"HeyBub" wrote in message news:4-
Robert Green wrote:
The President vetoed these plans, mainly because each would irritate
the Iranians and cause them not to love us.
Sure. That's the reason. So then why did he approve the "hit" on
Osama? Wouldn't that make the Pakistanis not "love us?"
1. I see where you're coming from. But there are differences: No Pakistani
was injured during the ben Laden raid but it is quite probable that some
would be at significant risk in a raid to deal with the captured drone.
2. The Paks couldn't make a big deal - and they haven't - out of the ben
Laden raid because the more they fuss about it the more dirt would fall on
their government for harboring him.
By this time, we should have a space based nuke powered laser to burn it up
in a second. I say we claim that the drone was actually piloted by
super-tiny clone pilots and demand their release. When they refuse, THEN we
go in after them. The whole point of using drones was to prevent another U2
or Hainan incident. It's much worse when they get people AND the spy
technology.
You're not
being very logical. Or credible. (What else is new?) Obama is
probably disinclined to start yet another war before we finish the
two we're already going bankrupt from fighting.
Heh! If you believe that's the reason Obama sacrificed a bit of our
national
security, I seriously worry about your logical abilities.
Geez. Where've you been, bub? The buzz around the Pentagon is *when* we
are going into Iran, not *if* we are. The troops are coming back only
temporarily. They'll be headed out to Iran real soon now. For all we know,
we dropped a drone gutted of anything really important just to spark a
"dialog" with the Iranians before we invade. They're going to have a bomb,
it's only a question of time. Each time there's a Stuxnet virus or
"accidental" missile blast, the Iranians dig their nuke assets in deeper.
It's only a matter of time before the workers are no longer allowed to leave
the compounds since the Israelis have been engaging in "shoot the nuke
worker commuter" activities. They'll get there because a lot of Islamic
money is pouring into Iran from all over the world.
The intel community once again failed by letting such technology fall
into the wrong hands. Where was the self-destruct? We may have
saved the Chinese 10 years of R&D work on sensor technology. As one
journalist wrote: "There's probably no room left on this week's
flights from China and Russia to Iran."
I agree. We can't, however, discount the possibility the drone was a
Trojan
Horse. It may have, for example, circuits that broadcast its position and
we
really, really, hope the Chinese copy it.
We fed the Sovs hinky oil refinery software that ended up causing the
largest refinery explosion in human history, so they say. The Iranians
apparently already swallowed one trojan, the Stuxnet virus designed to
explode their centrifuges. The problem is, we're not slowing them down as
fast as they are moving forward. I don't believe they are a credible
*nuclear* threat to us other than supply material for a dirty bomb. But
they have delivery systems to make life in a 300 mile radius a very nasty
idea.
I'm also afraid that a nuke bomb appeals to the Islamic Fundamentalist
Jihadists in the same way it did the mutants in "Beneath the Planet of the
Apes." It has taken on a magical quality just by virtue of our demanding
they never have one. I am certain the Iranians want to be the first to
possess a fiery nuclear sword of Allah. Hoo boy. This isn't fantasy,
either. The Pakistanis have nukes and they're about as stable as Paris
Hilton after a bottle of Stoli. My bet is that before they bomb Americans,
they'll use it on Iraq and/or Israel first. If the model of 1929 holds
firm, we'll be in a major war by 2019.
The president probably vetoed the plans because most grown-ups know
about sovereignty and international law and how even our allies are
losing patience with our constant violations of those laws. There
are always those who have a different, somewhat more unusual mindset.
Like people who apparently think anyone carrying anything in a Home
Depot parking lot is a crazed assassin.
Any country that subsumes its own national interests to international
"law"
or encomiums soon loses its ability to be called a "nation."
Nonsense. The Israelis used international law to tremendous advantage
during the birth of Israeli and during other wars, suing for precise peace
terms in the UN while vastly improving their on-the-ground tactical picture.
There are at least two books written about how they used the UN's rules and
procedures as effectively as an entire military division.
What do you think we would do if the Chinese started flying drones
over our top-secret military labs and we shot one down? Invite their
ambassador by for tea and muffins while shipped the drone back to
China?
Oh, it's happened. When Victor Belenko flew his MIG-25 "Foxbat" to Japan
and
defected, the CIA took charge of the aircraft and shipped it back to the
Soviet Union! Regrettably, the CIA did not have any packing boxes larger
than about one cubic foot, so they had to disassemble the plane, but back
to
the Soviet Union it did go.
The Chinese helped us the same way, IIRC, by crating up our EP3 on Hainan.
Word is that we did NOT destroy all the ELINT and crypto gear before they
boarded.
U.S. Navy engineers said the EP-3 could be repaired in 8-12 months, but
China refused to allow it to be flown off Hainan island. The disassembled
aircraft was released on July 3, 2001, and was returned to the United States
by the Russian airline Polet in an Antonov An-124-100. It was eventually
reassembled and returned to duty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Bush and Obama both did the smart thing. The incident may have been meant
to remind them that any time we want we can create a reason to enter Iran.
In this case, the loitering drones feed back important "daily activity"
information - which is why I believe commuting to work is all over for
Iranian nuke scientists.
International law clearly isn't your strong suit, HeyBub. There's
actually quite a bit of law about spy planes, spies and recovery
rights. All part of the great "rule of law" concept so popular among
civilized humans. Most sane people try to avoid confrontation. A
few seemingly sane people appear to go looking for it.
International law may not be my strong suit, but I did dip my toe in the
water on this subject while in law school. International treaties,
particularily the "Law of the Sea" treaty is quite specific: Property of
one
county that ends up in the control of a second country MUST be returned to
the original owner. To not do so is defined as "piracy." This fairly
common
occurrance takes place when a ship, through malfunction or impending
weather, finds itself in the harbor of some country not its own.
Spy law is different. You're talking about non-military, peaceful and
accidental incursions. As you may recall Israel was able to turn back
flotillas by establishing their potential military threat.
I once dated a woman who was on a helicopter crew assigned to black ops that
landed in the wrong place due to a maintenance problem that they cleared on
the ground. They sat their for 3 days while diplomats did their thing. As
you may be aware, these "incidents" usually end up as "swap" opportunities
and before they could go airborn, the Sovs demanded the release of someone
we were holding. International law facilitates these sorts of exchanges so
most non-savage nations roughly abide by them. The precedents that you and
I have both quoted implies we'll probably get it back - if we want it (if
it's not a trojan) and if it's really even ours - when all their new Chinese
and Soviet visitors this week have had a chance to inspect it. We may
indeed get it back in a box. We may have a device in the unit that will
reveal the location of their top secret weapons labs. Who knows?
But we're much better off with them holding a drone than a recon plane with
a pilot. The power of the drone is that they can shoot all they want "we'll
make more." I forget how many drones you can buy for the cost of an old
Blackbird, but it's a C5A load. It was only a matter of time before we lost
one. The CIA drone program is still classified TS and they don't admit to
using them. For all we know this is the 10th that's gone down. Most other
finders wouldn't be admitting to it like Iran. They would be selling it to
the highest bidder very quietly.
There is no law or treaty of which I'm aware governing spy planes or
recovery rights other than the host has NO claim to the plane, ship, or
any
other vehicle, cargo, or humans aboard. If you can point to one such law,
I'd be very grateful.
My days of researching law for internet "clients" passed a long time ago.
(-: I merely invite you to examine the few exhanges we've discussed in this
thread and you'll see that these things proceed very much the same way every
time. IIRC, it may have been part of the United Nations Treaty regarding
the EEZ's and coastal borders. Oh hell, if I am going to ding you, I
suppose I have to prove it:
http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Te...t%20Hainan.htm
Perhaps most importantly, however, is that UNCLOS discloses that anything
"not for peaceful purposes"(19) , including non-innocent passage, (or
overflight) is not permitted anywhere in the world, including in the EEZ or
on the high seas.(20) This appears from article 87, which stipulates,
"Freedom of the high seas is exercised under conditions laid down by this
Convention..."'(21) and article 88, which reads: "The high seas shall be
reserved for peaceful purposes."(22) All the more so is the EEZ of a coastal
State, reserved for peaceful purposes by article 58(1), which invokes
article 87, which for its part refers to "other internationally lawful uses
of the sea related to these freedoms."(23) Moreover article 58(2) also
applicable to the EEZ, refers back to article 88 and its reference to
"peaceful purposes" on the high seas.(24)
Article 301, entitled: "Peaceful uses of the seas", is also very clear and
contains the basic principle of UNCLUS
A spy drone, unlike your maritime examples, is definitely NOT considered
"innocent passage."
I believe a very similar treaty exists for air space incursions, which as
you recall, got very popular in the 50's and 60's until the Sovs surprised
us by shooting down Gary Powers with a missile that our intel community was
sure they didn't possess. What is it with them? Saddam has WMD's, the Sovs
can't touch our U-2s, etc.
Our violating their sovereign airspace apparently lit a big fire under their
missile designers. Just like it's lighting a big anti-American fire under
the Pakistanis:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Fsv74GplsOQoDg
Oct 28, 2011 ISLAMABAD - Around 2,000 Pakistanis demonstrated outside
the country's parliament Friday to demand an end to US drone strikes,
claiming they kill more innocent civilians than Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders
.. . . Cricket hero turned politician Imran Khan led the Islamabad rally,
attended mostly by members of his Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice)
party, which is gearing up to contest its first general election . . . Some
young people in the crowd set fire to a wooden model of a drone, dancing
around and shouting "No more drone attacks", "No to drones, no to USA",
carrying big signs saying "Stop drone attacks in Pakistan".
--
Bobby G.