I actually pay for my own Office365 subscription and use it at work, rather than using 2010, like they offer.

So under your thinking, the U.S. Navy can’t detain or intercept unmarked speedboats coming into our waters from Columbia? The U.S. Coast Guard can’t board a Russian “fishing vessel” that’s sitting there right before a new missile test?

You really dont know shit on the subject and are merely a typical right winger suffering from willful ignorance.

I didn’t know that we’re in tense relations with China, with a history of skirmishes, and 40% of the country wanting to bomb them.

They got out alive. Fuck the details

Maybe drop the imperious implication that your opinion here is The Way Things Are And Should Be?

Bull. Shit.

And we not only allow their battle ships to pass through our territorial waters, we hail it as a sign of progress, albeit while keeping a close eye on them.

I’m not rejecting the “definition” of innocent passage. I’m saying that the definition of innocent passage in a treaty to which neither Iran nor the U.S. is a party is not dispositive in a matter involving the U.S. and Iran. That’s not how international law works.

No, I’m not missing this.

You never answered the question. Iranian battleships emerge off the coast of Hawaii and say they have engine trouble. We’d simply let them go under innocent passage? Context matters.

I’m willing to bet you’re a law student, took a few law classes for your BA degree, or are a Ted Cruz…

Iran can claim to limit innocent passage of military vessels, but that doesn’t mean that the U.S. should or does recognize those limitations, especially as they apply in a distress / force majeure situation like this.

So, what you’re saying is that since it’s not against the law it’s okay to cause an international incident that involves ten American sailors dying?

You’re 100% wrong about this, irrespective of what you’ve managed to learn from Google in the last 20 minutes. First, you’re quoting UNCLOS as being dispositive despite the fact that neither the U.S. nor Iran is a signatory.

Indeed. There are still exceptions. If the Iranians suspected our ships of intelligence gathering or surveillance of any kind, they could suspend innocent passage, just as one example.

Actually, the US isn’t party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Iran is only a signatory (not ratified). The US tends to abide by UNCLOS anyway, but Iran being only a signatory is because they have amended certain sections of UNCLOS, namely innocent passage. Iran does not recognize the right of innocent…

Please provide your citations the prohibits any country from boarding any other navy vessel unless we’re at war. Here’s my cite that says the US does this all the time.

Uh-huh:

Seriously. Basically he’s saying “I’m going to stray into Iranian waters and start a shooting war because I’m a know-nothing ass-hat psychopath Obama-hating right winger. And I hate Obama.”

What is silly is your suggestion that laws apply to everyone else, but not the US, which can enter other country’s territory with impunity.

Hahaha someone please fetch a clean pair of trousers for baby Russell