|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Show me the law... |
No. Will not waste time researching legal encyclopedias on maritime law and then post the information here where you will inevitably reject it as a lie. |
You've nothing to post, boy. I have never rejected any reliable research, chump. Ad hominems are all you have.
| Quote: |
| Maritime law does not support seizing foreign-flagged vessels and their crews in times of peace (the name for that, incidentally, BLT, is "piracy"). Neither Britain nor Iran have declared war with each other; and this British-flagged ship and crew were not invading or conducting hostile, less-than-war operations against Iran. Rather, they were patrolling/policing the Iraqi border. |
This is not entirely clear, which is why I have asked for any actual insight into the law. Your opinions are no more important than your asshole.
Back to the sandbox, boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I have to agree with you on this one, Gopher. I can't find myself in agreement with EFL Trainer on Iran. Iran did not have to seize a British ship. They could have simply told them to get out of "Iranian waters". |
Certainly. I have never disagreed with this. I have stated repeatedly the Iranians are acting stupidly. (Feel free to continue to ignore this fact.) But that is not the issue I am raising. I have raised the question as to why all of you are assuming the British position is both truthful and correct. I support the idea that it may be neither with info from a former Brit ambassador.... and you answer with your own opinion, and nothing more. The issue is: where were they. You have not answered this. Again, while it would have been wise of the Iranians not to take the Brits into custody, it has not been established that they acted against the law. And you have no interest in this point.
| Quote: |
| In a sense, this is a seizure of hostages who happen to work for the British Royal Navy. It is grounds for war. |
Since they didn't have to, it is an act of war? This is ridiculous. If they didn't have the right to, it might be construed as an act of war.
Since your entire argument is based in "pragmatics" rather than law, why do I not see you arguing the Brits might be wise to just apologize. A hollow apology for the lives of the 14 isn't a wise choice? It's your argument, not mine...
I have told you, I am not interested in the political argument, so why do you keep addressing my comments as if they are related to the political issues? I am only interested in the legal issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps you rabid Bushies can understand this simple explanation. If even that is too much for you, you've got serious mental deficiencies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6514243.stm
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1807504/posts
| Quote: |
UK Sailors-Iran Arrests
Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray Monday supported Iran's decision to arrest 15 UK marines in the Persian Gulf last week.
"In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," Murray said, who was also a previous head of Foreign Office's maritime section, carrying out negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative," he said.
The former envoy said that this was "especially true as apparently they were not looking for weapons but for smuggled vehicles attempting to evade car duty." "What has the evasion of Iranian or Iraqi taxes go to do with the Royal Navy?" he questioned in comments on his webpage, set up after he was sacked from his post in 2004 after criticizing British foreign policy.
While working for the Foreign Office, Murray was also head of the UK's Embargo Surveillance Centre, analyzing Iraqi attempts to evade sanctions and providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo.
He said that under international law, Britain would have been allowed to enter Iranian territorial waters if in "hot pursuit" of terrorists, slavers or pirates. But added "they weren't doing any of those things." "Plainly, they were not engaged in piracy or in hostilities against Iran. The Iranians can feel content that they have demonstrated the ability to exercise effective sovereignty over the waters they claim," the former envoy said. |
Edit:
Here's a nice work-up that supports the Brit side, if you accept their coordinates.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/iran-iraq/
Edit: The bit below combined with the above would fairly surely put things on the Brit side, assuming all info is correct. CAVEAT: The water lines are certain to have shifted in the five years since the map use here was made.
Finaly! The law:
| Quote: |
I have just read the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm), or at least the parts that seem applicable in this instance.
Assuming that the sailors were in Iranian territorial waters, which appears to be the less likely, though possible, scenario, they would forfeit their right of innocent passage because they were carrying out operations with weapons and affecting the sovereignty of Iran (Art 19.2 a and b). However, the convention only gives the aggreived state the right to request that the offending party leave immediately:
Art 30: "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." |
However:
| Quote: |
| That is why, incidentally, the MOD are quite right to put the emphasis on where the boarded vessel was, not the route of the boats. Military personnel just being in military boats in foreign territorial seas would not be an arrestable offence, just a warning off; a boarding would. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear EFLTrainer,
I realize you have Shiite-for-Brains, and jack off while thinking about the prospect of linking any international incident to the Bush administration, but the Iranian Navy has violated international laws and agreements. To wit:
from The AFP at the U.N.:
| Quote: |
| ...It would note that "the UK personnel were operating in Iraqi waters as part of the multinational Force-Iraq under a mandate from the Security Council under resolution 1723 (2006) and at the request of the government of Iraq.... |
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Changed_Coordinates_Of_British_Boats_Says_British_Ambassador_999.html
and from the AP based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates:
| Quote: |
...Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the Fifth Fleet said the British crew members were intercepted by several larger patrol boats operated by Iranian sailors belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, a radical force that operates separately from the country's regular navy.
The Iranian boats normally carry bow-mounted machine guns, while the British boarding party carried only sidearms, Aandahl said. No shots were fired and there appeared to be no physical harm done to any personnel involved or their vessels, Aandahl said. The seizure of the British vessels, a pair of rigid inflatable boats known as RIBs, took place in long-disputed waters just outside of the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq from Iran, Aandahl said. A 1975 treaty gave the waters to Iraq and U.S. and British ships commonly operate there, but Aandahl said Iran disputes Iraq's jurisdiction over the waters. It's been in dispute for some time," Aandahl said. "We've been operating there for a couple of years and we know the lines very well. This was a compliant boarding, this happens routinely. What's out of the ordinary is the Iranian response.... |
http://www.lawinfo.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/News.story/msgID/BA57F748-DF0B-4780-8926-C3E71E2E7758
Now, while it is true that the treaty was abrogated five years later the Security Council has been clear on this outstanding issue. Furthermore, since the British were operating with authorization from the Iraqi government, the Iranians should have lodged a formal protest either in the Security Council against the continued presence of the RN or warned Iraq against continued use of British naval forces. Neither has been pursued by the Islamofascists in Tehran.
Now, run along Susie. Daddy's busy now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesus, you're a stupid *beep*. You add nothing to the thread, then toss out a bushie just to set the Fox News spin just right.... lying scum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not that it's possible to find out, but I do wonder how much credibility the ordinary Johnny Iranian gives these so-called confessions by the sailors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Neil wrote: |
| ...how much credibility the ordinary Johnny Iranian gives these so-called confessions. |
Some believe; others do not.
Dated an Iranian woman months ago. Argued about the Israeli-Hezbollah War. She once unapologetically said "if my country has the power to do this, then good."
One thing travelling has taught me: Third-World patriotism and hypernationalism trumps even the worst of what France and Germany showed us in the course of the twentieth century...
I believe Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism makes this point as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
One thing travelling has taught me: Third-World patriotism and hypernationalism trumps even the worst of what France and Germany showed us in the course of the twentieth century...
I believe Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism makes this point as well. |
Yes, he does and they do. But don't expect EFLTrainer to have read the book; he's still the RIF (Reading Is Fundamental) program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One thing travelling has taught me: Third-World patriotism and hypernationalism trumps even the worst of what France and Germany showed us in the course of the twentieth century... |
Which goes to show that you are in the same ethnocentric bubble as Anderson --- travel doesn't show how others are worse or seperate. Travel is always a way of coming home, as too wisdom. It should show the intelligent how similiar we all are and how foolish our dualism and self centered superiority is....you have learnt nothing of "for whom the bell tolls". This is not a question of "trumping", as if we could say some races of men hunger more than other......
I won't address the poor scholarship or the "take anything from anywhere to prove my point" writing of Anderson. I much prefer Weber or even Stein in regards to nationalism and identity (or even that unknown Canadian Harold Innis....now there for once goes originality). Even Nietzsche, who far better showed how we had wiped away the whole horizon and killed god. And those who have killed him best are those who profess his almightyness at present. Anderson was a borrower...too much of that these days. He even didn't have the decency to credit McCluhan....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is quite a bit of agreement in academia, dd, that American-led globalization, which follows in the wake of European-led colonization, has led to a more heavy emphasis upon "imagined communities", or states as a base for personal identity. This is quite obvious. They want to be "them" more than would otherwise be the case because we have challenged their identity for about 400 years.
Combine, or contrast that, with the post-nationalism of Europe or Canada and Gopher is right. Americans are once again an exception, but the general idea stands. And for good, and easily understood reasons.
Sometimes you have to look beyond your minority worship.
Do you get that?
Are you just an elaborate troll? Like, you are Joo's cosmic joke? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Which goes to show that you are... |
no longer interested in your righteous lectures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
gopher wrote
no longer interested in your righteous lectures. |
I know you aren't.
Never thought for a moment you would be......you aren't the reflective kind. You believe what you believe, even if it is an albatross around your neck......... That was precisely my point, your inability to truly think and change and take stock and read outside the recommended readings of Amazon.com...........stick to the reading list of this week's professor. It will see you through and into self righteousness.......
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought this thread was about the Iranian capture of the Brits, which has been resolved, no?
You stupid asses. Such-and-such group of countries is more nationalistic than such-and-such group. Friggin' stupid argument on its face. And all based on you having lived there? my God! You're obviously brilliant! You went somewhere and saw some nationalism!!
Yeah, well, most of us have lived a number of somewheres, and what you learn is: people are people. Nationalism rises and falls depending on how screwed over people are or how idiotic their leadership is, etc.
And what nation, pray tell, is more nationalistic than the one that reserves the right to attack any other simple because they think there *might* be a threat lurking there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We're doing nothing illegal!
| Quote: |
'We Gathered Intelligence'
Updated: 22:05, Thursday April 05, 2007
The captain in charge of the 15 marines detained in Iran has said they were gathering intelligence on the Iranians.
Sky News went on patrol with Captain Chris Air and his team in Iraqi waters close to the area where they were arrested - just five days before the crisis began.
We withheld the interview until now so it would not jeopardise their safety.
And today, former Iranian diplomat Dr Mehrdad Khonsari said if the Iranians had known about it, they would have used it to "justify taking the marines captive and put them on trial".... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
