"Can US seize Iranian oil tanker?" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAs the holiday season approaches, overstock toys of previous years show up in the dollar stores.
Featured Workbench ArticleThe Editor returns to paper modeling after a long absence.
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Editor in Chief Bill | 04 Sep 2019 7:39 p.m. PST |
…Under the law of the sea, the United States generally does not have the authority in peacetime to seize a vessel on the high seas or in the waters of another country. Countries may only enforce their laws within their waters, with the exception of vessels flying their flag, which they have authority over anywhere in the world. The United States must either wait until the vessel enters U.S. waters, which would likely never happen, or convince another country to recognize and enforce the warrant… link |
Thresher01 | 04 Sep 2019 7:46 p.m. PST |
I disagree. It is suspected of trying to violate international sanctions, so can be seized for that. |
Stryderg | 04 Sep 2019 7:59 p.m. PST |
"Can" they, probably. "Should" they, that's a different question. |
Porthos | 05 Sep 2019 7:42 a.m. PST |
Assuming the question is "can the US (or anyone else, apart of course Iran itself because it flies their flag) LEGALLY seize the vessel", the answer is, of course, no. Lloyd's List gives a comment on the seizing of the British ship which was (according to Britain) outside territorial waters. Same case scenario. Whether or not it is violating international sanctions does not create seizing rights outside territorial waters. So, they can not and certainly should not. |
HMS Exeter | 05 Sep 2019 8:37 a.m. PST |
I wonder if the damned thing is financed. Buy the paper and call the loan. Tell The Supreme Leader that he has 24 hours to deliver 10 billion pennies to JFK or we foreclose. Slap a lien on the side. 24 hours later, board the ship, run up the Red White and Blue, then ask Iran whose oil is aboard. I'm pretty sure at that point their response will be "what oil." Follow the ship. If they trail an ounce of bilge, arrest them under a violation of some or another environmental treaty Iran forgot to repudiate. It's trumped up (pun intended) but you can haul her into a friendly port. Then we do the sanctions dance again. We have good info on the crew. I have to imagine someone aboard is wanted for something somewhere. Failure to pay child support,…whatever. Have Interpol issue a warrant, and instruct the ship to proceed to Cypress for it to be served. Imagination is a wonderful thing. |
Lion in the Stars | 05 Sep 2019 10:58 a.m. PST |
Yep. Sometimes you gotta play a deeper level game. |
Thresher01 | 05 Sep 2019 6:27 p.m. PST |
I'm left wondering when and/or if a suddenly un-moored, ex-WWII, naval mine might "accidentally" float to the surface in the path of the vessel, or if those that are believed to have placed limpet mines on ones in the Arabian Gulf might not do so against an Iranian vessel as well? After all, the perpetrators of the latter deed have not been apprehended, as far as I know. Granted, both are probably long-shots, and unlikely to happen, but the guerrillas attacking vessels with limpet mines just might decide to lash out again, after a bit of time off. If I were the CIA, or a special services member, that's the story I'd stick to, just for grins. |
Thresher01 | 07 Sep 2019 8:16 a.m. PST |
Hmmm, seems to be "parked" near Syria now, as originally suspected. |
|