Topic: Laws of the sea (Read 17564 times)

Captain Davies · « **Reply #50 on:** July 20, 2007, 22:55:33 »

Quote from: Orinoco on July 20, 2007, 22:50:53

Not forgetting Margaret Beckett and the p*** poor 'response' of the Foreign Office!

Edited for language, DJM.

What would you have had them do?

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #51 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:03:57 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on July 20, 2007, 22:48:10

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #52 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:06:53 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on July 20, 2007, 22:55:33

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?

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.

Captain Davies · « **Reply #53 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:11:50 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on July 20, 2007, 23:03:57

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.

Orinoco · « **Reply #54 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:14:05 »

Quote

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

LucAtC · « **Reply #55 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:20:42 »

Quote from: Orinoco on July 20, 2007, 22:30:49

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:21:15 »

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 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:22:56 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on July 20, 2007, 23:21:15

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.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:24:08 »

Quote from: LucAtC on July 20, 2007, 23:20:42

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

Orinoco · « **Reply #59 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:26:28 »

Quote

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.

Captain Davies · « **Reply #60 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:33:02 »

Quote from: Orinoco on July 20, 2007, 23:14:05

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.

Captain Davies · « **Reply #61 on:** July 20, 2007, 23:35:10 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on July 20, 2007, 23:24:08

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.

Captain Kool · « **Reply #62 on:** July 21, 2007, 01:58:18 »

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #63 on:** July 21, 2007, 22:07:04 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on July 20, 2007, 23:35:10

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

Stu

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 21, 2007, 22:10:17 »

Quote from: Captain Kool on July 21, 2007, 01:58:18

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

LucAtC · « **Reply #65 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:12:40 »

Quote from: Captain Kool on July 21, 2007, 01:58:18

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
VoilÃ , Good Reading And Good Night
Luc

LucAtC · « **Reply #66 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:30:01 »

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

my former answer? Well, I missed the reference then, although I had the Article Nb! Sorry!

Regards,
Luc
Here it is

Quote from: LucAtC on July 20, 2007, 17:54:18

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, your freedom of the seas could change if you damage the paint of the boarding party!
Regards,
Luc

Captain Davies · « **Reply #67 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:35:55 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on July 21, 2007, 22:07:04

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.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #68 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:39:34 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on July 21, 2007, 23:35:55

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

Captain Davies · « **Reply #69 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:43:45 »

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.

Orinoco · « **Reply #70 on:** July 21, 2007, 23:47:41 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on July 21, 2007, 23:43:45

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.

Captain Davies · « **Reply #71 on:** July 22, 2007, 22:50:12 »

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.

Author Topic: Laws of the sea (Read 17564 times)