It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Iran Forces Seize US Cargo Ship With 34 People On Board

page: 17
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Agreed




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
No has nothing to do with being in territorial waters in a straight under international law a ships captain can indeed enter territorial waters. Ad I said thus was in acted by the UN when they expanded territorial waters. Prior to this that ship would have been in internatuonal waters up until they made it turn towards Iran.So did Iran violate international law can't say yet sure it will come up. But assuming the captain is nit a total bone head he obviously felt Iran had no right to board. And they are required to know the laws so I think this was Oran Just Flexing Their muscles. HONESTLY PROBABLY THOUGHT IT WAS US registry.



originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
If that vessel was intercepted off the coast of Larak Island (which has artillery and ASCM) it is no longer "in the strait" and is in Iranian TTW. The shipping lanes is where ships are permitted to traverse, not further into either Oman's or Iran's TTW unless prior permission is obtained. The vessel, was not in the transit lanes, hence Iran's reaction. At this point, it is not a matter of discussion of freedom of navigation. It is, did that vessel, in fact, go off course out of transit lanes (which is not safe) and enter Iranian TTW (also not safe)? That is the question that needs to be answered.



originally posted by: dragonridr
Exactly what I said that will be determined if they had the right to be there under UN law. Than there is the fact if a Comercial ship strays into TTW you can board but you don't take them to port unless something wad found. They were supposed to escort him back to the shipping lane again see UN.



originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
You can show me?



originally posted by: dragonridr
www.un.org...

Nothing in there did it state Iran had to escort the vessel back to the sea lane. The vessel has a right to the sea lane and Iranian TTW that cover that sea lane. The vessel has a right to transit Iranian waters for purposes of carrying out legitimate commercial activity to and from ports of call. Being deeper inside Iranian TTW outside of the transit lane on a bearing that is completely opposite of its stated port of call is not legitimate and any nation would treat such a ship as suspect.

The UNCLOS document itself:
pg. 30-31

Article 17
Right of innocent passage
Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Article 18
Meaning of passage
1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:
(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or
(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.
2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental
to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress
or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in
danger or distress.
Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in
conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (could be a reason of interception)
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

pg. 31-32

Article 21
Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage
1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:]
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; (being out of transit lanes is a safety issue)
(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations;
(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;
(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea;
(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof;
(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys;
(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State.
2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards.
3. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.

pg. 33

Article 24
Duties of the coastal State
1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:
(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or
(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.
2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.
...



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
continued ...
pg. 33

Article 25
Rights of protection of the coastal State
1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.
3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.

pg. 36

Article 34
Legal status of waters forming straits used for international navigation
1. The regime of passage through straits used for international navigation established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits or the exercise by the States bordering the straits of their sovereignty or jurisdiction over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil.
2. The sovereignty or jurisdiction of the States bordering the straits is exercised subject to this Part and to other rules of international law.



pg. 37

Article 38
Right of transit passage
1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.
3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.
Article 39
Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;
(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;
(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part. Ships in transit passage shall:
(a) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for safety at sea, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea;
(b) comply with generally accepted international regulations, procedures and practices for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from ships. Aircraft in transit passage shall:
(a) observe the Rules of the Air established by the International Civil Aviation Organization as they apply to civil aircraft; state aircraft will normally comply with such safety measures and will at all times operate with due regard for the safety of navigation;
(b) at all times monitor the radio frequency assigned by the competent internationally designated air traffic control authority or the appropriate international distress radio frequency.

pg. 38-39

Article 41
Sea lanes and traffic separation schemes in straits used for international navigation
1. In conformity with this Part, States bordering straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships.
2. Such States may, when circumstances require, and after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by them.
3. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations.
4. Before designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, States bordering straits shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the States bordering the straits, after which the States may designate, prescribe or substitute them.
5. In respect of a strait where sea lanes or traffic separation schemes through the waters of two or more States bordering the strait are being proposed, the States concerned shall cooperate in formulating proposals in consultation with the competent international organization.
6. States bordering straits shall clearly indicate all sea lanes and traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by them on charts to which due publicity shall be given.
7. Ships in transit passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article.
Article 42
Laws and regulations of States bordering straits relating to transit passage
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:
(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;
(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;
(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including the stowage of fishing gear;
(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of States bordering straits.
2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.
3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.
4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations.
5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and regulations or other provisions of this Part shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage which results to States bordering straits.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

LOL - I don't!!

Far too stressful - gave me my first grey hairs before I was 30, I would prefer the North Sea over that area.

I'll stick to NW Australia......and pushing a pen.

But I do miss driving



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
So basically, as I have been saying, the vessel is to transit the strait, in the sea lane, as expeditiously as it can to its port call, and is not allowed to go further into the countries TTW if that is not its business. And, being that, if the track we have of the vessel is accurate, and Iran felt the vessel was suspect for being off the transit lane, in their TTW, on a bearing in the opposite direction of its stated port of call, they have a right to investigate.

I do knot know what their ROE is for this situation, but we would attempt all forms of communication (bridge to bridge, ship to ship phone, flag, lights, maneuvering) prior to firing a shot across the bow.

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: spelling

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: spelling



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

LOL - I don't!!

Far too stressful - gave me my first grey hairs before I was 30, I would prefer the North Sea over that area.

I'll stick to NW Australia......and pushing a pen.

But I do miss driving

It's just warming up where I am now, I was specifically thinking of the warmth. The operations, nah, I've enjoyed being relaxed the last few years. The Med, to me, will always be the best. Never made it to Australia, that port got canxed.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Also, as FARS news has reported

"The ship was seized after a relevant court order was issued for its confiscation," he added, indicating that the ship owner had some long-standing overdue payments that it had to settle with IPMO.

Iran would be covered under

Article 28
Civil jurisdiction in relation to foreign ships
1. The coastal State should not stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction in relation to a person on board the ship.
2. The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.
3. Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the right of the coastal State, in accordance with its laws, to levy execution against or to arrest, for the purpose of any civil proceedings, a foreign ship lying in the territorial sea, or passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.


However, if they truly thought the vessel was U.S. owned, I would not doubt that there may be a political agenda as well.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
and more ...
pg. 63-64

Article 111
Right of hot pursuit
1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.
2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.
3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.
4. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of its boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a mother ship is within the limits of the territorial sea, or, as the case may be, within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone or above the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.
5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.
6. Where hot pursuit is effected by an aircraft:
(a) the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis; (b) the aircraft giving the order to stop must itself actively pursue the ship until a ship or another aircraft of the coastal State, summoned by the aircraft, arrives to take over the pursuit, unless the aircraft is itself able to arrest the ship. It does not suffice to justify an arrest outside the territorial sea that the ship was merely sighted by the aircraft as an offender or suspected offender, if it was not both ordered to stop and pursued by the aircraft itself or other aircraft or ships which continue the pursuit without interruption.
7. The release of a ship arrested within the jurisdiction of a State and escorted to a port of that State for the purposes of an inquiry before the competent authorities may not be claimed solely on the ground that the ship, in the course of its voyage, was escorted across a portion of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, if the circumstances rendered this necessary.
8. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Also, as FARS news has reported

"The ship was seized after a relevant court order was issued for its confiscation," he added, indicating that the ship owner had some long-standing overdue payments that it had to settle with IPMO.

Iran would be covered under

Article 28
Civil jurisdiction in relation to foreign ships
1. The coastal State should not stop or divert a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction in relation to a person on board the ship.
2. The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.
3. Paragraph 2 is without prejudice to the right of the coastal State, in accordance with its laws, to levy execution against or to arrest, for the purpose of any civil proceedings, a foreign ship lying in the territorial sea, or passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.


However, if they truly thought the vessel was U.S. owned, I would not doubt that there may be a political agenda as well.



What I said you can board check for contraband none found no reason to detain you send them on their way. If they found something than at that point can bring it in to port and stand charges. Going into TTW is not a reason to arrest or detain unless it has been posted a restricted area. There will be law suits over this I can assure you. Basically I ran has seized a foreign countries assets. They never asked if they need assistance checking for rudder jammed etc. Instead they confiscated the ship for unknown reason. Ships go off course here all the time it's a severe angle to navigate the strait. Also why Saudi Arabia and others worry about Iran their island can shoot at ships naval at ing the strait.

If they have a reason to detain the ship other than being in TTW there ok if not they are in violation.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
No, you can still take them into port and do a more thorough search, if a country has good reason to believe illegal goods are being transported, you can't very well access every cargo hold while at sea ... that has to be done in port.

edit on 4/29/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I could walk onboard any vessel on the planet (even the multi-million dollar white boats) and find a reason to detain it with 10 minutes - ISO auditor training has given me these tools.

I would go straight to their paperwork - specifically their compliance with their own Safety Management System and by asking the Master a few key questions I could get him to fall on his own sword.

True story.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
There are often discrepancies in crew manifestations as well.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Going into TTW is not a reason to arrest or detain unless it has been posted a restricted area.

How many times do I need to say this: When a ship is in a countries TTW on a bearing in the opposite direction of its stated port of call, that ship would be viewed as a potential threat, to which, said country would have every right.


Basically I ran has seized a foreign countries assets

Read International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, while Iran is not a signatory, the concepts would remain similar and be honoured; and, its successor, International Convention on the Arrest of Ships


Ships go off course here all the time it's a severe angle to navigate the strait.

Where is here? Are you near the Strait of Hormuz? Again, I've spent a lot of time there, ships do not go off course all the time. They do sometimes, but not all the time.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Al Arabiya adds that Iran fired on the US cargo ship before escorting it, a move which will surely lead to a rapid and violent escalation in the gulf:


The Saudis and Americans are responsible for the "rapid and violent escalation in the Gulf", not Iran.


It is unclear why Iran would do this…


Depends on the "cargo". If US sailors are on board its likely war materiel.


I'm sorry, but how EXACTLY are "the U.S> and Saudi Arabia responsible for the rapid and violent escalation in the Gulf"? Please elaborate for us. Did the U.S. fire on an Iranian ship? No? Well then gee, it sure seems like the U.S. is NOT at fault here. SMH. . .



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: dragonridr
No, you can still take them into port and do a more thorough search, if a country has good reason to believe illegal goods are being transported, you can't very well access every cargo hold while at sea ... that has to be done in port.


No, you absolutely ARE NOT, per International law, permitted to simply seize any ship you want to seize based solely upon unfounded suspicion. Stop making excuses for any and every Nation NOT named U.S.A., please. . .



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Incorrect - under Port State Compliance, that nations' leading Maritime authority has, under UN mandated law (IMO) all rights to inspect any vessel within that sovereign countries EEZ waters and they do not need a reason - any non compliance with the request to inspect will lead to.........

1. Detention or
2. Banned from ever entering that country.

You will also be added to Class "grey" list - thats strike 1'
strike 2 is black list.........then no insurance.........then bankruptcy

Every vessel owner/operator knows this..

So, if you are a member of the UN - you are required to comply with Port State requirements of that country and in fact you are required to be inspected annually (forms part of ships statutory documentation) - a global database exists.

Just google DNV, Lloyds register or ABS.

edit on 29-4-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo


No, you absolutely ARE NOT, per International law, permitted to simply seize any ship you want to seize based solely upon unfounded suspicion.

Yes, that is correct, generally speaking.

But, as I keep elaborating here ... a ship in a countries TTW, on a bearing opposite of its stated port of call, and I'll add, in the direction of said country, is a threat to that country, to which, they have every right, it is in their defence. The entire 17th page of this thread is loaded with all the international law that shows this.

Imaging a vessel that had several a huge bombs aboard in the Chesapeake Bay on its way to Baltimore suddenly turning toward Norfolk to take out a couple of our naval ships and is successful because international law prevented us from stopping a ship that was acting suspiciously. This is a real national security concern and we would most definitely stop, detain, and board any such vessel, and, if nothing was suspicious was found (and that would be unlikely), it would go on its way, but, if there are discrepancies in paperwork, crew manifestation, or crew/Capitan seem nervous, we would take that vessel to another location and search it top to bottom.

You could read the sources of international law that I have posted, as well as take in what has been learned through the media, and see that I am indeed, correct. Whether they did this because the viewed it as a threat, or they have a claim of debt as they stated themselves, they are, so far as we can tell at this moment in time (absent further information) operating under international law.


Stop making excuses for any and every Nation NOT named U.S.A., please. . .

I am American, I do not make excuses for any country, I give praise where praise is do, criticism where criticism is do, and correction of record where correction of record is do. Anyone who has seen me here on ATS, in agreement or not in things discussed, would likely attest to that fact ... and I have always admitted when I was wrong on these boards.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Act of War.

Time to bomb.
My personal experience tells me there are lots and lots of people like this guy in US .

to be honest there are many more people like Sublimecraft too . but that doesn't cut for me since the ones who are in charge are not like Sublimecraft , but more like this guy .

Tnx for the information you provided Sublimecraft , Mashreghnews agency also confirmed your reports .

@Americans : See ? there was no need for chest bumping .

Even if Iran boarded this vessel for political purposes and even if the sailors were american and they were all detained and put in jail , do you really like this to escalate into a full blown war ? if the answer is yes , then show yourself to a doctor ASAP .

I know some really good colleagues of mine in the state of california . seriously i do .



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: jaffo


No, you absolutely ARE NOT, per International law, permitted to simply seize any ship you want to seize based solely upon unfounded suspicion.

Yes, that is correct, generally speaking.

But, as I keep elaborating here ... a ship in a countries TTW, on a bearing opposite of its stated port of call, and I'll add, in the direction of said country, is a threat to that country, to which, they have every right, it is in their defence. The entire 17th page of this thread is loaded with all the international law that shows this.

Imaging a vessel that had several a huge bombs aboard in the Chesapeake Bay on its way to Baltimore suddenly turning toward Norfolk to take out a couple of our naval ships and is successful because international law prevented us from stopping a ship that was acting suspiciously. This is a real national security concern and we would most definitely stop, detain, and board any such vessel, and, if nothing was suspicious was found (and that would be unlikely), it would go on its way, but, if there are discrepancies in paperwork, crew manifestation, or crew/Capitan seem nervous, we would take that vessel to another location and search it top to bottom.

You could read the sources of international law that I have posted, as well as take in what has been learned through the media, and see that I am indeed, correct. Whether they did this because the viewed it as a threat, or they have a claim of debt as they stated themselves, they are, so far as we can tell at this moment in time (absent further information) operating under international law.


Stop making excuses for any and every Nation NOT named U.S.A., please. . .

I am American, I do not make excuses for any country, I give praise where praise is do, criticism where criticism is do, and correction of record where correction of record is do. Anyone who has seen me here on ATS, in agreement or not in things discussed, would likely attest to that fact ... and I have always admitted when I was wrong on these boards.


They have the right to intercept and redirect, and to defend if necessary. Board and confiscate? Not even close. Iran is the one in violation here. What they have done was stupid, counterproductive, counter-intuitive, and shows plainly why they continue to be excluded from the Big Boy Club. Congratulations, Iran, you probably just torpedoed your nuke deal. Which is, of course, EXACTLY what Russia and China want to happen.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: haman10

Haman, can you tell me your feelings on the Bahá'í Faith in Iran?

Can you accept they have been persecuted.

One man from your country and this religion came to my country. He became a part of the Valley Big Brothers And Big Sisters. He was a Big Brother to me. Great basketball player. He was smart and humble. I envy his control always. He was a top engineer, I saw some of it as a Little Brother. We made fun electronic stuff like the game operation, but out of boards and wires. His life was so simple, I asked him how, he showed me some pictures of his temple, people in the pictures dancing, but he would never show me them again because of fear.

This man lived in a 1 bedroom apartment with no furniture, and while he would never ever badmouth Iran, as I got older and asked better questions, it became clear.

How do you view the bahai religion?



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join