Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately. That's a bit different from "ambush it, steal the ship, and kidnap the sailors." It's government sponsored piracy, plain and simple. What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?
And those five Iranians detained by the USA was not even supposed to be in Iran either if the UN madate was followed by Iran. No Iranian officals/military are supposed to be in Iraq.
This is very interesting. I just found out that the Iranians made a similar move against U.S. land forces in Iraq. They came across the border and fired on our troops -- and it looks as if they intended to kidnap some of them. This happened on 3 March. Read the full story in A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight.
Iran just keeps stirring the pot...before long, someone is actually going to do something about it...I bet it would be Israel that bombs their nuke factories first.
That's because Iran is in this war to win. We in the West are not yet in this war to win. We just want to survive. This puts us at a significant disadvantage. We're like a boxer who won't throw a punch because he doesn't want to be in the fight.
I assume Americas imperialist onslaught on Iraq, and many other South American nations is much better?
may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately... That only means that is one option that can be adhered to and it's not something that can be interpreted as the only option a country can or may choose when foreign military entities are invading in a countries territory. So should Britain forces actually have crossed the borders as Iran claims it have this reference does not show Iran violated Maritime laws going on the references provided above. The better question would be is Iran's actions in violation of another law of some kind instead of letting this hinge on such a vague reference as provided above. Is Iran allowed to capture invading military personal and confiscate military material and even put these military personal on trial according to International law? That is a better question to bring forward then to discuss such a vague reference as: may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately... In case Britain forces did not crossed any borders then the actions taken by Iran as they have occurred is an act of unjustified aggression. There has been nothing brought forward in this thread by anyone or in the news for that matter that there is a independent source to substantiate any claims from both sides regarding who is crossing whoms borders. As of NOW it's a he says - she says stand off. It appears you are under the impression you are a lawyer Other?...
Edz, you can't go around seizing the property of other sovereign states on a whim. Iran are out of line - plain and simple. They have knowingly seized UK service personnel who were carrying out their lawful duties in Iraqi waters under UN Security Council Resolution 1723. You must the only person in the entire western world who thinks they were actually in Iranian waters. We (the UK) don't think they were, the US don't think they were and the EU don't think they were, so you're kind of outnumbered - and outclouted.
Article30 Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately. Article31 Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law. Article32 Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. SECTION 4. CONTIGUOUS ZONE Article32 Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. Article33 Contiguous zone 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Article25 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.
The Iranians have a long history of lying and the Brits have a long history of truthfulness. I refuse to place the two nations on an equal moral footing. That's like saying "George Will said this, but Charles Manson said that -- so we really can't tell who is telling the truth." In addition, the facts simply don't support the Iranian story. The Brits were quickly overwhelmed by the Iranian Navy because the Iranians had massed for the ambush. They obviously planned this. The Brits aren't releasing proof that their ship was in friendly waters because they are keeping that as a bargaining tool with the Iranians. They have their hands tied due to concern over the lives of their sailors.
Show us proof then that they where in Iraqi Waters instead of only saying it. It's going back and forth still. First of all, you NEED to actually listen or in this case READ what i am saying in this thread. I have not made any statements taking a position of any side to claim who did what and who didn't. I have not mentioned in any way that Britain crossed and also have not crossed Iranian territory. As i mentioned before there are no independent verifiable sources being brought forward who crossed whoms borders. Not by the U.K. news sources not by U.S. news sources nor E.U. sources. In matter of fact a spokesperson of the U.N. mentioned that they did not have any substance that can substantiate claims made by Iran nor Britain. This was a recently made statement on television. BBC World i believe. Iran is certainly putting itself it a bad and dangerous position by breaking the Geneva convention for attempting to put the British naval personal up for trial on spy charges. At least that is my understanding viewing the latest developments. This is violation of the Geneva convention as the captured personal where wearing military uniforms and can therefor not be trailed as spies. Source So Iran is making a big mistake pulling this out of proportion. The FACT still remains that there is not been proven whom crossed whoms borders. There has NOT been put forward independently verifiable evidence that can support Britains claims nor Irans claims. Do you still want to make FALSE claims about me siding for Iran?
Lorien already posted a story about how Iran's initial coordinates released proved the soldiers were not in Iranian waters. Once Iran realized this, they changed the coordinates and re-released them. Edz, if you find yourself in a position of having to defend by suggesting you are not taking a side, you might want to re-evaluate how your positions look to others. You have a habit of getting owned here, looks like you are well on your way again.
Good point and that's what i was saying the whole time... we really can't tell who is telling the truth That is something to think about... Could they have pounced on them so quickly without trespassing into Iraqi waters? Or where the Brits so far in Iranian waters? Hmm... Should they have had proof that can be perceived as independent by the International community they would have brought this forward. I see no reason why they should delay this? Delaying can only harm their sailors not help them in my opinion.
That's a good point GTech - I'd forgotten the first set of co-ordinates given by the Iranians which showed we well well within Iraqi water. Why else would they change their mind about the position after confronted by the British? The answer seems glaringly obvious to me - to try and defend the indefensible with doctored evidence. As for the UN spokesperson giving a neutral commentary on the situation, I wouldn't expect anything else from such a limp organisation - we'd be kissing arse until the cows came home if they had their way.