have to stay out of any waters that Iran claims?  Well damn, they occupied several small islands in the Gulf of ARABIA (note: I dont call it the Persian Gulf just to irritate Iranians) and claim the entire straight.  Guess our carriers are stuck, that sucks.

Of course, the UN recognized the territory as Iraqi waters and the straights as international waters.  But if IRAN says it might be there's I suppose we had better stay out.  Oh wait, territorial waters are government by the International Treaty of the Sea and not Iran.  Thank god.  (holy cow, I learned the maritime law I learn).

Basically, even if the Brits were in Iranian waters the appropriate action would have been to escort them OUT of their waters.  Confiscating their arms, taking them prisoner, and parading them on television was probably NOT the appropriate thing to do.

[Conan71]

I liked Michael Savage's solution:

They should have started sinking two of Iran's naval vessels a day from day 1.  They would have decimated the navy in about three weeks, then Iran's territorial waters would have become somewhat irrelevant.

[shadows]

In the origin documentation on costal waters they were set on the cannon distance to protect the shore of the country.

With the subs firing missiles what could one define as "territorial waters?"

What would US do if Iranians were to be in our territorial waters?

We have a whole passel of detainees locked up presently, many because we didn't like their looks.   Although this is beginning to alarm the ME, we still will furnish little information on holding them.

We have established a civil war in Iraq trying the reinstall an exile government.  We are dead set on starting the third world war.  

Among those countries are nuclear warheads with the missiles capable of deliver them.   They are children centuries old and we are still in dippers needing to be changed.

Lets get the hell out of there with our threatening carriers .      

[iplaw]

quote:In the origin documentation on costal waters they were set on the cannon distance to protect the shore of the country.

So what?

quote:
With the subs firing missiles what could one define as "territorial waters?"

They're those funny little lines on that map they keep pointing at.

quote:
What would US do if Iranians were to be in our territorial waters?

Probably stick our foot up their a**.  No one was in THEIR territorial waters. Have you not read anything on this?

quote:
We have a whole passel of detainees locked up presently, many because we didn't like their looks.

Care to back that up buster?  

quote:
We have established a civil war in Iraq trying the reinstall an exile government.

Um.  I think it was Zarqawi who admitted to exacerbating the issue, but what would he know?

quote:
Among those countries are nuclear warheads with the missiles capable of deliver them.   They are children centuries old and we are still in dippers needing to be changed.

So what?

quote:
Lets get the hell out of there with our threatening carriers      

Thank god you don't have a say in our foreign policy, and sentient adults do.

[cannon_fodder]

I have a great book by Professor Rex Zedalis called International Energy Law that goes into great detail about the history behind and the law of territorial waters:
http://www.amazon.com/International-Energy-Law-Rex-Zedalis/dp/0754621642/ref=sr_1_1/002-1627715-2424801?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175808128&sr=1-1

I'd be willing to loan it to you if you are interested.

Basically, territorial water started out at 3 miles because of the cannon range.  Then they were extended to 12 miles.  Now it is largely recognized that a nation has an exclusive economic zone out to the edge of their continental shelf or a minimum of 125 miles.  At the time it was believe no one could have a use for the land under such waters beyond the shelf, since you cant drill there.  However, new drill technologies are begging to open up possibilities OFF the shelf.  This has spurred some conflict in the North Sea and looming issues in the Sea of Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

This norm is shatter where countries cannot clearly delineate 125 miles and have to split the difference (Cuba and the USA for instance).  Furthermore, international shipping channels are sometimes opened by treaty and exempted from the norm. However, the situation at hand is a linear delineation problem - drawing a line from the coast out that would incorporate an area into two countries.  Similar to the Belgium-German water dispute in the 1990s.

It is my understanding that the Iran-Iraq territorial water dispute was settle by the United Nations Commission on maritime law shortly after the US turned over governmental operations to Iraq.  I also understand that Iran has little use or need for recognizing the territorial sovereignty nor the rule of law if it conflicts with its own agenda.  It is also worth pointing out that Iran has changed its OFFICIAL location of the conflict after initially reporting coordinates that were well inside Iraqi waters.

Therefor, I am forced to conclude that the events that transpire were likely INSIDE Iraqi waters but the Iranians were operating under the assumptions they were in their waters.  By the time they realized their mistake, they could not save face and had to play it out.

(feel free to correct me on the law, that was from memory on a class I took a few years ago and havent had to reference since.  Or were you not really interested in the law of the sea?)

[MichaelC]

The only correction I'd make, is back on that article from the Guardian:

quote:They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.

They're mentioning the position as pointed out by British MoD, not Iran.  They're stating that the position Britain claims their sailors were in: it appears to be a strong case, but it's not entirely correct or clear to say that is Iraqi waters.  

It's not entirely incorrect either, but the explanations both from Britain and Iran seem to have similar credibility.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

The only correction I'd make, is back on that article from the Guardian:

quote:They will look again at Iran's claims that the crew of two British boats which boarded the Indian-flagged merchant vessel 13 days ago were in Iranian waters. "If the incident occurred where the MoD claims, the British position appears strong but there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest," said Martin Pratt, of Durham University's International Boundaries Research Unit.

They're mentioning the position as pointed out by British MoD, not Iran.  They're stating that the position Britain claims their sailors were in: it appears to be a strong case, but it's not entirely correct or clear to say that is Iraqi waters.  

It's not entirely incorrect either, but the explanations both from Britain and Iran seem to have similar credibility.

Nevertheless, the sailors are now out of harm's way, and we still have a crazy dictator bent on provoking an all out mid-eastern war.

[shadows]

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.........."

History records that incidents such a the tide of "territorial waters" often have swamped nations when they are caught in the undertow of the reclining tides.  

The situation at hand with our interfering in their continues squabbling is liken to the old west ballad "Don't take your gun to town tonight".

CF in his post is well three pages ahead of where the interpretations we want to apply on this among many other incidents of which we are using to  provoke the ME, in this undeclared war, to force unacceptable demands on people who don't want to accept our society or religion.

We want to use the UN rules that are to our advantage but to hell with them when we want to circumvent them.  

They may have a dictator that is laying the foundations for an all out war but also we may have a president that is sitting at the other end  of the table.  In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay, it could be better to save face and redraw before it ends up like the last two attempts to control the ME.

It is so easy to blunder in where the angels would not tread.    

[shadows]

CF your point is well made as a  logical explanations.

There is one question that we are overlooking.  It is not my intention to suggest that out government would use false information to justify the action of Britain who is removing their troops from the area.

It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.

If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?    
 
What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?

To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?

If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?

Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?

So much has been unanswered on this incident but the attention has been diverted to the holding for questioning those involved.

Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.  

[iplaw]

quote:In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay

Prove it.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

CF your point is well made as a  logical explanations.

There is one question that we are overlooking.  It is not my intention to suggest that out government would use false information to justify the action of Britain who is removing their troops from the area.

It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.

If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?    
 
What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?

To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?

If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?

Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?

So much has been unanswered on this incident but the attention has been diverted to the holding for questioning those involved.

Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.  

I think Rosie O'Donnell and Altruismsuffers just had a love child.

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay

Prove it.

Four  years with 30,000 American casualties and increasing, either dead or wounded, over a hundred thousand  of the people that believe a creator assigned them the land forever,  on hearsay of possibly they had weapons of mass destruction we have rekindled their civil war, with more loss of the youth of our future reported daily?

And you say prove it?  

Have you ever looked at the real world.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:In the today's world of invading of nations with justification based on hearsay

Prove it.

Four  years with 30,000 American casualties and increasing, either dead or wounded, over a hundred thousand  of the people that believe a creator assigned them the land forever,  on hearsay of possibly they had weapons of mass destruction we have rekindled their civil war, with more loss of the youth of our future reported daily?

And you say prove it?  

Have you ever looked at the real world.

Hearsay huh?  Let's look at this issue again.

Iraq had WMD, an undeniable fact.  There were inspectors there to confirm the destruction of WMD that Iraq ITSELF declared.  This defacto means they ADMITTED to the UN an the world that they possessed WMD.  Were we to give the benefit of the doubt to the man who had flouted resolution after resolution from the US?  No sensible person could have.

The question then becomes what happened to all the WMD that both Saddam and the UN AGREED THAT HE HAD?  Your guess is as good as anyone elses, but to state that Iraq had no WMD is patently false as they admitted having as much.  Interesting that he had exactly ZERO WMDs, that's kind of an odd number don't you think?

Saddam, the UN, France, Britain's MI6, Germany, Russia, Israel...and the list goes, on publicliy acknowledged that Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs either latent or blatant.  After invading Iraq we soon learned that he was in discussions with NK to buy weaponry off the shelf from Kim Il Kook, and the head of his nuclear program Mahdi Obeidi led us to a nuclear centrifuge that they had buried in his back yard.  Yet we were still to believe Saddam and take him at his word?

We were warned ad nauseam before the invasion that WMDs were to going to be used not only against the USA, but Israel.  Saddam had previously used said WMD on Kurdistan and Iran.  Again, we were supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Saddam NEVER accounted for his WMD, and to this day, no one can explain what happened to all the WMD he declared to the UN.

With all that said, I believe that you may misunderstand the term "hearsay."

[cannon_fodder]

Ignoring the other falacies in the statement and the simplification of the scenario (WMDs != the only reason for war)...

[edit]I wrote this as IP wrote his post so bare with me here[/edit]
Hearsay is a statement brought by someone other than the declarent to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In the matter at hand, the declarant was the United States (Bush admin) and the statement brought was that Saddam had WMDs.  BY definition, the declarent of the statement cannot be accused of hearsay never mind the fact that the statement was being made not to prove that Saddam had WMDs but to prove war was justified.  Being a statement BY the declarent to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted the United State's case for war was in no way hearsay.  

Hearsay would be to say for the US to say "Israel said that Iraq has WMDs" as stated proof that Iraq had WMDs.

What the United States had in its case for war was circumstantial evidence and conjecture.  Just like we did when we went to war with Spain after the sinking of the Maine, Mexico after they "invaded" their territory of Texas, and Germany after they sunk the weapons transport Lusitania.  While in error in all of the above, such forms of evidence ARE evidence and can be used to prove ones point when used properly (I make no comment as the propriety of said information in this case).

Per your "one" question that I neglected:

quote:It has been indicated that a third ship may have been involved.

If by may have you mean "necessarily" you are correct.  All parties indicate the British sailors were searching a merchant vessel at the time.

quote:If you were in charge of a merchant ship on the high seas and entered in a area where an embargo was in effect and your ship was approached by a small boat with 7 armed Marines and 8 Sailors would you not consider you were under an unlawful search or attack?

Not if I was in water patrolled and subject to search by a United Nations mandate that had been ongoing for 4 years or similar circumstances (ie Iraqi coast guard in Iraqi waters).

quote:What would you consider the need for the sailors except to commandeer your ship?

Perhaps to navigate the vessel they were currently occupying, secure attachment to the merchant vessel, and facilitate boarding.  As well as to properly inspect the ships log, port of origin papers and cargo.  

quote:To protect your ship would you send a sos out for help?

If I saw the British marines approaching my ship I would not send out an SOS.  My first thought would be to prepare myself to be boarded and accumulate all of my needed documents to try and make it as minor of an interruption into my commercial activities as possible and AVOID getting shot.  

In waters patrolled by American, British, and Iraqi forces under a UN mandate to search merchant ships this came as no surprise.

quote:If two gunboats answered your call from the closest land area would you turn them away because of the flag they were flying?

Since you asked it, yes, I would refuse.  If my vessel was being searched by the British and the Iranians came to 'help' I would thank them for their efforts and turn them aside.  I do not recall the last time the British hired privateers to pirate merchant ships but Iran is currently accused of doing just that.  I trust Britain over Iran.

quote:Does not the positing satellite pinpoint the location of where it all happened?

Yes, and both the merchant ship in question and the British place it in Iraqi waters.  Iran initially placed it in Iraqi waters and has since changed the position.  

quote:....Of course our government would not give its citizens false information nor make false statements.

My god, why the hell not? Remember when we told school children to hide from nuclear weapons under their desks or when pot smokers at their babies?  

I hope I have answered your question(s).