Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 17, 2008, 02:28:22 PM
-
How the Pentagon planted a false story
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.
The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.
Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.
The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.
The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".
Just two weeks earlier, on December 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. That incident had gone without public notice.
With the reports from Fifth Fleet commander Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, January 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.
The decision came just as President George W Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.
That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the Fifth Fleet on the incident at about 4am Washington time on January 7. It was the first time the Fifth Fleet had issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.
The release reported that the Iranian "small boats" had "maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]." But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.
On the contrary, the release made the US warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. "Following standard procedures," the release said, "Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering."
The release did not refer to a US ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that US ships would "explode in a few minutes", as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a US ship as a potential danger.
That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.
At 9am, Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers", but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode". She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away".
CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats "dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water". Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.
The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.
In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.
On January 9, the US Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice - one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the US ship in the Iranian video - appears to threaten the US warships.
A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHS channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and navy leadership in the field".
"Leadership here", of course, refers to the secretary of defense and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the US Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defense.
That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers - often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" - frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.
One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."
By January 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell.
The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Captain David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon's story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, "I saw them float by. They didn't look threatening to me."
The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Cosgriff, the commander of the Fifth Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on January 7. A week later, Commander Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away "before we got to the point where we needed to open fire".
The decision to treat the January 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the navy's reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Lydia Robertson of Fifth Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, "There is a different perspective over there."
Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.
-
What a surprise.
-
Howdy Sandy!
Long time no see :)
-
As a retired 24 year military veteran, I find it sad when anyone bends the truth around to make a political stand.
Gareth Porter's story is BS and stinks of political bias. The event happened as reported by the Navy and the bastages were a few seconds from meeting Ala and the 27 hookers or what ever they are blowing themselves up for. The media quite possibly will be reporting on the sinking of some of those Iranian bath tubs in the near future. Wasn't but a few of months ago the Iranians screwed with the Brits in the same waters, taking hostages.
-
What a stupid comment:
A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".
Who here believes small boats can't be a threat to a naval warship?
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Who here believes small boats can't be a threat to a naval warship? [/B]
There's a huge difference between a ship at sea and a ship in port.
The attack on the Cole took advantage of two things. First, there we're other small boats in the area working with the ship. Second, the guards we're prohibited from firing by the rules of engagement set by the Pentagon.
A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
-
A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
====
Thats exactly the kind of thinking that gets people killed. I know you mean well and no doubt believe what you say. Think outside the boundries of what makes sense, there you will find the truth. Maybe.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Thats exactly the kind of thinking that gets people killed. I know you mean well and no doubt believe what you say. Think outside the boundries of what makes sense, there you will find the truth. Maybe.
It's not that complicated. In port, you have to let people and equipment within your defensive perimeter. At sea, it's not the case. If an unknown vessel closes within X range without communicating will be destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There's a huge difference between a ship at sea and a ship in port.
The attack on the Cole took advantage of two things. First, there we're other small boats in the area working with the ship. Second, the guards we're prohibited from firing by the rules of engagement set by the Pentagon.
A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
Those harmless small boats very well could have laid actual mines in the ships paths instead of simulated mines. Lucky for everyone Iran isn't quite yet ready to meet Allah.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Those harmless small boats very well could have laid actual mines in the ships paths instead of simulated mines. Lucky for everyone Iran isn't quite yet ready to meet Allah.
They could have, AK-but they were avoided, and we won't know if they were explosives, or the Iranian's trash from lunch, because the boxes' weren't even investigated. They were simply avoided.
Those boxes could have been anything, I won't argue that. They could have had tape recorders' in them, to find out what frequency's the FFG's sonar operated at. They could have been a homing device for the ASM batteries' located on the Iranian shore. They could have been full of the styrofoam plates' and cups' the boats' crews ate they're lunch off of.
If we had picked up one of the boxes' and found out what it was, that would have explained more. Yes, it's potentially dangerous. However, This isn't open warfare; No state of war exists' with Iran. Because of that, the lack of proof, the Iranians' hostile intentions are only guessed at.
-
Originally posted by lutrel
See Rule #5
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by lutrel
See Rule #5
Well said.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #5
Ill considered?
I've been at sea in a warship in the Persian Gulf. I know the drill.
-
I also agree that the small boats are a threat. I think we have seen from the Cole attack just what a small boat can do. With that said it seems that they are doing this quite often, and this event was blown out for the media, so the admin could take full advantage of it.
Not to mention a small boat could be rigged with a torpedo system that could be used much like PT boats were used in WW2. So they are a threat, but I think this incident was taken advantage of.
I do find it ironic that while Bush was in the middle east, visiting a terrorist nation that we call our buddies (Saudi Arabia). It's quite nice to see that he quietly approved the arms deal that will have the US supplying Saudi with a bunch of US made weapons.
One might go so far to say, as long as there is a "perceived" threat from some rogue nation like Iran, it's likely very good for business in the US arms market. Kinda hard to sell massive amounts of weapons in peace time with no threats.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ill considered?
I've been at sea in a warship in the Persian Gulf. I know the drill.
LOL
pwned
-
See Rule #5
-
You Know... I heard John "Hanoi" Kerry was at Sea too....
I'm sure just because someone served in the military, they are truly experts in all things warfare
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ill considered?
I've been at sea in a warship in the Persian Gulf. I know the drill.
What bothers me in this case is reports that some of these Iranian boats got within 200 yards.. That's too close, about 10 seconds distant at 40 knots on a perpendicular course. When I read that, I wondered why they didn't dissuade them sooner. Personally, I think the local commander should have been more aggressive in keeping the Iranians at a greater distance. I believe the Pentagon thinks so as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by saad
See Rule #5
Could you possibly know any less of what you're talking about?
-
See Rule #5
-
The ROE are at this time unknown and I'm sure will not be broadcast in detail. Speculating about them from the perspective of home and on a computer game forum is kinda silly. I'll trust the folks who are there now to follow the procedures set to allow them to continue their mission.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The ROE are at this time unknown and I'm sure will not be broadcast in detail. Speculating about them from the perspective of home and on a computer game forum is kinda silly. I'll trust the folks who are there now to follow the procedures set to allow them to continue their mission.
Smartest post in this entire thread.
-
Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #5
No sir... It also means I know more about it than you.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
You Know... I heard John "Hanoi" Kerry was at Sea too....
I'm sure just because someone served in the military, they are truly experts in all things warfare
Never stopped anyone who favored an extreme right political platform from thinking so. The few, the proud who may have served, that is. ;)
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Yet Dago seems to be an expert on news articles due to his well readedness... :aok
-
Oh stop..please!! Seriously, you're gonna make me have a stroke! My sides are hurting from laughing so ****ing hard at you idiots telling Sandy he don't know jack about the Navy, security procedure and defensive protocol! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by lutrel
See Rule #5
Actually it's 72 virgins...and along with them comes 72 irate mother-inlaws.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Actually it's 72 virgins...and along with them comes 72 irate mother-inlaws.
And then they'll want to martyr themselves all over again and Allah will find himself on a jihad list.
-
Yep source criticism is the last thing you should attempt to do, especially when your living in a country that's practically in a state of war.
I mean, no war going country nor a politician in the history has ever lied to its citizens. :)
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There's a huge difference between a ship at sea and a ship in port.
The attack on the Cole took advantage of two things. First, there we're other small boats in the area working with the ship. Second, the guards we're prohibited from firing by the rules of engagement set by the Pentagon.
A small boat in the open sea isn't a threat. It will be destroyed long before it ever gets close enough to duplicate the Cole attack.
Sandy,
Give it up. After all, our very own AH BBS Google Search Experts know more than you. I already gave a comparison of the USS Cole in the original thread. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
See Rules #4, #5
Dago, this message kinda comes across as an insult to some, if not all, Veterans. You are implying that they don't know anything about the situation's that they themselves' have been in? I would'nt repeat this sort of thing at the VFW hall.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Dago, this message kinda comes across as an insult to some, if not all, Veterans. You are implying that they don't know anything about the situation's that they themselves' have been in? I would'nt repeat this sort of thing at the VFW hall.
I think he trying to say that a gas turbine technician is probably doing his job: tactics and strategy are up to Captians and Admirals.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think he trying to say that a gas turbine technician is probably doing his job: tactics and strategy are up to Captians and Admirals.
Good point, but not the only relevant one.
Training and duty aren't the only things you're exposed to. In my case, USAF taught me about electronics, not security. But I had drinking buddies who were on the flight line and perimeter with M16s and dogs. We had plenty of time while off duty to sit and jaw about what each other did while on duty.
I'd expect if I'd been a swabbie maintaining gas turbines (or heads ;)) I'd have been interested enough to listen to the guys who were manning guns and missile systems talk about what they did.
Its pretty stupid to say that a guy who's been deployed and claims to have some knowledge doesn't. He may, he may not, but he was damn sure in a place where he very likely would have been exposed to it.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
(http://incontext.blogmosis.com/see%20no%20evil.jpg)
:aok
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
It's not that complicated. In port, you have to let people and equipment within your defensive perimeter. At sea, it's not the case. If an unknown vessel closes within X range without communicating will be destroyed.
====
True, but these speedbaots closed to within 200 yards on the open sea. On the released video the ship horn was wailing and it appeared the chain of command was not reacting quickly enough, or at least was confused.
To say there was no threat here is simply wrong imo.
I also agree that this incident is clearly being used by politicians to support their agendas, thats why the Iranians are so dangerous. Iranian stupidity, as exemplified in the incident, will trip the wire of war that has been set by the US.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think he trying to say that a gas turbine technician is probably doing his job: tactics and strategy are up to Captians and Admirals.
Actually the tactics and strategy come more from the petty officers and chiefs manning all the gear in CIC and the Bridge. Those are the guys that have all the info and knowledge as to whats going on. The Captain, Tactical Action Officer, and the Admirals get all their info from the watch standers, take recomendations from the watch standers and then they make a decision as to what they want to do.
And yes I am an expert on this subject. It was my life for 5 years underway. My last ship I was the CIC watch coordinator and assistant watch supervisor. I only answered to 5 people when I had the watch. My Chief, Officer of the Deck, Operations Officer, XO, CO.
On a ship tactical operations are run from CIC and that place is controled and operated by the enlisted folks. The officers only know what we tell them.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The officers only know what we tell them.
as it should be, otherwise they start getting ideas they're in charge...:D
-
Dago is NEVER wrong guys, you should just figure that out and deal with it.... :rofl
-
See Rule #4
-
Dago makes good points.
-
Originally posted by Dago
See Rule #4
Star Trek t-shirt fort?
My t-shirt fort is made up from old Solomons '42 shirts, as I placed an order for 50 of them with Snak.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
This posing is normal in the Straits. The Iranians were being as aggressive and defiant as the US is while transiting the Straits of Hormuz.
Where were the US ships? All the announcements are that the ships were inbound in the Straits of Hormuz. One US transmission in the video is: "We are in international waters and we intend no harm."
That is not true. They may mistakenly claim they are in international waters, but there are no international waters in the Straits of Hormuz. The inbound channel is in Iranian territorial waters and ships in transit through the Straits do so at the pleasure of Iran or Oman (the outbound channel) and according to the rules set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," is another one of the transmissions from the US ships.
OK, fine, except the US has never ratified the "international law" that they now want to claim privileges and protection with for navigation rights in the Straits. You can't claim protections from an international law and ignore it all on the same day.
The "international law" that gives navigation rights through the Straits of Hormuz prohibits air operations while in transit. It also prohibits surveillance and surveys while in transit. See the helos in the videos? That violates the terms of right of passage. The US Navy uses sonar and US subs do not surface while going through the Straits - all violations of the terms to right of passage.
Iran could deny all US ships right of passage tomorrow, if it wanted to, and the US would have no legal standing. The inbound channel is 100% Iran territorial waters. Iran is probably content to let these theatrics continue for its own political purposes, just as the US is.
It's theater for you. Put on some popcorn and enjoy it.
-
Great post Rolex
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
The 3 ships we had there.... if something which needed to be avoided were dropped in their path 200 yards off bow, would they be able to react and turn in time?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
This posing is normal in the Straits. The Iranians were being as aggressive and defiant as the US is while transiting the Straits of Hormuz.
Where were the US ships? All the announcements are that the ships were inbound in the Straits of Hormuz. One US transmission in the video is: "We are in international waters and we intend no harm."
That is not true. They may mistakenly claim they are in international waters, but there are no international waters in the Straits of Hormuz. The inbound channel is in Iranian territorial waters and ships in transit through the Straits do so at the pleasure of Iran or Oman (the outbound channel) and according to the rules set out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," is another one of the transmissions from the US ships.
OK, fine, except the US has never ratified the "international law" that they now want to claim privileges and protection with for navigation rights in the Straits. You can't claim protections from an international law and ignore it all on the same day.
The "international law" that gives navigation rights through the Straits of Hormuz prohibits air operations while in transit. It also prohibits surveillance and surveys while in transit. See the helos in the videos? That violates the terms of right of passage. The US Navy uses sonar and US subs do not surface while going through the Straits - all violations of the terms to right of passage.
Iran could deny all US ships right of passage tomorrow, if it wanted to, and the US would have no legal standing. The inbound channel is 100% Iran territorial waters. Iran is probably content to let these theatrics continue for its own political purposes, just as the US is.
It's theater for you. Put on some popcorn and enjoy it.
Rolex, you are applying the wrong rules... You are applying PART II
TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE, SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
The above does not include Straits Used for International Navigation. See Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Submarines need not surface in these straits. Aircraft may operate within these straits.
The Straits of Hormuz are not recognized as territorial seas, but as a strait where different rules apply. Moreover, Iran MAY NOT deny the US the right to transit.
Article 44 states...
Duties of States bordering straits:
States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give
appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over
the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of
transit passage.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So far as I'm concerned we should be in a state of war with Iran for past and present aggressions. No action by any of our military branches should be executed as if we are at peace with Iran.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So far as I'm concerned we should be in a state of war with Iran for past and present aggressions. No action by any of our military branches should be executed as if we are at peace with Iran.
Why?
Would we act differently if they were in Canada?
The United States has been involved in 3 Wars and multiple conflicts in the past 35 years.
The bloodthirsty Iranians? One. Iraq invaded them and they fought a horribly bloody defensive campaign for 7 years. Iran was also the only Muslim country to denounce the 9-11 attacks and had mass demonstrations in support of the United States in its' streets following the attacks.
You are completely wrapped up in the idiocy this administration spews at you. Please hit the power button on your brain, and start it up. When an M16 bullet hits one of our soldiers...(and they are) should we blame ourselves for that casualty? But, our government blames Iran on US deaths with circumstantial evidence akin to exactly that. The adinistration just wants to go that much further and invade Iran as well.
A couple of boats play tag in our wakes...and an un identified voice is attributed to THEM... a voice which spoke clearly without any wind in the background...You wanna blow them away.
I'm not in support of the Iranians... I could care what they do.. it's their country. I'm only in support for rational thinking.... something which is missing in our current decision making.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'm not in support of the Iranians... I could care what they do.. it's their country.
so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?
One outcome does not nessecitate the other.
Just because one leader is an anti semite...(not even a part of the ruling council) doesn't mean they want anything to do with Israel. You really need to familiarize yourself with their political process, john.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so you don't care if Iran gets nukes and destroys Israel and starts WW3?
Pakistan is much more likely to do exactly that..and they already have the nukes...and the national sympathy for Al Queda.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Iran was also the only Muslim country to denounce the 9-11 attacks and had mass demonstrations in support of the United States in its' streets following the attacks.
Yeah, you're right.
Iran on 911
9/11 incident, a make-believe: Iranian official
IranMania
An Iranian official mocked the 9/11 story presented to the world public opinion by the US, IRNA reported.
“What we watched on the TVs regarding slamming of two planes into the New York Twin Towers, was in fact a make-believe scene,” said Iran’s Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister and head of Iran’s Culture, Art and Communications Research Center Mohammad-Hadi Homayoun in an address to the Iran-Russia Dialogue among Civilizations Conference in Moscow.
Homayoun stipulated that the sky-scrappers were destroyed through bomb explosions, adding that after massive media propaganda of the US the crusades began.
Criticizing Hountington’s theory of Clashes among Civilizations, Homayoun said the theory was formed to justify clashes and tensions among civilizations and cultures.
Meanwhile, touching on a quarter-a-century chronology of the globalization process, Iran’s Presidential advisor Mohammad Nahavandian told the audience for his part that global village is in need of human relations more than satellites and the internet.
“Communications are today only responsible for preparing the technical ground for the relations; and as long as there is no cultural cooperation, there will be clashes among civilizations,” announced Nahavandian.
Accusing the US and the ‘Zionist’ regime of adventurism and of opposing the idea of dialogue among civilizations, Nahavandian said that Iran and Russia are advocates of dialogue among civilizations and cultures.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Yeah, you're right.
Actually, yes I am.
Iranian president condemns September 11 attacks
November 12, 2001 Posted: 5:42 PM EST (2242 GMT)
Khatami: "We have to address the root causes of terrorism."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CNN) - The U.S.-led war against terrorism is being carried out across the border from Iran, in Afghanistan.
Iranian President Mohammed Khatami discussed the military campaign, the September 11 attacks and the political future of its war-torn neighbor in a rare interview Sunday with CNN Senior International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour.
AMANPOUR: With every statement, every new videotape, Osama bin Laden comes closer to admitting responsibility for September 11. Are you are comfortable that, with the evidence so far, the United States, under international law, has the right to defend itself against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?
MORE STORIES
Iranian president: 'Root of terrorism' must be addressed
KHATAMI (through translator): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, first of all, I would like to again express my deepest condolences to the nation of America, and express my sorrow for the tragic event of September 11. What occurred was a disaster.
-
Moray, do you have the link to the entire speech you posted a sentence from?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Iranian president: 'Root of terrorism' must be addressed
What he didn't tell you is, in his opinion, the root cause of 9-11 is our support of Israel.
-
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Hi Widewing,
Yes, both parties have obligations and rights under the rules. That right to transit passage is based on ships following their obligations, though. If a ship is not following the rules for innocent passage, it can be denied passage.
I was using Part III. Article 45 in Part III, refers back to Part II for the definition of innocent passage.
------------
"SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE
Article45
Innocent passage
1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shall apply in straits used for international navigation:"
----------
And that Part II, section 3 says this [Note 2. (e) and Article 20]:
----------
"Article19
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;
(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.
Article20
Submarines and other underwater vehicles
In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag."
-------------
Also, Article 25 states:
"A coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may 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 of security, including weapons exercise."
And Article 30 states, "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."
-
seams that that boat got close enough for a torpedo, what if the "small boat" had a torp tube on the hidden side. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Widewing
What bothers me in this case is reports that some of these Iranian boats got within 200 yards.. That's too close, about 10 seconds distant at 40 knots on a perpendicular course. When I read that, I wondered why they didn't dissuade them sooner. Personally, I think the local commander should have been more aggressive in keeping the Iranians at a greater distance. I believe the Pentagon thinks so as well.
My regards,
Widewing
there lies the problem do you start an international incident or do you finish it ! the iranians have a longstanding habit of trying to provoke a response from the U.S. navy that goes back 30 years, they want us to shoot first,so we look bad in the eyes of the world! if the comander had all weapons trained on these vessels (im sure he did) he may have felt as if they would not fire and if they did he could respond fast enough.the world watches us alot closer than anyone else, we always have to be right or its our fault no matter what happens!
---------- respectfully
-
Originally posted by Rolex
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Hi Widewing,
Yes, both parties have obligations and rights under the rules. That right to transit passage is based on ships following their obligations, though. If a ship is not following the rules for innocent passage, it can be denied passage.
I was using Part III. Article 45 in Part III, refers back to Part II for the definition of innocent passage.
------------
"SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE
Article45
Innocent passage
1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shallapply in straits used for international navigation:"
----------
And that Part II, section 3 says this [Note 2. (e) and Article 20]:
----------
"Article19
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;
(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.
Article20
Submarines and other underwater vehicles
In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag."
-------------
Also, Article 25 states:
"A coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may 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 of security, including weapons exercise."
And Article 30 states, "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."
Here's the entire reference from Section:
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE
Article 45
Innocent passage
1. The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II,
section 3, shall apply in straits used for international navigation:
(a) excluded from the application of the regime of transit passage
under article 38, paragraph 1; or
(b) between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone
and the territorial sea of a foreign State.
2. There shall be no suspension of innocent passage through such
straits.
Article 38 states:
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.
Now, your argument has been made by several coastal states, attempting to deny warships passage through a strait within their territorial waters. The International Court of Justice ruled that:
"It is, in the opinion of the Court, generally recognized and in accordance with international custom that States in times of peace have the right to send their warships through straits used for international navigation between two parts of the high seas without the previous authorization of the coastal State, provided that the passage is innocent."
Also, it has been interpreted by Britain, Australia and the US that the operation of aircraft within a strait is not outside the scope of article 19. Russia interprets article 19 to exclude rotor craft. Article 19 addresses only launching and recovery of aircraft, not the operation thereof.
Regardless of international law, as a rule, the US Navy will not launch or recover fixed wing aircraft within strait as it is a hazard to navigation to maneuver a carrier with the confines of a busy strait. They will, and have launched aircraft prior to entering a strait, recovering same upon exiting the strait and territorial waters.
Note also, Article 44.
States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.
When the Iranian boats began dropping boxes in the path of the US warships, they violated Article 44 as the warships via due diligence, had to alter course.
You stated: "The "international law" that gives navigation rights through the Straits of Hormuz prohibits air operations while in transit. It also prohibits surveillance and surveys while in transit. See the helos in the videos? That violates the terms of right of passage. The US Navy uses sonar and US subs do not surface while going through the Straits - all violations of the terms to right of passage."
Air ops are not prohibited by article 19 if the helos were airborne prior to entering territorial waters. Moreover, helicopters may be launched to provide adequate surveying of the straits in as much as it supports safe navigation. This is the Russian contention. Likewise, the use of sonar as a navigation tool is generally accepted as within the scope of innocent passage. In addition, sonar may be used if a threat is perceived as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not suspend a reasonable right to self defense. Furthermore, the US Navy routinely tracks Iranian Kilo class subs operating submerged in the straits. Tell me again why a stealthy, billion dollar American attack sub would surface with Kilos in proximity? You're kidding, right?
Your argument seems remarkably similar to that of Kaveh L Afrasiabi's piece in the Asian Times. Afrasiabi is an Iranian. Moreover, his argument has more holes than those Iranian speed boats would have had if they had not backed off.
My regards,
Widewing