News Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

[caslav.ilic]

When a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a US battle fleet recently I don't remember the same indignation and boasts of how kind the US were not to sink it. [...]

My thought too. Another event in this vein was that case of Russian bombers overflying an US carrier somewhere near Japan.

Anyway, there isn't much to debate here.

What are the maritime laws in international waters -- is there an exclusion zone around a ship, that when breached by a ship from a foreign nation, allows the original ship to take any action whatsoever, including total obliteration of the intruder?

Assuming that such an exclusion zone does exist -- just assuming, I have no clue -- then whether US warships responded kindly or did exactly what they were obliged to do, is a simple matter of whether those boats crossed the zone or not.

Assuming that such an exclusion zone does not exist -- just assuming, I have no clue -- then the US warships had no choice but to hold their guns until an undoubtedly hostile action is taken by the imbound boats, since there is no state of war between the nations in question. I assume a hostile action could be defined as the boats opening fire towards US warships, or keeping heading and speed at which the collision is no longer avoidable. I further assume that intercepted vague radio chatter cannot constitute hostile action.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[mheslep]

I'm confused by your post. Why would the US be legally entitled to sink Iranian vessels who are also exercising their right to sail in international waters or do you think only the US have this right?

When a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a US battle fleet recently I don't remember the same indignation and boasts of how kind the US were not to sink it.

I don't know. Did the Chinese sub radio "prepare to explode" after it surfaced? Its just a question.

 

[EnumaElish]

What are the maritime laws in international waters

Apparently the correct legal term is the Law of the Sea; see http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea?cat=biz-fin:

The term law of the sea appears similar to the term maritime law, but it has a significantly different meaning. Maritime law deals with jurisprudence that governs ships and shipping, and is concerned with contracts, torts, and other issues involving private shipping, whereas the law of the sea refers to matters of public international law.

vs.

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It is distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations.

(The 2nd paragraph from http://www.answers.com/topic/admiralty-law?cat=biz-fin)

Part of the issue is the naval status of the Revolutionary Guard vessels: they do not belong to the regular Iranian Navy. Does this fact give the U.S. a legal right to treat them as, essentially, private vessels? And, since they appeared to be armed, can they expect to be treated differently from pirates? This is a marked difference between this incident and the Chinese boat incident, as in the latter case the vessel clearly belonged to a navy.

 

[seycyrus]

I'm confused by your post. Why would the US be legally entitled to sink Iranian vessels who are also exercising their right to sail in international waters or do you think only the US have this right?

When a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a US battle fleet recently I don't remember the same indignation and boasts of how kind the US were not to sink it.

The Chinese sub knew it was in an area that could get it obliterated. It chose to peacefully surface rather than submit to the risk.

 

[Cyrus]

There is a huge difference between a submarine surfacing and a gunboat racing towards your ship.

 

[caslav.ilic]

Apparently the correct legal term is the Law of the Sea [...]

Much abliged for the correction :)

[...] to treat them as, essentially, private vessels? And, since they appeared to be armed, can they expect to be treated differently from pirates?

Indeed, I forgot to take this into account. Reading the article again, I cannot at all see any positive identification of the boats in question -- they are "believed to belong to the Iran Revolutionary Guard".

Thus, legally one can in fact say that the US commander on the scene was confronted with unknown armed vessels of unknown intentions, and any law should be applied to that scenario instead. The fact that Iran's authorities later responded such that, apparently, some relation between those boats and institutions of Iran is claimed, does not change the situation at the scene.

And, really, it is interesting if someone could provide any legal definitions pertaining the circumstances under which a ship can be considered "pirate", and what actions are allowed to taken in such case.

For example, as far as I have understood, American laws are pretty liberal as to the possesion of small firearms by its citizens. A ship in international waters is considered to be the territory of its respective country. Thus, a bunch of American civilians on a yacht in international waters have an undisputed right to be each armed with a firearm, and to visibly carry them around on the deck. Nevertheless, it would be logical to me that such a vessel cannot be considered "pirate" on the face of it, regardless of the fact that if the yacht is fast, they are quite capable of pirate actions? Perhaps it has something to do with caliber, e.g. handguns are fine, tripod-mounted machineguns not?

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[caslav.ilic]

There is a huge difference between a submarine surfacing and a gunboat racing towards your ship.

Indeed, if we look at the "danger" perspective, there is a huge difference. Submarine surfacing in the midst of the battle group means that it was shadowing the battle group just minutes earlier, whick makes it a whole lot more dangerous than ad-hoc armed speedboats racing towards a destroyer-sized warships.

But I don't see the "danger" point as relevant here, instead I think EnumaElisha really put the situation into correct perspective: what kind of boats the commander could have assumed those were, and what kind of legal actions were at his disposal?

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Cyrus]

I don't see how that's 'more dangerous' than an ad-hoc armed speedboat racing towards a destroyer. Perhaps you can explain that point.

Last time I checked, the Chinese did not go around blowing up our ships. But ad-hoc ships in the middle east have.

 

[devil-fire]

Maybe you just didn't understand my initial point, but that makes no sense whatsoever. You just said it! Iran already has the scorn of the international community, so the attack wouldn't change that. And China doesn't really care about international scorn either.

how i interpreted your original point was that Iran would have not have to have dealt with any consequences if they attacked the American ships because they are a rogue nation and that even if they did have to deal with those consequences, it wouldn't adversely influence them because they already have no respect for human life.

to this i responded that the consequences would be devastating regardless of their rogue status and that you classifying Iran as a rogue nation has no bearing on IRG's decision to attack or not to attack the US navy, since they know that such an attack would have devastating consequences, both in terms of the safety of their people and in terms of the legitimacy of Iran's situation in diplomatic matters. china and Russia might support Iran's right to nuclear energy, but they wouldn't support Iran's right to attack American ships. no one would.

China may not be making radical changes to the labor laws when the USA claims them to be lacking, but China's relationship with the USA would sour if they defended Iran at the UN after such an attack on American ships. obviously, it would be a waste for China to support Iran in a situation like this.

 

[seycyrus]

Indeed, if we look at the "danger" perspective, there is a huge difference. Submarine surfacing in the midst of the battle group means that it was shadowing the battle group just minutes earlier, whick makes it a whole lot more dangerous than ad-hoc armed speedboats racing towards a destroyer-sized warships.
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

Regarding the submarine issue. it was more along the lines of ... Chinese sub submerges, shuts off all systems, lies dormant, and waits for US fleet to pass. US fleet gets close, and Chinese sub decides to reveal itself with a tiny victory rather than press the issue further and risk being obliterated.

As to the OP. The US coimmander would have been within rights to blow those ships out of the water.

What would kirk have done to a group of Romulan ships that was rapidly approaching, not responding to hails, and was beaming out a message that said "Prepare to explode"? :)

 

[caslav.ilic]

I don't see [undetected Chinese submarine in firing range to a carrier] 'more dangerous' than an ad-hoc armed speedboat racing towards a destroyer. Perhaps you can explain that point.

Last time I checked, China is not exactly considered an American ally, and is in possesion of a lot of nuclear ordnance; that submarine, especially if armed with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, was in position to seriously weaken American presence in the Pacific theater, in opening move of whatever.

An ad-hoc armed speedboat could do no more damage than visibly unarmed speedboat for that matter, namely that of around 10-30 dead servicemen and one destroyer in need of tugging.

However, I think that you were asking this in lieu of your second paragraph:

Last time I checked, the Chinese did not go around blowing up our ships. But ad-hoc ships in the middle east have.

This argument is void. I'm quite sure that there is nothing under international law that will allow a warship commander to act on his own assumptions on the intentions of unidentified vessels (unless perhaps if these can be legally declared "pirate"). Based on prior events in the nearby waters, the commander can be personally worried more or less, but that's his private matter.

Stressing again that this makes no difference at all for commander's legal options, I've nothing against musing a bit about what he may have privately thought. Clearly, the issue here are not machinegun mounts on the boats, but the possibility that a suicide strike is imminent. I'm guessing that the commander was never seriously concerned about that. Suicide strikes come as inconspicuous as they can make it, not from a bunch of visibly armed speedboats making clowns of themselves.

As an American warship commander in those waters, I'd be much more concerned if a lone boat would ask to dock for help due to some emergency on board. I would pretty clearly state to that boat that they are not to approach, that a party will be dispatched to provide assistance, and that any attempt at docking will be considered an attempted boarding (which I'd be surprised if the international law wouldn't allow use of discretionary force against).

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[caslav.ilic]

Regarding the submarine issue. it was more along the lines of ... Chinese sub submerges, shuts off all systems, lies dormant, and waits for US fleet to pass. [...]

If so, the point? That was my favorite strategy in Harpoon anyway, no other way to beat CVNBG :)

The US coimmander would have been within rights to blow those ships out of the water.

What would kirk have done [...]

Could you please point to the relevant paragraph of the international law instead?

Don't get me wrong, Star Trek analogy may have been enough to convince me, if it weren't that hails there are usually quite unambigously directed (please state an episode where a Starfleet ship receives a hail directed at another ship?) and the universal translator handles Romulan quite well (please state an episode where it wasn't able to interpret Romulan phrase?)

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Cyrus]

undoubtedly, the submarine was a major incident, but one far less likely to end up in a direct conflict, IMO. The submarine was directly under control of the chinese navy, and by surfacing basically 'exposed' itself. It could not really do much after that point.

I'm quite sure that there is nothing under international law that will allow a warship commander to act on his own assumptions on the intentions of unidentified vessels (unless perhaps if these can be legally declared "pirate").

I would highly doubt that, but I don't know internatonal rules and regulations, so I can't say for sure. I would exepct that it is fully within his judgement to make that call with an unidentified ship in international waters that appears to be a threat.

I'm guessing that the commander was never seriously concerned about that. Suicide strikes come as inconspicuous as they can make it, not from a bunch of visibly armed speedboats making clowns of themselves.

Suicide bombers are pretty crazy by nature, so I can't agree with you there.

 

[Art]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim. A very straightforward request.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man who subverted democracy in his own country, waged an illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and who authorised the illegal detention and torture of prisoners whilst simultaneously spying on his own countrymen I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

 

[seycyrus]

If so, the point? That was my favorite strategy in Harpoon anyway, no other way to beat CVNBG :)
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

Excuse me?

The sub commander signaled his non-hostile intent by surfacing in a non-threatening manner.

The Iranians demonstrated hostile intent. Can you tell the difference?

Don't get me wrong, Star Trek analogy may have been enough to convince me, if it weren't that hails there are usually quite unambigously directed (please state an episode where a Starfleet ship receives a hail directed at another ship?) and the universal translator handles Romulan quite well (please state an episode where it wasn't able to interpret Romulan phrase?)

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

So, you want to quibble?

Who do YOU think the Iranians were broadcasting to when they transmitted "prepare to explode"

Did the US mistranslate the phrase?

 

[seycyrus]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim.

Oh yeah. Asking for a lawyer farmiliar with international maritime law on the physics forum.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man ...

Ehh, Iran had that title LONG before Bush came along from a multitude of other countries as well.

 

[Cyrus]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man who subverted democracy in his own country. waged an illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and who authorised the illegal detention and torture of prisoners whilst simultaneously spying on his own countrymen I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

Your first paragraph has nothing to do with the issue, its just blatant bickering. Your second paragraph makes it seem as though whatever the Iranian government says is an apparent truth to you.

Art, your response here is really not warranted.

 

[Art]

Your first paragraph has nothing to do with the issue, its just blatant bickering. Your second paragraph makes it seem as though whatever the Iranian government says is an apparent truth to you.

Art, your response here is really not warranted.

LOL My first paragraph IS the issue doh! If someone on this forum makes a statement as a fact then it is up to them to support it. If it is not a fact but merely their personal opinion then it should be identified as such. For example your statement

Ehh, Iran had that title LONG before Bush came along from a multitude of other countries as well

should have been identified as your opinion which btw happens to be wrong. Madeline Albright categorised Iran as 'A State of Concern', this was upgraded to 'Rogue State' by Bush.

My second paragraph points out there are two differing 'official' versions of what happened during this incident. I have made no indication whatsoever which one I think is true. I have pointed out that if the US gov't version is true they can easily prove it. I suggest your accusation of bias be directed closer to home.

Jingoistic responses wrapped in the flag of patriotism to incidents such as this leads to wars. Someone here has already mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident and look what that led to!

 

[Cyrus]

Too bad I never said that, Art.


-oooops

 

[Art]

Too bad I never said that, Art.-oooops

lol sorry Cyrus it was your 'relation' Seycyrus. However my points still stand.

 

[caslav.ilic]

The sub commander signaled his non-hostile intent by surfacing in a non-threatening manner.

The Iranians demonstrated hostile intent. Can you tell the difference?

I cannot. I could equally well say that the unidentified boats signalled their non-hostile intent by turning away, or that the Chinese submarine demonstrated its hostile intent by closing into firing range without announcement.

Merely closing into firing range -- which both the sub and the boats did -- cannot be taken as a hostile intent by itself, even if "under cloak" as in case of the sub.

Who do YOU think the Iranians were broadcasting to when they transmitted "prepare to explode"

Did the US mistranslate the phrase?

It is entirely irrelevant what I think they ment, and yes, at the spot the phrase may quite well have been misinterpreted. Let me remind of the article passages: "...close to three U.S. Navy ships and intercepted radio signals...", thus the transmission was intercepted and surely in Persian, and then "...that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode.", i.e. an interpretation of the fragments, rather than a coherent transcript of the exchange. A worried US commander, probably. Legal basis for taking action due to hostile intent -- certainly not.

At any rate, after the fact it is obvious that interpreting the radio intercept as coordination of the attack would have been wrong, since nothing had happend, the boats turned away.

So, you want to quibble?

In a way. I was expecting a lot of thrashing of Iranian elements responsible for the childish pranks such as this, to have instead seen several posts claiming that the American commander should have committed, as I would judge it more probably than not, an act of war. Thus, I have to respond :)

My personal opinion of the matter is this: a stupid provoking, but otherwise probably not illegal action (minus the possible "pirate" qualification) on part of Iranian elements, where the American commander professionally and cold-bloodily did everything by the book, and certainly reported on the event in the same way. Everything after that are political games, of which I have no interest.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[kroni3us]

It was stated as a fact that the Iranian speedboats acted illegally I am asking for the proof of this claim. A very straightforward request.

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation though seeing as how they were awarded this title by a man who subverted democracy in his own country, waged an illegal war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and who authorised the illegal detention and torture of prisoners whilst simultaneously spying on his own countrymen I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

btw The Iranian account of the incident is that this was SOP, they asked the US ships to identify themselves and once they had done so they left them alone. They also deny any threats were made so it would be good if the US gov't were to clear up that point by making the tapes available of the radio interchange.

There he goes again with his anti -american anti bush antics. His use of the word "subverted" against my president lacks premise. Democracy is alive and well in America thank you. I am concluding that you are referring to the Iraq war that was voted for and by congress. I understand that no WMDs found nor will they probably ever be found. I do believe Saddam had a lot of time to dispose of WMDS before the invasion. I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times. I also say to Detain ANY and ALL terrorist and use all means neccesary to obtain information needed to protect the american people. Maybe ART you should complain about insurgents beheading innocent people and by the way filming it, bombint their own innocent people, Or Saddam using chemical warfare against women and children KURDS.

 

[Cyrus]

I as an american welcome my government to monitor phone calls /cell phone calls etc to protect me and my family from terrorist already in the country, If you have nothing to hide why worry, its a new world out there, times have changed we have to adapt to these changing times.

Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.

 

[kroni3us]

Thats the most unpatriotic thing in your entire post. Go read the constitution, yikes.

If they Have any clue that a terrorist cell is operating in my city, and they didnt stop them from killing a million people in Los Angeles, because they couldn't monitor or track a cell phone call is totally rediculous in my opinion, and by the way I have read the constitution and have fought for the right in this country and also have a son fighting for our democracy.

 

[Cyrus]

Government is not here to spy on its citizens. Civil liberty is wroth more than even the city of LA.

I find it odd that someone would readily give up something they have fought for.

 

[kroni3us]

Thats where we defer, I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children. And tracking phone calls of SUSPECTED TERRORIST CELLS should be ok. People look way to far into us loosing all rights as a democratic system, which would never happen.

 

[Cyrus]

But our rights are being erroded away each time you allow these things you propose to happen. The problem is, there is no definite list of 'suspected terrorist cells'. Would Timothy Mcveigh be on your list? You're list will include every middle eastern person in the United States.

Life is not greater than liberty. I don't need America turned into a police state.

 

[kroni3us]

And so I guess All the people in LA hypothetically lost all their rights because of someone like you, who would be the first to complain about our government or president no being able to stop it ... unreal

 

[Cyrus]

What is so hard to understand? You have rights. The government can protect you without stealing your rights. I find your position to be unreal, specially being from the military. The purpose of the government is to protect your rights, first and foremost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I value human Life and the United States Of America, more than a SEGMENT of the constitution that should be amended to give our voted in government the tools to protect my children.

Take our liberty, but don't take our lives!