In all the hullabaloo over the primaries, this story might have got missed by some:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – The U.S. military has video and audio recordings of Iranian boats that threatened to blow up U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and plans to release them, the top Navy commander in the Mideast said Tuesday. President Bush described the confrontation as a “provocative act.”
Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident early Sunday was a routine encounter, saying Iran’s “provocative” actions were “deadly serious” to the U.S. military.
“It was a dangerous situation,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They should not have done it, pure and simple. I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act.”
The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush begins his first visit to the Mideast. In the tour, Bush is to visit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab allies, in part to coordinate in confronting Iran.
Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force’s right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.
Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.
With the Cole incident at the back of all naval minds, such an event is highly disturbing. What seems like a mere harassing exercise could swiftly lead to one or more of these motorboats making a suicide run towards a US ship. One thing to keep in mind – US naval warships are designed to fight other naval warships, not motorboats. Our ships have limited capability of thwarting a close-in attack from a small, fast moving target. Some people have expressed dismay over the lack of violent reaction on the part of the Navy during the incident, but my bet is that our ships are ready for a missile attack, an aerial attack, a submarine attack…for all manner of attack, but for some reason no one has considered what to do when a motor boat comes at you in open, though restricted (the Straight is narrow, and has a lot of navigation hazards), waters.
Prudence would seem to dictate that we adopt a policy of firing on any identified Iranian surface craft which approaches within a set distance of a US ship – in other words, we figure out how far out we need a small, fast target to be in order to ensure its destruction, and then don’t let any such craft to come closer than that. On the other hand, the Iranian government might not be unified in its determination to challenge the United States – could be that part of the Iranian leadership realises that full scale war with the US is national suicide, and so they work to keep the aggressive elements of the Iranian government in check…but a shooting incident which the hard-core anti-Americans could exploit? That might tip the balance and convince even semi-moderate Iranians that they must fight. So, we have to tread with care here – and I’m glad that this is precisely what President Bush is doing. War there might be with Iran, but it should only start at a time and place of our choosing.
The larger picture must be kept in mind – and central to that larger picture is the huge strides of success being made in Iraq at the moment. Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism, and we must allow nothing to divert us from completing that mission – any threat to that mission must be dealt with severely, but before we go tangling with the Iranians, lets be sure we have all our forces ready for all contingencies. Don’t let the Iranians provoke us into a hasty strike.
Blogs For Victory 
116. Diana Powe
Thats just stupidity.
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist by force …. without waiting for any special legislative authority”); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J. concurring) (“[T]he Prize Cases … stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected.”); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (“[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c) (“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] … [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”).
This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 20(2) (“[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information …. We take for granted that the President does have that authority …. “). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domestic threats, but it expressly distinguished foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary “if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).
The President’s constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 “render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad”). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly “committed” the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America
http://cryptome.org/doj-nsa-spy.htm
js,
It just doesn’t get any better, does it?
You’re quoting a letter written by a lawyer employed by the President of the United States. He works in the Executive Branch and, given his propensity for making false statements to Congress relative to the firings of the U.S. attorneys, not an especially ethical one. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review stated that FISA is Constitutional. Therefore, you can quote all the Administration bluster that you want, but the statute sets up rules that the Executive Branch must follow unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction, like the U. S. Supreme Court, rules otherwise. However, it would seem that the reason for all the Executive Branch bluster is that they apparently fear a full-blown examination of their actions. If their position were so solidly-grounded one would suppose they’d welcome such a review in order to shut up their critics. Sadly, no.
Interesting. The voice heard on the original Navy tape did sound rather odd, whatever the source.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747
121. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
js,
You’re quoting a letter written by a lawyer
////\\//\\///\\\\\\
What do you think Judges are? AG?
I see your attacking the messenger, and not the message, so why waste more time?
You are an empty bag.
881S or N? Good friend of mine was there. I think he was a Staff then. Dave Brooks. He actually watched his senior drill instructor (who was then a sergeant) get it.
Do you live anywhere near Quantico? You’ve got to see the museum. The Khe Sahn exhibit is pretty good.
Mark,
How is Iran’s government Illegitimate?? Last I checked, the revolution in 1979 was started by the people. They got rid of a dictator Shah and replaced it with a system that was NOT a dictatorship like the Shah.
Second of all, by this logic, then the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE are all illegitimate. After all, those arent elected leaders, those are not chosen by the people and there is rampant discrimination against women and minorities in those countries. But god forbid you say anything against those countries because their leaders are your surrogates and you can’t say anything against them.
Second of all, The iranian Navy would NEVER engage the US navy head on. No need to, we can just use our suicide speedboats to wreak havoc on your ships. Those little speedboats just have enough to cause havoc. your ships aren’t designed for combat against speedboats, they are designed to fight against other navies. You see, the way to beat a superpower is not by engaging it head on, its just by using asymmetric methods. Blow up a couple of ships using speedboats, a couple of suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq. Give some weapons to the taliban in Afghanistan, blow up some buildings in Kuwait, UAE, and next thing you know….POOF!!! your dominance and navy become useless. Businesses will run from the middle east hub of Kuwait and UAE, and the war in Afghanistan will be totally lost….
you americans think that people will stand toe to toe with your military and lose..instead, they will hit and run, and win.
Whats so funny is that, when they attack like they did on 9-11, everyone and thier brother whats to send in the troops.
Six/Seven years later, while we still have the same basic threat looming on the horizon, the rats jump ship and play tree hugger.
They gotta be a fools fool to think our ships should just sit there and even take a chance.
But if we got hit and sailors died because of it, they would cry about how stupid our commander is for not sinking the attackers.
Oh, ya, thats right….they are crying about how stupid the commander is already…well…you get the idea, right?
. They got rid of a dictator Shah and replaced it with a system that was NOT a dictatorship like the Shah.
///\\\///\\\///\\\
you mean telling people they cant listen to music isnt being a dictatorship?
go tell….
and all along I though being a slave in Iran meant you were just another regualar citizen wishing the Shah were still there….lol
funny too how similar those mullahs and the ayatollah work, one man, forced religion, forced dress code, forced elections, etc,etc…just like a dictatorship…but you say its not eh?
sammy, whats the matter? Goat not feeling well? It’s got you feeling crazy again, I see.
You will engage them, and die. How is a little speedboat harder to engage than a missile or a torpedo? Whatever, last time Iran tried they lost half their navy. And they DID try the speedboat crap. Hell, Iran couldn’t even beat Iraq.
By the way, NEWS FLASH – there’s 40 VIRGINIANS (NOT virgins) in Paradise waiting to kick your sorry asses. George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, all there wearing brass knuckles.
Dance around now, and then back to the goats.
Sam,
Of course those governments aren’t legitimate…but we’ve also got no particular beef with them, and they aren’t causing us a lot of trouble. As for the rest – I’m certain that the army of the mullahs will fight like cowards; eastern-trained armies always have, and always will. And they’ll be beaten by a western-trained army…
“As for the rest – I’m certain that the army of the mullahs will fight like cowards; eastern-trained armies always have, and always will. And they’ll be beaten by a western-trained army…”
So THAT’S how the Mujahadeen drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan!
“Interesting. The voice heard on the original Navy tape did sound rather odd, whatever the source.”
Exactly. That sounds literally NOTHING like a Persian. But don’t worry, the wingnuts will all fall in line like good little cult members.
This administration NEVER lies about ANYTHING, remember?
Face,
I bring to your attention the fact that the Muj drove out a Russian army – ie, an eastern army.
“Would the Marine Corpds need a warrant to intercept phone calls between a Cuban division in South Florida and Traitorous Americans in Jacksonville? The way I read your argument, yes.”
Yes, they would. Actually more likely they wouldn’t be allowed to do this at all, as US Law expressly forbids the military to conduct any operations against it’s own citizens, absent a declaration of martial law. The military, doesn’t get to just do what it damn well pleases.
“And – what rights to non-uniformed, war criminal, nationless terrorist have outside the US at Guantanamo?”
Well, at least common article three of the Geneva conventions according to the US Supreme Court. To deny suspected terrorists the right to a regularly constituted court, would be an admission that you don’t actually beleive in the judicial system that has sustained this government for years.
“What bad treatment? You don’t have any particulars, just a bad feeling and a distrust of our military.”
“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4700504”
“A detailed log, obtained by Time magazine and verified by the Pentagon, describes harsh treatment of a Guantanamo prisoner who was interrogated for 50 days. The man, who the U.S. government says helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks, was forced to urinate on himself and wear pictures of naked women around his neck.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002105377_gitmo01.html
“The human-rights group decried tactics used on some detainees — including severe temperatures, loud music and other sounds, the sharing of medical information with interrogators and forced nudity — that it said violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries.”
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/080207Torture.htm
“The investigation centers around Marine Lt Col Colby Vokey, who represents a detainee at the US naval base in eastern Cuba. Vokey filed a “hotline” complaint last October, attaching a sworn statement from his paralegal, Sgt Heather Cerveny, 23, in which she said several guards in a bar at Guantanamo Bay bragged about beating detainees and described it as common practice. “Others were talking about how when they get annoyed with the detainees, about how they hit them, or they punched them in the face,” Sgt Cerveny said during a telephone interview.”
“In her complaint, she wrote: “From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice… Everyone in the group laughed at the others’ stories of beating detainees.”
And this doesn’t even get into the abuse that the US has admitted at Abu Grhaib, prisoners in Iraq that have ended up dead (with the US military even admitting that the death was caused by homocide), the case of Maher Arar who was flown to Syria and tortured, and the doezens, and dozens of people who were released from Guantanamo who said they were tortured.
I’ve always been amazed at how you all can turn a blind eye to a literal mountain of evidence. The White House all but admitted they were waterboarding people, and argued that it’s perfectly fine.
“Given these core American beliefs, I can only state that given the lack of consent of the governed in Iran, that Iran’s government cannot legitimately exercise the powers of government – among such powers are the powers to command a Navy. To disagree with me on this point is to be fundamentally un-American.”
“Of course those governments aren’t legitimate…but we’ve also got no particular beef with them, and they aren’t causing us a lot of trouble.”
So I’m unamarican if I believe that Iran has a right to operate its OWN military because the American Declaration of Independence states that a Goverment that doesn’t derive it’s powers from the people is illegitimate. Yet just a few pages later, you state that you have no problem with Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Lybia, or Oman operating their own military because “we’ve got no particular beef with them”. So does the declaration of independence apply to only countries we don’t like, or is this just some arbitrary decision made by you? Because by your own logic you just called yourself unamarican.
You can keep trying to marginalize Iran all you want, but the reality is they are really there, and they really have a military that they can command. I mean are you going to tell China that they can’t command their own military? Let me know how that goes Marky.
Now, when you want to talk about the real world, let me know.
Kahn,
when you can’t make valid points, you try and insult me. I am an affluent iranian living in the states, the only difference between me and you is that I use this country for my own benefit and at the same time piss on it.
you on the other hand, are an old jerk off with no education and life.
Also, last I checked, the US was helping Iraq in the war against Iran because they didn’t want iran’s revolution to spread to the greater Middle East. Don’t be so stupid next time you bring up a point.
Mark,
So there you said it, because they have no beef with you, you are willing to let people suffer under dictators, but as soon as they have a beef with you, those very same people are worthy of being freed…..hahahaha….you are the ultimate example of a person that doesnt care about others’ and their freedom, you just care about your arse at the end of the day. STOP POSING!
at least be honest and come out and admit that you hate everyone not american, and that you hate people from different religions, it will make your posts more interesting to read and your comments more tolerable.
The Navy Times adds more information on what is increasingly looking like a non-event:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/
Sam,
Reading your reply to Mark (# 140), are you indicating that Mark is wrong to only invade certain countries with dictators? If so, with that in mind, I guess you are advocating one of two things:
1) Leave all countries alone and let the dictators ruthlessly kill and deprive millions of people their freedom
2) The United States should unilaterly invade all countries with dictators in order to free all people.
Your post seems to indicate that option # 2 is the best option since that is your basis for saying that Mark is wrong. If so, it sounds like you have become a neo-con. Dick Cheney will personally call you to welcome you to the team (he has your phone number thanks to the illegal wiretaps).
Diana,
I read the link on post # 141. That could very well explain the voice on the radio talking about exploding US ships.
However, your use of the term non-event still does not seem to appropriately describe the actions of the Iranian speed boats.
Jones,
My use of the phrase “non-event” partly comes from the tone of the Navy Times piece and other coverage in the last few days and also from the lack of context about the “actions of the Iranian speed boats”. How often have they engaged in similar actions without the accompanying threats on the bridge-to-bridge radio frequency? I don’t know. Also, given the clear visibility, the lack of any apparent change of speed and heading on the part of the Navy’s ships and the lack of any apparent imminent collision, a cursory look at the international rules of navigation doesn’t appear to show any violations on the Iranians’ part. Was what they were doing a good idea? I’d say no. Was it a violation of maritime law? I don’t know, but if it is, it hasn’t been cited as such by the Pentagon and you would think they would if it were.
“Reading your reply to Mark (# 140), are you indicating that Mark is wrong to only invade certain countries with dictators? If so, with that in mind, I guess you are advocating one of two things:
1) Leave all countries alone and let the dictators ruthlessly kill and deprive millions of people their freedom
2) The United States should unilaterly invade all countries with dictators in order to free all people.”
This view, of course, is predicated on the idiotic belief that the only option for dealing with a dictatorial regime is a military one. Claiming that the only two options he could advocate for are invading every dictatorship, or allowing all of them to oppress and kill their people is a transparent attempt to paint him into a corner. You are trying to set things up so no matter what answer he gives, he comes out looking bad. And you aren’t doing a particularly good job of it.
Nice try at trying to put him in a no win situation, but Karl Rove you aint.