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 
neocon,
I was referring to this particular “argument” employed by js:
js,
Do you have some affiliation with Harvard University? It is a prestigious place, to be sure, but if you check the Constitution you’ll find that neither the university or any of its publications qualifies as a court of competent jurisdiction in deciding if the TSP complies with the Constitution.
As to the quote you offered, if you’d looked at the actual opinion, rather than someone’s view of the opinion, you would find out that:
1) The case, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 was concerned with the question of using information gathered for prosecution in a criminal case and was not a review of the legality of the TSP.
2) The Court ruled that FISA was Constitutional in saying in its conclusion:
The issue came before the Court of Review when the FISC denied an application for a warrant under FISA. It did not rule on whether the President may supersede FISA with some possible inherent power.
District court judges command no troops.
Faceplant. No warrants were issued for any of the evidence used at war crimes trials at Nurenburg. Maybe you can use your enormous liberal brain and explain that to us.
But whatever, are you with Magnum on this? Think our Navy is lying?
David,
William Jefferson Clinton stopped being the President of the United States on January 20, 2001 which is just a few days shy of being 7 years ago. If you say that President Clinton abused his Constitutional authority then that’s just more reason why no one should obsequiously and reverently bow before any President’s claim of authority beyond those clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Iran can just do the same thing they did to the USS Cole. One little speedboat with explosives can destroy not only oil tankers, but it can destroy Navy Ships…….I can’t wait for war, finally put the US back in it’s place…….get them out of the Middle East forever and get them to stop supporting dictators who don’t give their people any freedoms…
The war crimes trials in Nuremburg concerned themselves with acts committed outside the United States. FISA concerns itself with acts committed within the United States.
Just who is provoking whom where?
Imagine, for a moment, that Iran had sent its navy to patrol in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters just off of the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and that its leader flew out to one of those ships and threatened to take out America’s oil infrastructure.
How do you think the US government would react? How do you think the American people would react?
sam,
“stop supporting dictators who don’t give their people any freedoms…”????
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!
“put the US back in it’s place……”????
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!
Last time Iran tried this we sunk half their navy. And we didn’t have nearly as much in the area then as we do now.
You are really a stupidf M.F. you know that? Funny, but stupid. Now back to your goats, you crazy S.O.B..
Faceplant??? You with Sammy on this? How about you Magum? Diane?
Christian, you mean in International waters? Ships in International waters navigating in a defined channel? You think we’d speed around them taunting them and putting boxes (read up on their efforts to mine the Straights of Hormuz during the ’80s) in the water?
You think that’s what we’d do? Taunt, provoke? Then hide behind a lie when confronted about it? Cower and say they made it all up? Thats what you think?
You’re as stupid as Sammy is. But not as funny. You think your leaders are as stupid as you are?
CW,
Well, given that Iran’s government is entirely illegitimate, it doesn’t have the right to order naval ships to to the Gulf of Mexico – our government, on the other hand, as a legitimate government has the authority to order ships to the Persian Gulf. As soon as Iran becomes a genuine democracy, then Iran can order ships to the Gulf of Mexico…of course, they won’t, because only a dictatorial regime in Iran would want to cause trouble with the United States.
The key, CW, is to understand that we’re the good guys; the Iranian mullahs? They’re the bad guys.
Kahn,
No, I accept the Navy’s recordings at face value and I agree with the actions they took.
“District court judges command no troops.”
I was unaware anyone ever claimed they did.
As far as Nuremburg. Those trials, and investigations concerned non US citizens, and crimes they committed outside of the United States. I hardly see how that is relevant in the slightest.
Ohhhhh, yah. But criminal proceedings run by US judges and prosecutors put people to death. So, Guantanamo is OK then? Cool. Thanks for agrreing with us on that.
Did the Secret Service need warrants to intercept the communications of US citizens during the Civil War? I mean, would a division or corps have to wait for a warrant before cracking open a letter from Lee to Jackson? In that case – two US citizens, acting as combatants, would we need a warrant?
“Well, given that Iran’s government is entirely illegitimate, it doesn’t have the right to order naval ships to to the Gulf of Mexico – our government, on the other hand, as a legitimate government has the authority to order ships to the Persian Gulf.”
I’d LOOOOVE to see the legal standing for that one. Not that I agree with what the Iranians did. It was HIGHLY provocative, and American ships have every right to defend themselves. But it’s ridiculous to claim that Iran doesn’t have the right to command it’s own navy.
“The key, CW, is to understand that we’re the good guys; the Iranian mullahs? They’re the bad guys.”
Uh, no. The key is understanding that everything isn’t as black and white as you want it to be Mark.
You were saying that they had ordered the president how to act in relation to the Defense Department ( who runs the NSA) dealing with intercepted communications. I assumed you understood what you were saying. Guess I was wrong. You’re more of a parrot than an actual think – is that it?
You with Sammy and Magnum on the Iran thing? You know, the actual subject?
face – OK, so they provoked and we showed restraint and rhetoric aside they acted badly and we were good.
At least your not out in left (no pun intended) field like Magnum or sammy.
No, they isn’t what I said. I said that congress has a role in regulating the President’s powers. It’s called checks and balances. This idea that since the President has authority over the armed forces that he can simply do whatever he pleases with them was NEVER what the founders had in mind.
It’s in the constitution, and it’s been upheld in many supreme court rulings, most recently Hamdan v Rumsfeld. You know, one of those rulings that you guys just pretend doesn’t exist.
“Ohhhhh, yah. But criminal proceedings run by US judges and prosecutors put people to death. So, Guantanamo is OK then? Cool. Thanks for agrreing with us on that.”
I don’t think most people have a problem with Guantanamo itself. They have a problem with
A) Prisoner treatement
and
B) Lack of any real legal recourse for detainees
I mean, at least the people in Nuremburg got a real trial. At least they had a REAL process for challanging their detentions. Detainees at Guanatanamo are held incommunicado, with no right to challenge their detentions, no right to a lawyer, and no reason to think they will ever get out. That is NOTHING like the Nuremburg trials.
Kahn,
Do you just randomly connect historical events together or do you honestly not know the differences? World War II was a worldwide war involving nation-states who had declared war on each other. It bears zero resemblance to the current situation vis-a-vis Guantanamo. Also, even if FISA hadn’t been enacted 113 years after the end of the Civil War it still wouldn’t have anything to do with your example.
Sam,
I’d like to point out that while it is a source of national pride that in 2007 Iran launched its first domestically produced destroyer, that is just one ship – and even if you get those British and American antiques out of drydock, you’ll only have four destroyers.
The United States Navy has 54 destroyers.
Of course, you do have your submarines…all five of them, two of those midget subs.
The United States Navy has 54 submarines.
This doesn’t take into consideration cruisers, carriers, frigates and other assorted ships…the naval war between the US and Iran will be very short lived.
Faceplant,
I quote:
Remember, as an American, I hold those truths to be self-evident; not needing any proof – they are as true as “the sky is blue” is true.
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.
Faceplant said – “It’s in the constitution, and it’s been upheld in many supreme court rulings, most recently Hamdan v Rumsfeld. You know, one of those rulings that you guys just pretend doesn’t exist.” Again with the reference. Which part of the Constitution and what cases?
Diana, No – I’m just trying to put your “arguments” in context. Are you saying that the the United States would have neede a warrant to open the mail from General Lee CSA (US citizen, according to us) and General Jackson CSA (US citizen according to us) in modern times?
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.
And – what rights to non-uniformed, war criminal, nationless terrorist have outside the US at Guantanamo? What bad treatment? You don’t have any particulars, just a bad feeling and a distrust of our military.
We are treating them better than we treated the Nazi’s. And what the Nazi’s did was so bad, it wasn’t even covered by specific statute. We actually executed them for actions not defined as crimes in the nation(s) where they committed them. The trials used evidence attained without warrants. And many of the witnesses were dead. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they swung. But it appears that you don’t understand that the law applies in the most extreme and crazy circumstances.
Tell the President he needs a warrant to intercept communications between enemy combatants abroad and the agents here and you’ve done just that. Those rules apply in EVERY situation. Cuban soldiers talking to spies in Florida. Russian soldiers talking to spies and saboteurs in Anchorage. And Al Queda “terrorists” in Pakistan talking to hopeful mass-murder/suicide bombers in Milwaukee’s. They are all the same.
And well, I don’t believe that the Congress and Courts have the right to tell the Army they’d need a warrant to listen in on communications between a Russian tank division in Alaska and spies in Anchorage. Do you?
Does anyone here understand debating or ever done it? I am taking you premise and applying it to hypothetical scenarios or scenarios drawn from history to see how that premise would apply to those circumstances. It’s a test of the logic of your argument.
markalicious:
haven’t talked in a while but
just an fyi
the aliens have landed in jerusalem for a bit
and listening first hand to the resident earthlings here is interesting
gives one an interesting perspective on the middle east
very enlightening
hope you’re well
hey bagni! How’s it going? Night nurse away from the PC again?
Stop hiding your pills under you tounge and actually take them. And lose the aluminum foil hat, the voices get in through you butt, not your ears. Try wearing aluminum foil underwear instead.
Oh well, have fun in the asylum.