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

a reply to: jaffo
In reality, whether they are in the right or in the wrong will depend ultimately on the reason. If they have a maritime claim to a debt as they seem to be offering as their reason, guess what, they get to arrest (detain) the vessel.

double post

nevermind...

@tmawelsh

Zarif says seizure of ship in Persian Gulf is not political or security matter, but a legal one because ship owned money to #Iran #ZarifNYC

... he says the suit was 15-16 years old and the navy was implementing the decision of the court #ZarifNYC #Iran

via Reuters

Iran's Ports and Maritime Organization said a court had ordered the ship seized after ruling against Maersk Line in a case about debts brought by Pars Talaie, an Iranian company.

Tasnim, an Iranian news agency, quoted a Pars Talaie lawyer as saying the debt involved a cargo that Pars Talaie hired Maersk to take from the Iranian port of Abadan to Dubai more than a decade ago but which had never arrived.

Maersk said it was not the owner of the ship and that it was trying to establish the facts of any legal case. Rickmers said the Maersk Tigris was owned by "various private investors".

Maersk said the vessel was confronted in international waters while Rickmers said the incident occurred in a widely recognised international shipping lane.

Haman tells us that his Iranian sources said that the cargo ship has been released and has been freely underway since yesterday, yet all major national & international news reports say the ship has been seized and moved to an Iranian naval base.
Does anyone know who is telling the truth?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Haman tells us that his Iranian sources said that the cargo ship has been released and has been freely underway since yesterday, yet all major national & international news reports say the ship has been seized and moved to an Iranian naval base.
Does anyone know who is telling the truth?

RT reported a COMPLETELY different story earlier saying ship was on way, now they say a Brit is aboard and is docked in Iran...interesting rt.com...

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Haman tells us that his Iranian sources said that the cargo ship has been released and has been freely underway since yesterday, yet all major national & international news reports say the ship has been seized and moved to an Iranian naval base.
Does anyone know who is telling the truth?

AIS and

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Real Time Sat feed (non-civilian folks) - 2 hrs ago, vessel at anchor..........

from your RT source:

Tracking imagery indicates the seized ship is currently anchored off the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Although it is closer to Qeshem than it is Bandar-e Abbas.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Haman tells us that his Iranian sources said that the cargo ship has been released and has been freely underway since yesterday, yet all major national & international news reports say the ship has been seized and moved to an Iranian naval base.
Does anyone know who is telling the truth?

AIS and

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Real Time Sat feed (non-civilian folks) - 2 hrs ago, vessel at anchor..........

from your RT source:

Tracking imagery indicates the seized ship is currently anchored off the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Although it is closer to Qeshem than it is Bandar-e Abbas.

a reply to: Neutrality

I see there is a lot of nautical expertise present on this thread, has anyone been able to see from the ship location site, if the ship is, indeed, free and clear of Iranian seizure?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

Relax your hackles. The word applies...does it not?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

Relax your hackles. The word applies...does it not?

Same as the "captives" in Guantánamo.

Prisoners of war no? Do you accept they are prisoners of war and subject to INTERNATIONAL law?

And Americans involved should stand trial in the INTERNATIONAL courts? No?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

Relax your hackles. The word applies...does it not?

I think it does apply, especially when one remembers that the ship put out a call for help when the Iranians ....'detained' them. Fired in their direction... IIRC?

a reply to: IAMTAT
Detained is more fitting, it is the ship itself they are holding, not the persons onboard. The true terminology is the ship is under arrest, which is detained.

a reply to: butcherguy
If Iran has a legitimate debt to collect, they are allowed under international law to arrest a vessel.

See page 17.

a reply to: bullcat

So they're free to go, as soon as they finish their tasty umbrella drinks?
They are 'captive'...as in being detained against their will...under force!
Geez...Lighten up, cowpoke.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: bullcat

So they're free to go, as soon as they finish their tasty umbrella drinks?
They are 'captive'...as in being detained against their will...under force!
Geez...Lighten up, cowpoke.

Can you explain what a "cowpoke" is and why you need to use that in a post?

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

Relax your hackles. The word applies...does it not?

Same as the "captives" in Guantánamo.

Prisoners of war no? Do you accept they are prisoners of war and subject to INTERNATIONAL law?

And Americans involved should stand trial in the INTERNATIONAL courts? No?

can.you.just.stop.bashing.America.once.and.focus? Freaking RT used the word "seized"

Now why and what is on that ship, I thought this was going to be a non-event, but seems not that way now

originally posted by: Neutrality

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thanks. Does this mean that it is still captive?

Captive? Nice choice of words to evilify Iran.

It is being legally detained.

Relax your hackles. The word applies...does it not?

Same as the "captives" in Guantánamo.

Prisoners of war no? Do you accept they are prisoners of war and subject to INTERNATIONAL law?

And Americans involved should stand trial in the INTERNATIONAL courts? No?

can.you.just.stop.bashing.America.once.and.focus? Freaking RT used the word "seized"

Now why and what is on that ship, I thought this was going to be a non-event, but seems not that way now

Ahh so the fact I mention Guantanamo is bashing America? So Guantanamo is not real? NOT happening? No captives there?