SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:
A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
Also at Reuters.
The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.
(Score: 2) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @05:28PM
So would the US agree with Iran patrolling the Caribbean sea with warships? Because that is the rough equivalent of the shit going on down there.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @05:55PM
Yup. The US would agree. So would the UN.
Law of the sea.
Rights of innocent passage.
Freedom of navigation
All these new things you've never heard of before, which have been around for hundreds of years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:44PM
And so would almost all the countries of the world who have sailing ships. You've got to be a pretty big dumbass to not know that laws governing the seas have been around as long as their have been floating trade vessels and navies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @09:46PM
Actually, the idea of "the ocean is for everyone" was worked out in detail about 400 years ago by Hugo de Groot [wikipedia.org] (a lawyer; but, a good one apparently).
The book's called Mare Liberum [wikipedia.org] and caused quite a stir with its invention of international law.
The reason why it was published, and he wasn't just burned at the stake with all the existing exemplars as kindling, is that it was to the benefit of the Dutch republic government of the time.
So that's why the seas are currently free.
What I learned about it from primary school history class: he escaped from prison inside a box of books, and he was a filthy protestant.
(So much for primary school history classes)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @07:53PM
I know that they should be fine with Iranian ships patrolling the US coast. I just doubt that they would be as cool about it as they would have to be if that ever actually happened.
The US like to raise their finger from time to time and talk about what is right and good but when it comes to actually signing all the conventions the UN produced to codify the Right Thing(tm) they backpedal.
I do not see why I am supposed to put my trust into a nation that refuses to sign a few pieces of paper saying that they will adhere to minimum standards about human rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:10AM
The US doesn't really agree with the Laws of the Sea. Or they would have signed the treaty of said name...
The Iranians are simply upholding their rights of navigation. They don't want the Americans to think they can get away with blockading their country, who knows when we may try to overthrow their government again?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 26 2016, @07:50PM
As a kid i did a caribbean cruise (senior trip). Our port of call had several non-US "warships" posted there. Dashed all my hopes of being a pirate. Those guns were serious.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.