| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iran |
| World Court: U.S. Wrong to Hit Platforms |
| 2003-11-07 |
| The United States was wrong to destroy three of Iran’s oil platforms during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, but doesn’t need to pay damages, the World Court ruled in a 14-2 decision Thursday. ``The actions carried out against Iran ... cannot be justified,’’ said presiding Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, reading the decision by a panel of 16 judges from around the world. We seemed to justify them without any problems at the time. Washington doesn’t need to pay damages because the countries had suspended trade relations at the time and the United States ``cannot have been said to have infringed the rights of Iran,’’ Shi said. The first oil platform was destroyed by the U.S. Navy on Oct. 19, 1987, in retaliation for an Iranian missile strike on a U.S.-flagged oil tanker that injured 18 crewmen. The United States destroyed two more platforms on April 18, 1988, after a mine in the Persian Gulf injured 10 crewmen aboard a U.S. frigate. The United States argued the actions were in self-defense because Iran was threatening U.S. commerce in the Persian Gulf during the 1980-1988 conflict. However, the court said it was not satisfied the attacks were necessary. It also dismissed a counterclaim by the United States, citing the suspended trade relations. They’re kidding! The Iranians shoot at us but we can’t shoot back? How, how ... Y’urp-peon! William Taft, who represented the United States, said he was pleased with the decision. ``We didn’t bring the case, Iran brought the case, and the court sent them home empty-handed,’’ he said. Sorry, Bill, you should have told them to stuff it and walked out. The United States continues to believe the attacks were necessary to ``put an end to Iran’s attacks on neutral shipping in the gulf,’’ he said. Iran’s legal deputy, Mosskan Mashkour, said the court’s decision showed that ``the actions taken by the United States were contrary to international law.’’ Iran filed the case in 1992 at the United Nations’ highest legal body. The World Court hears only disputes between nations, and has jurisdiction when specified by treaty or by mutual agreement of countries that have a dispute. Despite U.S. opposition, the court ruled in 1996 that it had jurisdiction in the Iran-U.S. case under a friendship treaty signed between the United States and Iran in 1955. The black turbans used a 1955 friendship treaty to attack us -- doesn’t that sorta violate the meaning of ’friendship’? Iran sued the United States for what it said was a ``fundamental breach’’ of that treaty after the United States sided with Iraq and fired on the platforms. Iran claimed it had been the victim of Iraqi aggression and the United States had assisted Iraq’s war effort by supplying it with intelligence and supplies. We had about 52 reasons for doing so, remember boys? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #11 We hit the wrong platforms? I know this was pre-Ageis but jebus. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-7 3:51:31 PM |
| #10 "The black turbans used a 1955 friendship treaty to attack us -- doesn’t that sorta violate the meaning of ’friendship’? Actually since this was negotiated by the Clinton administration, I'd say it was probably more of a 'kick me' sign the Iranians hung on us." Wouldn't '55 have been Eisenhower? Clinton was like 9, I doubt he was on the negotiating team. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2003-11-7 11:32:11 AM |
| #9 "The actions carried out against Iran ... cannot be justified" -Sure they can. Did it put a stop to them shooting at us? If so, then the action was justified. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-7 11:05:50 AM |
| #8 The disturbing thing about this is that they used an old treaty, that should have been voided with the fall of the Shah. That seems to be a precident that would allow those that sell arms to dictators to have legal recompense after that dictators fall (Iraq anyone?). Now enshrined in International Law even though this case failed. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-11-7 10:59:39 AM |
| #7 The actions carried out against Iran ... cannot be justified,’’ said presiding Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, reading the decision by a panel of 16 judges from around the world. I wonder if any of China's neighbors is ever going to sue China for any of its half-dozen invasions over border disputes. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-7 10:23:13 AM |
| #6 Okay. Sorry. Won't do it again... unless we have to. That's about how much this decision's worth. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-11-7 10:15:08 AM |
| #5 The actions carried out against Iran ... cannot be justified,’’ said presiding Judge Shi Jiuyong of China, reading the decision by a panel of 16 judges from around the world. Once again, our Chinese friends split the difference. Smart move, but not real friendly. The World Court hears only disputes between nations, and has jurisdiction when specified by treaty or by mutual agreement of countries that have a dispute. Despite U.S. opposition, the court ruled in 1996 that it had jurisdiction in the Iran-U.S. case under a friendship treaty signed between the United States and Iran in 1955. Decisions like this is why the ICC would have been a big joke perpetrated by Bill Clinton on hapless Americans. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-7 9:41:28 AM |
| #4 Iran filed the case in 1992 at the United Nations’ highest legal body. 4 Years!? What took them so long, the camel run out of water? |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-7 9:29:53 AM |
| #3 So.. ummm... when will they rule concerning the hostages the black turbans took? I would say that pretty much made the 'Friendship' treaty null-and-void. You don't seriously think that it was only 'students' who took the hostages did you? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-11-7 9:04:44 AM |
| #2 "William Taft, who represented the United States, said he was pleased with the decision." Dug him up, did they? |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-7 8:17:42 AM |
| #1 The black turbans used a 1955 friendship treaty to attack us -- doesn’t that sorta violate the meaning of ’friendship’? Actually since this was negotiated by the Clinton administration, I'd say it was probably more of a 'kick me' sign the Iranians hung on us. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-11-7 6:51:05 AM |