|
World Court: U.S. Wrong to Hit Platforms
The United States was wrong to destroy three of Iranâs oil platforms during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, but doesnât need to pay damages, the World Court ruled in a 14-2 decision Thursday. ``The actions carried out against Iran ... cannot be justified,ââ 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 doesnât 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,ââ 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. Theyâre kidding! The Iranians shoot at us but we canât shoot back? How, how ... Yâurp-peon! William Taft, who represented the United States, said he was pleased with the decision. ``We didnât bring the case, Iran brought the case, and the court sent them home empty-handed,ââ 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 Iranâs attacks on neutral shipping in the gulf,ââ he said. Iranâs legal deputy, Mosskan Mashkour, said the courtâs decision showed that ``the actions taken by the United States were contrary to international law.ââ Iran filed the case in 1992 at the United Nationsâ 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 -- doesnât that sorta violate the meaning of âfriendshipâ? Iran sued the United States for what it said was a ``fundamental breachââ 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 Iraqâs war effort by supplying it with intelligence and supplies. We had about 52 reasons for doing so, remember boys? Posted by: Steve White 2003-11-07 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=20923 |