Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: Captain Davies on July 12, 2007, 18:43:40
-
If I understand rightly, laws on a ship are generally applied by the country of registration (whether this applies whilst your ship is in territorial waters is another matter).
I think, when it come to Navy Ships, then being on board that ship means you are on territory belonging to the owning country, according to international law. A good example of this is the Great Train Robbery, where ring leader Ronnie Bigs escaped to Brazil. There he started a family and so could not be extradited by the police. He was invited aboard a RN ship by for a meal (they must have seen it as some sort of joke; to dine with a fellon).
Then they let him go, thinking that was all they could do. When the British Government found out they went crazy, because he was on a British ship, the captain and crew had powers of arrest, and they hadn't even realised it.
-
That's what I thought. I didn't know that story though.
Does the Captain still have that right when his ship is in 'foreign' waters though?
For example- I was on a ferry in France (British flagged) when a serious assault took place- who has jurisdiction? The French or the British. I know that it is different situation from your Naval example.
---
On the Lloyds register website there are several articles regarding piracy of ships. It seems it is quite a bit more common than is reported as many shipping companies are worried about worrying their customers and risking increased insurance premiums.
If I understand rightly there are no international laws as such, just multi-lateral agreements between countries.
Stu
Stu
-
Hello Stu,
A naval vessel is indeed part of the territory of its country, wherever it sails, until it is decommissioned.
That is also why they need the agreement of the country of destination to enter the territorial waters, but of course there are also MOUs between nations to ease the procedures.
Regards,
Luc
Commercial and private vessels are of course subject to the laws and customs of the country as soon as they enter the territorial waters, and to the international laws (fishing, drug, piracy, ...) in international waters.
Luc 8)
-
back on topic
-
i added poll ;D
I closed poll ;D
Seriously, could you please at least pretend you are a bit of a grown up? Adding a poll is ok, but make it a bit more serious please. Sometimes jokes can go a bit to far.
-
Hmm i would remove those last two options, give a very bad imature look of yourself
-
For example- I was on a ferry in France (British flagged) when a serious assault took place- who has jurisdiction?
Private vessels are under the laws of the territory they are in. I have another example to show this (not quite as detailed). Two smugglers, are making their escape from the UK (this is a true story by the way). They know the police could pick up their trail at any moment but if they can reach international waters they will be safe. They are on a ferry to Denmark (I think) by the time the police pick up the trail and reach the dock, the ferry has set sail.
A customs boat now has to race to get to that ferry before it covers the 12 miles to international waters. They do reach it in time, and manage to get it to stop. They arrest the two men, and take them back to shore.
Now, this shows that a private ship is under the duresdiction of the country it is in. But in international waters, no one has duresdiction, certainly not of arrest. This must be the case because surely; if the ship belonged to Denmark in international waters, then the UK govt would simply call them and ask for permission to board and arrest.
In the example you gave it would be the French that had duresdiction, and could board the ferry without permission from Britain.
-
Hey! This was my idea on the old Shipsim forum :D, but you can borrow it if you want :).
-
My self I think it would not last to long due to her weight and length the ship would have alo of stress in 40 to 50ft waves or less because parts of he ship would be out of the ship would be out of the water and the hull would twist and bind also the glass might break from the movements. The ship would have a useful life like every ship at sea after sometime the ship would have to be taken out of service. Then everyone will have to find a place to live. Also the ship would have to eventualy go to drydock for hull paint and serviceing but the problem is thet there is no 4000 foot long drydock on Earth. ;) So I think it is not possiable for this ship to last or be built.
-
Those are some very good points that I had not thought of. I agree with you Ship Sim.
-
In the example you gave it would be the French that had duresdiction, and could board the ferry without permission from Britain.
Thanks Capt. D. I think I remember that in the papers a few years back. I suppose if a ship was British flagged and the British Police wanted it, boarding in international waters wouldn't be so hard.
As for foreign waters, I assume that permission to enter foreign waters must automatically confer rights to the host country to board your vessel. I can see why Capt. Ross (ex PO Bilbao) explained that he had become more of a solicitor than a skipper!
Stu
PS If you want to carry this fascinating subject on, then we could move it to small talk as we're drifting off subject.
-
So I think it is not possiable for this ship to last or be built.
Perhaps it has been designed to be built from several barge sections which are connected by large meccano sets and split for maintenance?
Academic point as it will never be built.
Stu
-
Perhaps it has been designed to be built from several barge sections which are connected by large meccano sets and split for maintenance?
Academic point as it will never be built.
Stu
Problem is thet in heavy seas these barges could break apart or get twisted. If it happend thet it was bent in veary rough seas it would be condemmed or have serious damage. So the cost would be more than the profit. Also the ship si almos a mile long so it would have a hard time turning. Also what would happen if another ship crashed into it.
-
It is a nice ship but if a 40 to 60ft wave crashed in to it what do you think would happen.
-
Also what would happen if another ship crashed into it.
Frankly the captain of the ship that crashed into it would have to be quite useless not to spot something that size and avoid it.
-
Also what would happen if another ship crashed into it.
That would be almost the same as an insect crushing into your windscreen. Due to it's enormous displacement I do not think anything would happen to the Freedom Ship. I would rather worry about the other ship crashing into it...
-
Frankly the captain of the ship that crashed into it would have to be quite useless not to spot something that size and avoid it.
But if it is only a self powered barge, would it have the speed or manouverability? Even if it was spotted from miles away?
Stu
-
my opinion is to not have the ship in the game, its too big, it'll forever to start moving, and manoverbility will stink. KM
-
But if it is only a self powered barge, would it have the speed or manouverability? Even if it was spotted from miles away?
Stu
If what's a self powered barge? The Freedom Ship? I was referring to the other ship that (hypothetically) crashed into the Freedom Ship, which is also hypothetical. Come to think of it so is the boat that crashed into it in the first place. :D
-
Sorry Captain D. I can read English (believe it or not) but I do think I need my eyes tested- too many hours staring at a screen.
You are right, but I can not help but think of that giant car transporter which sank in the Channel... despite the presence of light ships, French Coastguard and a Royal Navy Frigate, a freighter still managed to hit the wreck.
ha ha. What about some sunday sailor on his 20ft yacht "Oi. Out the way- powered ships give way to sail..." BANG.
Stu
-
Now, this shows that a private ship is under the duresdiction of the country it is in. But in international waters, no one has duresdiction, certainly not of arrest. This must be the case because surely; if the ship belonged to Denmark in international waters, then the UK govt would simply call them and ask for permission to board and arrest.
That's where the United Nations Marine Laws come into play.
-
ha ha. What about some sunday sailor on his 20ft yacht "Oi. Out the way- powered ships give way to sail..." BANG.
LOL, now that guy sounds British! :D
-
LOL, now that guy sounds British! :D
ROFL. gotta agree with that :D
-
That's where the United Nations Marine Laws come into play.
Hi Captain K.
But not every country recognises the UN. Are they actual laws or just multi lateral agreements? I ask not to argue with you on this- I don't know.
Put this way:
Ship W is travelling in ocean X with the flag of country Y (won't use British flag as we surrender to anyone these days) and it is intercepted by a naval vessel/patrol of country Z.
The ship is in international water. What right in ANY law does the patrol boat have to intercept and board the other vessel (unless it is heavily armed- that is usually good authorisation ;) )?** Maybe if the country Y has authorised it. If I understand correctly there is no hard law in international waters, just a collection of multilateral loose agreements.
I won't argue (this once ;) ) as I don't know enough. If you have knowledge of this, I would appreciate knowing what the status is.
Stu
-
Hello Stu,
There is a UN Convention on the Law of the Sea agreed by most maritime countries, and also multilateral agreements indeed. SOLAS, traffic separation schemes, Spambot, arms control and surveillance of fishing are not heavily discussed matters, but the commercial and judicial sides (insurance, wreckage, pollution costs, ...) are more confused and need a true expertise. These sites can lead to more infos (thank you Google).
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/Panama.asp
http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/losc.htm
Regards,
Luc
-
But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.
If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.
They may arrest you as soon as you come into territorial wates though.
As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.
Stu
-
But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.
Stu
There are very few non-participating countries, and that would be a frail reed to stand on if you somehow incurred the wrath of a major country. Piracy or not, I suspect you'd wish that the flag country had a more extensive consular system after you'd languished in the jug for a while.
Cheers,
Michael
-
If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.
That would most definetly be piracy, and would probably result in an international incident. The whole mandate of the UN means that any ship can be boarded by a ship flying the UN flag but with the agreement of the UN itself. Say for instance the ship was carrying black market weapons, then the UN would order it stopped, because the whole point is for them to intervene for the sake of global security and stability.
As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.
I imagine the reason the British government says this is to make sure you don't get yourself shot and then that you allow them to sort it out.
-
But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.
If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.
They may arrest you as soon as you come into territorial wates though.
As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.
Stu
Indeed, but you're hardly in a position to argue with a Type 22 Frigate, are you? ;)
-
OKAY, There are International Waters laws but.... OFFICIALLY... Ships sailing the high seas are generally under flag state jurisdiction.
-
Hello Stu,
As a rule (article 110), navy ships (of any nation) have the right of visit and may board your ship if they suspect your ship is engaged in piracy, slave trade, illegal broadcasting (!), has no nationality (art. 92.2), or hides her flag being in reality of the same nationality of the navy ship herself.
The definition (art. 101) of piracy is not very restrictive "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation,...." and cannot be the fact of a naval ship. (They commit illegal acts, collateral damage, errors, mistakes, war crimes, acts of war ...).
Idem slave trade (Spambot, children, ...).
And of course, Captain Kool is quite right, Art. 92.1 says:
Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.
So, if you are suspect, ;D your freedom of the seas could change if you damage the paint of the boarding party!
Regards,
Luc
-
This is a very nice discussion going on here but I must remind you that it is off topic so please start a new topic in the Small Talk Section.
-
Indeed, but you're hardly in a position to argue with a Type 22 Frigate, are you? ;)
That's the point I was making. Is it only the fear of force that makes people comply.
And, I can think of one type 22 I would happily argue with...
Stu
-
LOL, you're thinking of HMS Cornwall, aren't you?
I STILL can't believe what the Iranians got away with, it makes me ANGRY! >:(
-
LOL, you're thinking of HMS Cornwall, aren't you?
I STILL can't believe what the Iranians got away with, it makes me ANGRY! >:(
Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.
Perhaps we should turn our anger to the Captain of Cornwall for incompetence or the MOD for allowing these pathetic creatures to be captured with their trousers down. Compare and contrast to those who recently attended the Falklands remembrance ceremony.
Stu
-
Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.
Perhaps we should turn our anger to the Captain of Cornwall for incompetence or the MOD for allowing these pathetic creatures to be captured with their trousers down. Compare and contrast to those who recently attended the Falklands remembrance ceremony.
Stu
I know, I can't believe that HMS Cornwall sat by and did nothing.
Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.
You mean like being 1.7 miles away from where the Iranians claimed they were? Don't forget that the Iranians changed their story. The original coordinates they gave were also inside Iraqi waters.
-
Hi Luc/Captain Kool
I take your word both of you on your points. However, (and this ISN'T an argumentative statement) I repeat, IF your registered country does not subscribe to the UN agreements, then where do the rules leave people.
IE
A ship registered in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Stuart is legally sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and, say, HMS Cornwal flounces past and asks the ship to be ever so kind and allow themselves to be boarded.
PDRoS has not subscribed to the UN agreement nor permitted the boarding of the ship. Is this effectively an act of war against PDRoS?
I know that if you sail into territorial waters you automatically assign rights to the host nation to board and inspect your vessel. But in the middle of the sea do they have authority to assign those conventions Luc mentions?
Stu
-
I know, I can't believe that HMS Cornwall sat by and did nothing.
You mean like being 1.7 miles away from where the Iranians claimed they were? Don't forget that the Iranians changed their story. The original coordinates they gave were also inside Iraqi waters.
After the seizure, there is little that could have been done - apart from threatening to blow the Iranian ship to hell (not much help).
That estuary has been bitterly disputed for hundreds of years. Whilst I would tend to agree with you, let us not forget that the RN should have been aware that its position could have been challenged.
And- and I MUST stress I am not siding with the enemy- but I do not trust the British authorities any more than I trust the Iranians- do we KNOW their position was accurate. And it DOES pain me to say that.
Stu
-
Hm, GPS sides with the British on this one.
As for the capture, I agree that not much could have been done to stop it once it occured, but that shouldn't have stopped some kind of response. For a start, some warning shots/dispatching the Helo would have gone down well.
And while the RN might have had its position 'challenged' by the Iranians, it shouldn't by any stretch of the imagination succumb to that challenge. Had it have come down to any kind of sea engagement, the RN would have won hands down.
-
nearly 90 years ago, a country in the Med. area (can't remember which) took RN personnel hostage over alleged ilegal entry into territorial waters. The RN response was to get 50 front line ships, block their main ports and threaten to open fire if the prisoners were not returned.
In this day, it doesn't work like that. If they engaged the Iranians, it could have led to all out war. It would be 'nice' to say go for it, but the real world doesn't work like that.
Remember that Iran would sacrifice the boat crew happily, where as if any RN personnel were hurt it would be headline news for weeks in Britain. Same applies to Europe, America, etc.
We don't have the backbone for fights anymore. Look at the idiots that were captured. Was there no LOOKOUT aboard the freighter???
Stu
-
In this day, it doesn't work like that. If they engaged the Iranians, it could have led to all out war. It would be 'nice' to say go for it, but the real world doesn't work like that.
I know. The capture of our personnel would have been the act of war though, not our response.
I realise what you're saying, but if the RN isn't going to have the guts to engage enemies for fear of the potential fallout, then they're effectively useless.
The US Navy engaged Iranian vessels in the original gulf war when they got too close, I can't see why we don't do the same.
-
I know. The capture of our personnel would have been the act of war though, not our response.
Yes, I agree. 1- IF the RN was right. 2- The truth is usually irelevant- it is perception. You can see the way Iran won be careful 'spin' and a queer diplomacy.
I realise what you're saying, but if the RN isn't going to have the guts to engage enemies for fear of the potential fallout, then they're effectively useless.
Yep, exactly. Some good people, but those useless crettins on Cornwall- that says it all. Look at them- not physically fit, listen- talk c**p, bravery??? 'Missing'
The US Navy engaged Iranian vessels in the original gulf war when they got too close, I can't see why we don't do the same.
A lot has changed in 15 years though. Iran has got more powerful, we've got less powerful.
Stu
-
PDRoS has not subscribed to the UN agreement nor permitted the boarding of the ship. Is this effectively an act of war against PDRoS?
Good question, but there is no need yet to speak of PDRoS! In the real world, it is the City of Vatican, Palestine or Western Sahara!
Anyway, if HMS Cornwall suspects your ship of piracy, drug trafficking or slave trade, if I was the commander, I would board your ship, while pretending to question your dubious flag. It could be seen as an act of war by the lawyers of your PDRoS, and considered as legitimate by HMS Cornwall's country and the UN, because of the importance of the suspected crimes. I am quite sure your conduct would be much more approved and respected than having let go a suspected ship.
;D
Regards,
Luc
-
Yes, that is the way I saw it generally, BUT...
If HMS Cornwall tried to board me, I would laugh at them and tell them to come back when they had all grown up.
I doubt anyone would take that ships crew seriously now. Lets face it, for all the talk of 'would you face down a RN frigate with its weaponery'- they wouldn't open fire unless specifically authorised by Government.
And in the event that the ship being boarded saw it as an ilegal act of piracy and opened fire with side arms, what is the position there? I still don't think that these laws carry any weight except for general basic agreements.
Stu
PS. I am NOT on the side of pirates, terrorists, smugglers etc. I am just playing devils advocate.
-
Wait a minute, I was under the impression that HMS Cornwall was a fair distance from the site of the abduction. It would have been too late by the time they found out, it would only have been after they failed to return that alarms would have been raised. By that time it would have been too late, they wouldn't even know where to look for them, let alone catch up. I'm sure HMS Cornwall would have done something had they been in the know.
On top of that, the men (and Spambot) in the boat were in no position to fight back because a) they were in a RHIB whcih could easily be damaged by small arms fire, let alone the heavy callibur weapons aboard the Iranian boats, and b) all they had were SA80s.
The real crime here is not that HMS Cornwall didn't do anything, but that the RHIB was sent out so poorly equipped and that the helicopter was not dispatched for cover from the very beginning.
-
Wait a minute, I was under the impression that HMS Cornwall was a fair distance from the site of the abduction. It would have been too late by the time they found out, it would only have been after they failed to return that alarms would have been raised. By that time it would have been too late, they wouldn't even know where to look for them, let alone catch up. I'm sure HMS Cornwall would have done something had they been in the know.
On top of that, the men (and Spambot) in the boat were in no position to fight back because a) they were in a RHIB whcih could easily be damaged by small arms fire, let alone the heavy callibur weapons aboard the Iranian boats, and b) all they had were SA80s.
The real crime here is not that HMS Cornwall didn't do anything, but that the RHIB was sent out so poorly equipped and that the helicopter was not dispatched for cover from the very beginning.
How far away? If it was within 12 miles, HMS Cornwall could have had their backs with the 4.5 inch cannon.
Out of contact? What happened to radios?
As for cover, you're right, they should have had helo support.
-
Out of contact? What happened to radios?
Would you reach for a radio with AK74s and heavy callibur guns pointing at you?
-
Would you reach for a radio with AK74s and heavy callibur guns pointing at you?
Capt D, you are quite right on the realities of this. It isn't a game and the Iranians would likely have enjoyed firing.
But I repeat, one of the useles lumps from HMS Cornwall should have been on the freighters bridge keeping a 360 degree lookout for enemy vessels if the 'copter wasn't available (UK can not afford aviation fuel I think...)
So Orinoco has a point- they should have seen what was going on and radioed long before the AK47 was in range.
Finally, Capt D.. I think the real problem is that due to political interference that the patrol was sent out with people who were not competent to do their job. Looking at them on the news, I wouldn't let them loose on a rowing boat on the Serpentine.
I would go further. Personally I would have let the Iranians hang them and rid us of their stupidity.
Stu
-
But I repeat, one of the useles lumps from HMS Cornwall should have been on the freighters bridge keeping a 360 degree lookout for enemy vessels if the 'copter wasn't available (UK can not afford aviation fuel I think...)
So Orinoco has a point- they should have seen what was going on and radioed long before the AK47 was in range.
From what I saw on news reports the group had already left the ship they were inspecting when the Iranians headed them off.
Finally, Capt D.. I think the real problem is that due to political interference that the patrol was sent out with people who were not competent to do their job. Looking at them on the news, I wouldn't let them loose on a rowing boat on the Serpentine.
I would go further. Personally I would have let the Iranians hang them and rid us of their stupidity.
Stu
Most of the men aboard that boat were Royal Marines, quite competent I'm sure. It all boils down to the fact those personell didn't stand a chance of fighting the Iranians off, and the people aboard HMS Cornwall didn't have a chance to stop it. Ultimately, the only people to blame were the Iranians.
-
From what I saw on news reports the group had already left the ship they were inspecting when the Iranians headed them off.
Most of the men aboard that boat were Royal Marines, quite competent I'm sure. It all boils down to the fact those personell didn't stand a chance of fighting the Iranians off, and the people aboard HMS Cornwall didn't have a chance to stop it. Ultimately, the only people to blame were the Iranians.
Not forgetting Margaret Beckett and the p*** poor 'response' of the Foreign Office!
Edited for language, DJM.
-
Not forgetting Margaret Beckett and the p*** poor 'response' of the Foreign Office!
Edited for language, DJM.
What would you have had them do?
-
From what I saw on news reports the group had already left the ship they were inspecting when the Iranians headed them off.
Most of the men aboard that boat were Royal Marines, quite competent I'm sure. It all boils down to the fact those personell didn't stand a chance of fighting the Iranians off, and the people aboard HMS Cornwall didn't have a chance to stop it. Ultimately, the only people to blame were the Iranians.
They certainly didn't conduct themselves to the standard of marines that I have encountered. Again, why no look out on the bridge? The Iranians didn't just appear did they?
I think the people that are to blame are A) Government for cuts and ilegal war planning. B)Cornwall Captain for appaling mission planning.
With due respect, the mission was a joke. Do you really think they conducted themselves properly? They have damaged the image of this country even further with their disgraceful conduct.
Stu
-
What would you have had them do?
You are right to a point. Shouting abuse at the Iranian embassador would not have helped. The Iranian government, whilst questionable, is smarter than ours and know how to make us look stupid (like after Blair we need any help).
However, Churchill, Thatcher etc understood the importance of keeping some face, decorum call it what you will. Decisive action. I really don't want to go political, but the government handled it very badly. Could you take Beckett seriously? :o
Stu
CAPT D: I think we are in danger of spiralling off the legal aspect of this and turning this into a criticism of Iran. I'm sure neither of us want to do that, although the legal situation is a legitemate discussion.
-
They certainly didn't conduct themselves to the standard of marines that I have encountered. Again, why no look out on the bridge? The Iranians didn't just appear did they?
Like I said, they had already left the ship they were inspecting, everyone was in the RHIBs, they weren't going to leave a man behind as lookout were they?
I don't see how the Marines can be held responsible, they conducted themselves as anyone who wanted to survive would. Other members of the military and an ex member of the SAS backed them up on their actions. (But that last bit depends on your opinion of Andy McNab).
I can however see why the government would be blamed for putting them in that situation in the first place and the Captain of the Cornwall for not planning the mission properly. But once sh...um..doody hit the fan, I don't think anyone could have done aything.
-
as anyone who wanted to survive would.
Good grief, if everyone in the armed forces had attitudes like that, I don't think our forces in the Middle East would last very long.
If they were already returning in the RHIBs that makes it worse. It means they didn't bother trying to escape, they failed to radio for help AND weren't keeping an eye out! Not to mention they could have opened fire before the Iranians managed to board.
Edited for language: Stuart
-
How far away? If it was within 12 miles, HMS Cornwall could have had their backs with the 4.5 inch cannon.
...
I was no gunner, but to reach a target at maximum distance out of sight, and without killing your own people would have been an interesting challenge. I doubt if the Iranians would have given target data.
Moreover, everything ended safely for everybody in a tense situation, and the biggest blunder was (I think) the hyping(?) by the media, pouring oil on the fire, with an overdose of steroid hormones, forcing everybody, Pavlov like, to incendiary declarations, etc...
And Stu, do you really think those Royal Marines deserve more than what they already endured?
Regards,
Luc
-
Orinoco,
You have had your language modified twice in this thread. I think it is a fair and legitemate conversation, which is permitted in 'small talk' nevertheless, we must remember not to cause excessive offence to anyone reading.
Stu
-
Orinoco,
You have had your language modified twice in this thread. I think it is a fair and legitemate conversation, which is permitted in 'small talk' nevertheless, we must remember not to cause excessive offence to anyone reading.
Stu
My apologies, but I don't consider either as offensive or a 'swear word', especially the latter. My apologies all the same.
-
And Stu, do you really think those Royal Marines deserve more than what they already endured?
Regards,
Luc
Hi Luc, in what way do you mean that? That they should have suffered more?? No, of course not. I am questioning whether their own competence put them in that position. I used to operate a contracted service for military personnel and I doubt I ever encountered marines with such limp back bones. They were resourceful, clever, tough people.
No one should advocate them taking on the Iranian patrol when out numbered and out gunned. But I repeat- again- they were not aware of their surroundings.
Stu
-
No one should advocate them taking on the Iranian patrol when out numbered and out gunned.
No, but as you say, it should have been very difficult for them to get into that position to begin with, especially if it is true that they were already on their way in the RHIBs.
-
Good grief, if everyone in the armed forces had attitudes like that, I don't think our forces in the Middle East would last very long.
If they were already returning in the RHIBs that makes it worse. It means they didn't bother trying to escape, they failed to radio for help AND weren't keeping an eye out! Not to mention they could have opened fire before the Iranians managed to board.
Edited for language: Stuart
Do you have any idea what a RHIB is made of? Just one small arms bullet would be enough to sink one of those boats. Plus, what do you mean open fire? As they appeared on the horizon? On what grounds? The Iranians wouldn't have had signs saying: "we are going to kidnap you, best shoot us now". You can't start shooting at someone on the off chance they are going to take you captive.
And if they had opened fire at any time the Iranians would have made light work of them. The first few rounds would have sunk the boat and the next would have been used to pick them off as they struggled to stay afloat.
-
I used to operate a contracted service for military personnel and I doubt I ever encountered marines with such limp back bones.
I cannot accept that, there was nothing they could have done.
-
I *THINK* that if a UN ship intercepted your ship, the UN would have control over it's laws, like federal laws over state laws... This is as far as my knowledge goes... If only there was a CLEAR internet page on it... I do belive the UN have a project for something about the International Water laws, I don't really know anything about that though...
I hope I've been some help..
cheers
-
I cannot accept that, there was nothing they could have done.
Must have last word: IF they had kept a good look out (preferably with 'copter support) then they would have seen the Iranian patrol coming and scarpered or sought backup support.
I respect your defence of the situation, and I doubt any of us can really accurately comment as none of us were there. Should we agree to differ on this? Even though I'm right and you're wrong :P
Stu
-
I *THINK* that if a UN ship intercepted your ship, the UN would have control over it's laws, like federal laws over state laws... This is as far as my knowledge goes... If only there was a CLEAR internet page on it... I do belive the UN have a project for something about the International Water laws, I don't really know anything about that though...
I hope I've been some help..
cheers
I think you are probably right on the basis that most countries are UN affiliated and that the suspect ship would be arrested if it put into port after refusing to be boarded. I must try and find a 'definitive' answer on this as it is bugging me now. Personally I think there is no right of the UN to board/seize a ship in international waters, but the practicalities as above.
An interesting point you make- really it comes down to whether the UN is the worlds ACCEPTED Police or not.
Stu
-
I *THINK* that if a UN ship intercepted your ship, the UN would have control over it's laws, like federal laws over state laws... This is as far as my knowledge goes... If only there was a CLEAR internet page on it... I do belive the UN have a project for something about the International Water laws, I don't really know anything about that though...
I hope I've been some help..
cheers
There is an excellent Wiki about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
with a reference to
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
and also http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
Voilà , Good Reading And Good Night
Luc
-
Hello Stu,
In the answer to Captain Kool, I gave the references to the full text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as the necessary references to signatories, reservations, etc...
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
Concerning the boarding you question, I dont agree with you.
Navy ships (and assimilated) are required to board suspected ships, as explained in full details in Part VII High Seas to the Convention.
Did you miss 8) my former answer? Well, I missed the reference then, although I had the Article Nb! Sorry! :-[
Regards,
Luc
Here it is
Hello Stu,
As a rule (article 110), navy ships (of any nation) have the right of visit and may board your ship if they suspect your ship is engaged in piracy, slave trade, illegal broadcasting (!), has no nationality (art. 92.2), or hides her flag being in reality of the same nationality of the navy ship herself.
The definition (art. 101) of piracy is not very restrictive "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation,...." and cannot be the fact of a naval ship. (They commit illegal acts, collateral damage, errors, mistakes, war crimes, acts of war ...).
Idem slave trade (Spambot, children, ...).
And of course, Captain Kool is quite right, Art. 92.1 says:
Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.
So, if you are suspect, ;D your freedom of the seas could change if you damage the paint of the boarding party!
Regards,
Luc
-
Must have last word: IF they had kept a good look out (preferably with 'copter support) then they would have seen the Iranian patrol coming and scarpered or sought backup support.
What I think is likely to be the case is that by the time the Iranians were in sight they were already within shooting distance, all it would take was one bullet to sink one of those RHIBs, and then scarpering would have been quite difficult.
-
What I think is likely to be the case is that by the time the Iranians were in sight they were already within shooting distance, all it would take was one bullet to sink one of those RHIBs, and then scarpering would have been quite difficult.
With binoculars, you could quite easily see a small patrol vessel at several miles. That is way beyond the range of any machine gun.
You are right though "By the time the Iranians were sighted..." but they were sighted far too late as they can not have had a proper lookout or they would have seen them several miles out.
Stu
-
So would you accept that the majority blame lays on the fact that no helicopter was present and the Marines themselves acted accordingly for the given situation? The problem I have is that you called them 'spineless', or words to that effect, and I think that's a little unfair.
-
So would you accept that the majority blame lays on the fact that no helicopter was present and the Marines themselves acted accordingly for the given situation? The problem I have is that you called them 'spineless', or words to that effect, and I think that's a little unfair.
No, part of the blame goes on no Helo being present, but the rest sits squarely on the captured RN party, for not being aware of their situation. As Stuart says, they should have seen the Iranian vessel approaching.
-
Both Stuart and myself have agreed to disagree on this matter. As for what you say about blaming the RN party and their lack vigilance Orinoco; I beleive that my previous posts more than cover my opinions on that claim.