Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

[kroni3us]

I would and do suspect that we watch people that are on a terrorist list, already in circulation, suspected people coming into the country, or someone being turned in by someone in the public with knowledge of terrorism activities. trust me i doubt if they would be monitering your phone

 

[Cyrus]

Your doubt is not good enough.

 

[kroni3us]

The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it

 

[caslav.ilic]

Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Cyrus]

The Patriot ACT was put in place to protect us from terrorist, now we have mostly liberals fighting every provision in the act, that being said I would be the first one to fight and dye to protect our liberties. I believe the act was put in place in good faith, not to spy on you or me. Hopefully they can fight terrorism without interupting what is put in place but if needed to protect a million people use it

Oh, no controvery in that act. </sarcasm> Sure, blame 'liberals'...

 

[drankin]

Come on folks, don't turn a nice techno-legal high-seas quibble into debate about human rights in the USA :)

I've found an online "guide" to the UN Law of the Sea, here: http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/. Couldn't find anything about enter-and-perish exclusion zones around warships in international waters, but did find a bit about piracy, http://www.bernaerts-unclos.de/42-49.html (look for "Article 110"). It states that on "reasonable grounds", any warship has the right to board a suspected pirate vessel, and there: verify the right flag, check documents and inspect the ship. Couldn't find anything about "reasonable grounds" though, e.g. if it depends on the caliber of the visible weaponry, etc. Regardless, I think this means a warship cannot just blow a suspected pirate out of the water.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.

 

[caslav.ilic]

I'm sure any vessel on international waters has the right to defend itself against another vessel that shows itself to be hostile. Common sense really.

I don't see how anything but weapons fire or boarding attempt could be clear indication of hostility.

In fact, back to the article, it states Pentagon's spokesman claimed the event to be "...careless, reckless and potentially hostile activity." (my emphasis). Thus, not even US military claims it hostile, and the State Department spokesman was "...not aware of any plans to lodge a formal protest," which would surely follow in wake of an illegal action.

Furthermore, the event occurred in good visibility ("...The small Iranian boats also threw boxes into the water...") and there is no report of the boats even training their machineguns on American warships. Whereas the converse did take place.

Thus, I see no sources of hostile behavior, other than an intercepted communication possibly (and obviously after the fact) interpreted wrongly. Being careless, reckless and rude is certainly not nice, but also no legal ground for being fired upon.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Gokul43201]

In the words of Vice Adm. Cosgriff (quote from article in OP):

"At one point during this encounter ... the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said, speaking via video camera from Bahrain.

Does this say that the Iranian vessels were communicating with the US or among themselves? Is "received" = "intercepted" or not?

 

[kroni3us]

Has anyone seen the video I guess its posted on MSNBC

 

[Gokul43201]

From navy.mil:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34207
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34211

He [Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman] said the speed of the Iranian boats and their distance from the U.S. Navy vessels demonstrated potentially hostile intent. Bridge-to-bridge radio communications between the Iranian vessels and the U.S. Navy ships reinforced this impression, he said.

 

[drankin]

I wonder what the boxes were that they dropped. Explosives? Maybe, that alone could be perceived as a hostile action.

The laws we live by in America, we only need to be convinced that our lives or the lives of another is jeopardized in order to exercise lethal force to stop it. I don't see why international law would be any different. Those ships could have legally sunk those boats based on the information I've read so far. They simply chose not to. I wonder if the IRG will try that stunt again, a little closer next time. Whoever is commanding a ship at that time may not be so forgiving.

 

[caslav.ilic]

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34207[/quote]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two men each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[drankin]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. Two mean each, in bright red lifevests of the good-for-search-and-rescue variety. Messages like "...ships will explode" which mean exactly nothing and directed to the adversary at that -- "Coming to impact your ships, but we're fair and give you a sporting chance to react (even if we know that your Phalanx systems will intercept supersonic skimmers at point blank range)."

How incredibly hostile.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

All it takes is the perception of hostility to justify it. If they had sunk those boats, the story we would have gotten would be a lot different.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

This is very simple, Art. The Iranian boats were acting overtly hostile, and therefore the American ships would have been justified in acting in self-defense.

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.

That was an accident. This clearly was not.

Are there different international laws and standards depending on the countries involved.

From a neutral viewpoint...

Neutral?

Are you actually serious? C'mon, Art. You've been here long enough, you don't fool anyone. The facts of this incident are clear.

 

[russ_watters]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed.

Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct.

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.

Just to make sure everyone is clear here, when the news says "speedboats", people think civilian pleasure/racing boats (aka cigarette boats) with deck-mounted machine guns like you sometimes see in the movies. That's not what we're dealing with here. The boats were gunboats - most news sources I saw did actually use the correct wording. They are specially-designed military boats with deck-mounted guns (up to 3") and anti-ship missiles, potentially capable of sinking a US Navy ship. Think USS Stark, not USS Cole.

Gunboats are "speedboats" in that they have planing hulls and big engines, which allow them to go much faster (up to 40mph) than ships with displacement hulls. It's probably a stock photo on this article:

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10180305.html

...but here's a list of what Iran actually has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Iranian_Navy_Vessels

If I had to guess, it was probably the small Chinese craft, not the larger French one which is pictured in that article. According to the Wik link, the French one had American supplied Harpoon ASMs, but they ran out. That gunboat boat does have a larger deck-mounted gun, though.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

The facts of the case are clear, so really what matters is if you accept them or not. You seem to be implying here that you will not, so there really isn't anything to discuss, is there?

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account, would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.
2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").
3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

I suspect you will simply refuse to accept the facts as reported, so this is probably just pointless. BTW, you have not provided an account of what happened or evidence to support it. It is reasonable for us to assume that you've at least read the article in the OP, so you already know these facts. There is nothing for us to substantiate.

 

[russ_watters]

It was also stated as a fact that Iran is a rogue nation...I am sure it is a badge they wear with honour.

Indeed they do. It, and the band of psychopaths that support them in it, is what allows them to get away with actions like this. They revel in it. They must see how 'I'm crazy, appease me or I'll do something crazy!' has worked for 'lil Kim, and they follow the same mo.

 

[caslav.ilic]

Eh, when they said speedboats, they really ment speedboats. Not even visibly armed. [...]

Do you have a source for that? I don't think it is correct. [...] The boats were gunboats[...]

Check the US Navy links that I quoted when making the statement (after Gokul43201 pointed to them few posts above).

My first impression of the report was that of small enclosed boats with a single MG mount on the front deck, but the photos clearly show them to be unarmed, with crews in plain view of the warships.

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account [...]

Although this question is not directed at me, let me state that I do take reports as accurate, as otherwise this discussion would make no sense (anyone could hypothesize anything). In light of that:

[...] would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

I entirely disagree that these three actions are overtly hostile -- and so does the Pentagon ("...potentially hostile...") What is more important, there isn't chance in hell that these actions could be interpreted as an act of agression under international law, the only thing which would permit a warship to open fire -- which the State Department agrees with too ("...no formal protest...")

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.

Irrelevant. Without the examination of the objects, of which none was given, random objects cannot be considered weapons, and their release cannot be considered an act of aggression.

2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").

Irrelevant. Noone said "we are going to blow you up"; "something to the effect of" interpretations are just that, arbitrary interpretations.

3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

Irrelevant. I did give a link towards an abriged guide to the UN Law of the Sea, anyone is welcome to find articles prohibiting such behavior in international waters. Especially in case of unarmed vessels approching warships capable of vaporizing them in an instant.

Firing based on these facts alone, would be less justified then a person six feet tall, visibly armed, gun ready in the hand, shooting to kill an unarmed skinny person circling two metres away and murmuring "you're ******* dead!" (Please don't someone respond "yeah, in Texas we damn well could!", because even if so, the event did not take place in Texas.)

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[Art]

... They must see how 'I'm crazy, appease me or I'll do something crazy!' has worked for

Bush

...and they follow the same mo.

 

[Art]

The facts of the case are clear, so really what matters is if you accept them or not. You seem to be implying here that you will not, so there really isn't anything to discuss, is there?

But let's start with this: assuming you did accept the US account, would you agree these three actions are overtly hostile:

1. Dropping objects into the water in the path of the ships.
2. Making an overt threat (something to the effect of "we are going to blow you up").
3. Steaming at high speed toward the US fleet, coming within a few hundred yards of it.

I suspect you will simply refuse to accept the facts as reported, so this is probably just pointless. BTW, you have not provided an account of what happened or evidence to support it. It is reasonable for us to assume that you've at least read the article in the OP, so you already know these facts. There is nothing for us to substantiate.

Mmmm so it boils down to no you can't support your claim that Iran acted illegally. Why not just admit you made that up to lend false legitimacy to your argument?

As for overt hostility; the captains involved make no such claim and neither does the pentagon which is why I guess you felt the need to support your personal contention with fictitious law.

That was an accident. This clearly was not.

An accident! lol You obviously missed the less than subtle point the Chinese were making so here's a clue, it was similar to the point made when they shot down a satellite or did you think that was another accident?

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811

China rattles America's cage with satellite shot
The test comes mere months after the US revamped its space policy, taking a more militaristic tone than in the past. The policy scrupulously avoided any commitment not to develop space-based weapons.

It doesn't take much imagination to see China's missile launch, which it has yet to confirm, as a reply to the US's new policy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/19/china_satellite/

Notice a pattern developing?

 

[seycyrus]

Art,

Your hypocrisy is noted, as is your deception. I can guarrantee you that your life your everyday life contrary to your pretense here.

If a group of persons started running at you screaming "You going to die mutha-&^%&..."
you wouldn't claim that was non-provocative. You'd probably stand flat footed with your mouth open, but that's another matter.

There is now videofootage of the event in question. It now turns out that the "prepare to explode" message was broadcast in english.

Perhaps your mind is too clouded to understand the potential harm that could be caused by people probing a military vessel's military response. Or perhaps it's something else entirely...

Either way, the truth is transparent.

 

[daveb]

I have a question...why is it that when someone questions the current administration, its policies, or something the military may or may not have done, why is that person labeled as unpatriotic, anti-American, or that they hate America?

 

[Art]

Art,

Your hypocrisy is noted, as is your deception. I can guarrantee you that your life your everyday life contrary to your pretense here.

If a group of persons started running at you screaming "You going to die mutha-&^%&..."
you wouldn't claim that was non-provocative. You'd probably stand flat footed with your mouth open, but that's another matter.

There is now videofootage of the event in question. It now turns out that the "prepare to explode" message was broadcast in english.

Perhaps your mind is too clouded to understand the potential harm that could be caused by people probing a military vessel's military response. Or perhaps it's something else entirely...

Either way, the truth is transparent.

More strawman arguments I didn't say it wasn't provocative I questioned if it was illegal as claimed.

Acting in a childish and irritating manner doesn't give just cause for the recipient on the receiving end of such behaviour to blow their tormentors to pieces as some here have advocated. That would be a gross over-reaction.

Also this is not such an unusual event which makes one wonder if the administration has an agenda in blowing this up into a major incident

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking aboard the USS New Orleans pierside in San Diego, told reporters on Monday ''it would be nice to see the Iranian government disavow this action and say that it won't happen again.''

Gates said there had been two or three similar incidents -- ''maybe not quite as dramatic'' -- over the past year. He offered no details, but one Navy official said there have been several similar incidents that involved ''aggressive maneuvering'' by small boats in the Gulf. In one instance, a U.S. Navy vessel fired warning shots across the bow of the small boat, said the official, who requested anonymity because details of the earlier encounters have not been made public.

The official said that while at least one of the small boats in the Sunday confrontation was flying an Iranian flag, that was not the case in the earlier incidents. Thus, while there is suspicion that they may have been Iranian boats, it is not certain.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Navy-Iran.html

 

[seycyrus]

I have a question...why is it that when someone questions the current administration, its policies, or something the military may or may not have done, why is that person labeled as unpatriotic, anti-American, or that they hate America?

When one uses illogical argument to contrive positions that they would not take in their ordinay life, it is proper to point point out that they might have certain motivations.

 

[seycyrus]

More strawman arguments I didn't say it wasn't provocative I questioned if it was illegal as claimed.

You chose to quibble on a point, attempting to distract from the "threaten" title of the thread.

Acting in a childish and irritating manner doesn't give just cause for the recipient on the receiving end of such behaviour to blow their tormentors to pieces as some here have advocated. That would be a gross over-reaction.]

Yes it does. We are talking about military vessels here.

Again you are trying lighten the issue. Ahh, it was only "childish" and "irritating", I see ...

Sorry Charlie, that doesn't float.

Also this is not such an unusual event which makes one wonder if the administration has an agenda in blowing this up into a major incident

It's not unusual? They do it on a "usual" basis? Sounds like they are rapidly approaching ther freebies, where we don't blow them to smithereens.

 

[daveb]

When one uses illogical argument to contrive positions that they would not take in their ordinay life, it is proper to point point out that they might have certain motivations.

Perhaps so, but there is a huge difference between pointing out they may have certain motivations, and outright accusing them of hatred towards the America. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

 

[Art]

You chose to quibble on a point.

lol Therein lies the problem. You appear to see the mass of law governing the relationships between countries as irrelevant whereas civilised people see them as very important, carefully thought out and well constructed rules to be abided by.

It's not unusual? They do it on a "usual" basis? Sounds like they are rapidly approaching ther freebies, where we don't blow them to smithereens.

Could you translate this into English please?

 

[seycyrus]

Perhaps so, but there is a huge difference between pointing out they may have certain motivations, and outright accusing them of hatred towards the America. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

You are free to offer alternative interpretations of their motivations and also assign motivations to my statements.

 

[seycyrus]

lol Therein lies the problem. You appear to see the mass of law governing the relationships between countries as irrelevant whereas civilised people see them as very important, carefully thought out and well constructed rules to be abided by.?

Not even close, nice try tho.

I see through your attempts to reduce these matters which are rightly taken as serious to simple "irritating" and "childish" behaviors.

Could you translate this into English please?

If it's being done all the time, it is being done as a matter of policy. Therefore a more severe response would be warranted.

 

[daveb]

You are free to offer alternative interpretations of their motivations and also assign motivations to my statements.

Offering alternative interpretations is irrelevant, as is assigning motivations to your statements. I am merely trying to get people to understand that calling someone unpatriotic for questioning administration policies is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to support your position, nor does it undermine theirs (at least from a debating the issues perspective).