spiritguide
15th November 2012, 16:21
The article linked to adds to the ongoing struggle within the government for control.
Lead in....
“The case that can be made to any reasonable observer is that violation of Iranian airspace did happen, that there was ‘hot pursuit’ by fighter aircraft and that International Law would allow, not just destruction of the drone but may well allow an attack on the base where the drone is launched.”
—
Related Interviews:
■‘Zionists seek to abuse US UNHRC place’
■‘Israel raided Sudan because of poor ties’
Nearly two weeks ago, an American drone fled Iranian airspace when controllers received intelligence noting that an Iranian plane was giving chase. The term used in International Law for such an incident is known as “hot pursuit.”
The short of it is clear. Any nation that is attacked can pursue the attackers until they enter the territory or airspace of a neutral nation. However, any nation that would supply bases used for violating another nation’s sovereignty using “platforms” that are typically armed is not neutral.
Thus, International Law is clear on this:
According to “The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law,” Second Edition, by Nicholas M. Poulantzas, any nation that has its sovereignty violated by one of three classes of forces, naval, air or ground, is free to pursue those forces and destroy them up to the time they enter proven neutral safe havens.
Then other, diplomatic, methods apply.
The case that can be made to any reasonable observer is that violation of Iranian airspace did happen, that there was “hot pursuit” by fighter aircraft and that International Law would allow, not just destruction of the drone but may well allow an attack on the base where the drone is launched.
Link to article.... http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/15/press-tv-us-drones-over-iran/
More perspective and pieces to the puzzle.
Lead in....
“The case that can be made to any reasonable observer is that violation of Iranian airspace did happen, that there was ‘hot pursuit’ by fighter aircraft and that International Law would allow, not just destruction of the drone but may well allow an attack on the base where the drone is launched.”
—
Related Interviews:
■‘Zionists seek to abuse US UNHRC place’
■‘Israel raided Sudan because of poor ties’
Nearly two weeks ago, an American drone fled Iranian airspace when controllers received intelligence noting that an Iranian plane was giving chase. The term used in International Law for such an incident is known as “hot pursuit.”
The short of it is clear. Any nation that is attacked can pursue the attackers until they enter the territory or airspace of a neutral nation. However, any nation that would supply bases used for violating another nation’s sovereignty using “platforms” that are typically armed is not neutral.
Thus, International Law is clear on this:
According to “The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law,” Second Edition, by Nicholas M. Poulantzas, any nation that has its sovereignty violated by one of three classes of forces, naval, air or ground, is free to pursue those forces and destroy them up to the time they enter proven neutral safe havens.
Then other, diplomatic, methods apply.
The case that can be made to any reasonable observer is that violation of Iranian airspace did happen, that there was “hot pursuit” by fighter aircraft and that International Law would allow, not just destruction of the drone but may well allow an attack on the base where the drone is launched.
Link to article.... http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/15/press-tv-us-drones-over-iran/
More perspective and pieces to the puzzle.