Author Archives: Denise Simon

Federalize Policing with Soviet Style Tactics

Posted on by

Soviet style tactics:

‘Another fundamental change is underway but not such that you would notice unless you understand the conduits of people and activists groups. Law enforcement across the country is subservient to mayors and mayors manage the money flows and rules of engagement in all communities. One must look closely at mayors and their operational playbooks as noted in the case of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, mayor of Baltimore. She is walking in cadence with Al Sharpton at National Action Network who himself has unfettered access to the White House as he is calling for officially federalizing police.

Then it must be noted that the ACLU is part of the conduit as this week that organization paid for and developed a smart phone app called ‘MOBILE JUSTICE’. “We want to multiply the number of cameras that can be trained on police officers at any time,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. “They need to know that anything they do could be seen by the entire world.”  Users will have to open the app on their Android or Apple devices before filming, ACLU officials said. When the recording stops, it automatically sends a copy to the ACLU’s server and keeps the video on the phone. A text report will then pop up, allowing users to explain in writing what they saw but allowing them to remain anonymous if desired. ACLU officials said their legal team would screen the reports and review any videos they believed might show problematic activity.

So who would use this smart phone app? Easy answer to the question. Those already part of yet another organization are part of the conduit, ‘WeCopWatch‘, maybe you have seen the t-shirts. It is even more curious that members of this group are also part of yet many others that include those that support the ‘FreePalestine‘ movement and that of Black Intifada.

Blair Anderson
Project Coordinator for Michigan, Ohio, Illinois
Blair is a Black Panther who lived through COINTELPRO era of the Black Power movement of the sixties. Blair is also the head of the WeCopwatch elder council which helps provide guidance for WeCopwatch in matters of organizing, tactics and strategies.

David Whitt
Project Coordinator for St Louis County
Whitt formed the Canfield Watchmen in the neighborhood where Mike Brown was killed. They have been actively copwatching, as well as training and distributing cameras to the public.

Jacob Crawford
Project Coordinator Support.
Crawford is a long time Copwatcher. He is assisting on the back end in supporting Copwatch expansion projects.  Do the posters below look familiar? Same ones the Islamists in America use as well. They also have a tip sheet that explains what to do if the FBI comes to their door.

253497_176424112415369_4847694_n

They are using GoFundMe to raise money to purchase go-pro cameras, but one should wonder if GoFundMe will take down that account as they often do for patriot requests.

The sad question now is just how will police forces across the country react? They are under siege.

 

Globetrotters: Who Flew With Hillary’s Planes

Posted on by

Citizens United has filed yet more lawsuits against the U.S. State Department for being non-responsive on Freedom of Information Act requests to determine who rode with Hillary on her planes during her stint as Secretary of State. The passengers would add puzzle pieces giving clues to Foundation donations, lobbying efforts and backroom deals.

The Clintons are powerbrokers and they work with other domestic and foreign power leaders demonstrating more collusion.

Firm Co-Founded By Hillary’s Campaign Chair Lobbies For Russia’s Uranium One

Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.

Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.

And according to a disclosure filed April 20, Uranium One spent $20,000 lobbying the Senate and State Department on the same issue.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers Tony and John Podesta. Tony Podesta now heads the group while John Podesta, who has not worked for the family business for years but has been involved in plenty of other projects, leads Hillary Clinton toward a Democratic nomination.

Uranium One is significant because it fell under the corporate control of Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One effectively gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium in the U.S.

How all of that came to pass has fostered questions about how the Clintons operate their charity, the Clinton Foundation.

The Uranium One story starts in 2005 when Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra and several business partners came to own a small mining company called UrAsia Energy. Clinton flew with Giustra in September 2005 on a private jet to Kazakhstan. There, the mining tycoon negotiated with that nation’s mining agency, Kazataprom, for rights to three mines. After Clinton appeared publicly in support of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had just allegedly won an election with more than 90 percent of the vote, the mining deal was approved.

Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a pledge of $100 million more.

In 2007, UrAsia Energy, with its access to Kazakhstan’s lucrative mines, merged with South Africa’s Uranium One in a $3.5 billion deal. Giustra sold his stake in the company soon after, pocketing a tidy profit. But other investors and executives with close ties to Giustra maintained their interests and donated millions more to the Clinton group. As money was flowing to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, which came under the control of Hillary Clinton in January 2009, approved a series of transactions that allowed Russia’s Rosatom to buy up shares in Uranium One. By June 2009, Rosatom had a 51 percent stake in the company.

With that majority hold, the Russian energy company effectively gained control of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S.

Rosatom has since taken complete control of Uranium One. And while there is little risk that the metal being pulled out of U.S. soil poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, it does give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of a major source of energy amid cooling diplomatic relations.

Though Uranium One’s corporate progression has the appearance of pay-for-play, the Clintons and Giustra have denied doing anything wrong. In his capacity as Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta has gone on the offensive, dismissing the notion that the Clintons have done anything illegal or unethical as a conspiracy theory.

But as evidence of just how complex the Clinton Foundation’s activities are, the website Vox.com published an exhaustive list of 181 Clinton Foundation donors who also lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.

Uranium One is not on the list. Neither is Giustra. Nor is Ian Telfer, one of Giustra’s Canadian associates who is the former chairman of Uranium One. He donated $2.35 million through his Fernwood Foundation to the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation, which is set up as a partnership with Giustra.

After it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had not disclosed some of its foreign donations — such as Telfer’s — the organization announced it would be refiling some of its tax forms.

 

If Obama’s Legal Team Wins, Your Church May Lose

Posted on by

If you have never been to the Supreme Court to hear cases argued, they are fascinating. This week, there is an case regarding marriage of gays. The oral presentations and responses by the U.S. Solicitor General and his staff would have you shaking your head. So, if you would like to read the transcripts which is for sure suggested, here is the document.

But when it comes to the SCOTUS decision on fundamentally redefining the institution of marriage, it could trickle down to your personal church losing. That fundamental transformation of America is underway, without so much as a whimper for you.

Obama Admin: Religious Organizations Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status If Supreme Court Creates Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

When arguing before the Supreme Court, a lawyer normally takes pains to convince the Justices that ruling in his or her favor in that particular case would not have dramatic consequences elsewhere. In Hobby Lobby, for example, Paul Clement urged that exempting his clients from part of HHS’s contraceptive mandate would not open the doors to a flood of other exemptions. Or in DC v. Heller, Alan Gura argued that the Court’s recognition of the Second Amendment’s personal right to own ordinary firearms would not entitle people to own “machine guns” or “plastic, undetectable handguns.”

A similar dynamic was seen, sometimes, at yesterday’s oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases, Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawyers arguing that same-sex couples should have a federal constitutional right to state marriage licenses suggested that establishing such a right would not result in ministers being forced to conduct same-sex marriages. “No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mary Bonauto told Justice Scalia. “We have those protections” under the First Amendment.

But given that such concerns surround this case — say, for wedding photographers or cake bakers — it was rather stunning to see Solicitor General Verrilli leave open the door to what could be the most significant consequences to eventually flow from the creation of a constitutional right to same sex marriage: namely, that religious organizations could eventually lose their tax-exempt status if they do not embrace the new constitutional right.

Such concerns are based on the Supreme Court’s approach in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where the Court held that the IRS could strip two private religious schools of their tax-exempt status because the schools maintained racially discriminatory policies abhorrent under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bob Jones University, for example, prohibited its students from inter-racial dating.

“Entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common-law standards of charity,” wrote the Court; “namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” To receive a tax exemption, the institution must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.” And because, in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education thirty years earlier, America had adopted “a firm national policy to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in public education,” neither the Tax Code nor the First Amendment allowed the schools to receive tax benefits while maintaining their repugnant racist policies. The Court’s analysis was correct in that case, given how well-established and widely respected the constitutional right against racial discrimination was. But how would the IRS and courts apply such themes in other cases, involving other constitutional rights?

To that end, in recent years some have asked whether the Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right could have similar impacts on religious organizations that refuse to participate in or otherwise support same-sex marriage.

Liberal proponents of same-sex marriage rights have tried to downplay those concerns. Writing in Slate two years ago, Emily Bazelon argued that States’ recognition of same-sex marriages would not affect religious organizations’ tax-exempt status, at least not until “we’re as united about the pernicious nature of anti-gay discrimination as we are about racial discrimination.” (“Maybe we should be there,” she added, “But I don’t need to tell you we’re not.” Not yet.)

But that is, of course, the core theme in favor of same-sex marriage rights: that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is no less fundamental than a right to inter-racial marriage. It has been at the heart of same-sex marriage litigation for years.

Surely the question of IRS tax exemptions came up at the “moot court” practice sessions preparing the Solicitor General for yesterday’s oral argument. If the Administration wanted to assure the Justices that the IRS — either its current leadership, or under a future Administration — would not strip, say, Catholic charities of their tax-exempt status, then the Solicitor General would have a well-rehearsed answer. Especially in light of the Obama administration’s treatment of conservative groups seeking tax exemptions, not to mention the Administration’s efforts — rejected unanimously by the Court — to use federal regulations to trump religious’ schools doctrinal authority.

But when Justice Alito posed this obvious question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Verrilli offered no reassurances:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.

Wait, the tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations is “certainly going to be an issue?”

One would have preferred that the administration could have sorted this “issue” out ahead of time. If the scenario really were as far-fetched as Bazelon and others suggest, then it would have been easy for the Obama administration to simply say so.

And so it will fall to the Justices to grapple with the issue before announcing any broad new constitutional right. They took such pains in Hobby Lobby, in Heller, and in other such cases. We can only hope they’ll do it again here.

 

Putin’s New Offensive

Posted on by

Our top concern is a revanchist Russia. General Breedlove:

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished Members of the Committee.  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  It is an honor to be here representing the dedicated Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, civilians and families of the U.S. European Command.  Thank you for all you do to support them, as they serve the nation.

Compared to just one year ago, Europe faces a very different, and much more challenging security environment.one with significant, lasting implications for U.S. national security interests.

Our top concern is a revanchist Russia.

Russia is blatantly challenging the rules and principles that have been the bedrock of European security for decades.  The challenge is global. not regional. and enduring. not temporary.  Russian aggression is clearly visible in its illegal occupation of Crimea, and in its continued operations in eastern Ukraine.

In Ukraine, Russia has supplied their proxies with heavy weapons, training and mentoring, command and control, artillery fire support, and tactical-and operational-level air defense,. Russia has transferred many pieces of military equipment into Ukraine, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery pieces, and other military vehicles.

What we have seen over the course of the fight, was that when the Russian proxy offensive ran into trouble, Russian forces intervened directly to “right the course.”

Today on the ground, the situation is volatile and fragile.  Russian forces used the opportunities provided by the recent lull in fighting to re-set and re-position, while protecting their gains.  Many of their actions are consistent with preparations for another offensive.

The hope remains that both parties will fully implement an effective ceasefire as an important step toward an acceptable political resolution of the conflict, one that respects the internationally recognized border.

I am often asked, “Should the United States and others provide weapons to Ukraine?”  What we see is a Russia that is aggressively applying all elements of national power – diplomatic, informational, and economic, as well as military.  So my view,.is it would not make sense to unnecessarily take any of our own tools off the table.

But the crisis in Ukraine is about more than just Ukraine.    Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states, and the region as a whole,..and Russia’s illegal actions are pushing instability closer to the boundaries of NATO.

We cannot be fully certain what Russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp Putin’s intent. What we can do is learn from his actions,. And what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent.

We also know that Putin responds to strength., and seeks opportunities in weakness. We must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence.

At the same time, Europe also faces the challenge of a surge in violent extremism.

European nations are rightly worried about foreign fighters returning home to Europe from the fight in Syria and Iraq, with new skills and malign intent.  Attacks like those in France. Belgium. and Denmark. are only likely to become more frequent.

Foreign fighters are part of a much broader pattern of insecurity to  Europe’s south, with roots in the Middle East and North Africa.  Transit routes are shared by violent extremists, organized criminal networks, and migrant populations fleeing difficult conditions in Libya and other under-governed places. The spread of instability into Europe, and the transnational terrorism we all face could have a direct bearing on the national security of the U.S. homeland.

EUCOM is working with European nations bilaterally and supporting NATO Alliance initiatives, to meet and counter this new and more complex security environment.

Based on the decisions made at the NATO Wales Summit last year, the Alliance is adapting in order to improve its readiness and responsiveness.  The Readiness Action Plan, or RAP, is well underway.  Our Allies are stepping up, making significant contributions that give them a real stake in the outcome.  The United States will have a key and sustained role to play in supporting and enabling these changes – especially in critical areas that are hardest for our Allies to provide, like lift, sustainment, and enablers such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

At the same time, our own U.S. efforts in Europe remain essential.  Our leadership is perhaps more important now than at any time in recent history.

Since Russian troops illegally occupied Crimea last year, U.S. forces, under the banner of Operation Atlantic Resolve, have continued to take concerted steps to assure Allies of our commitment to their security and to Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty – the common defense cornerstone of transatlantic security.

EUCOM air, land, maritime and special operations forces have maintained presence in all three of our NATO allies in the Baltics; Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, as well as in the Black Sea,..providing an array of capabilities including  airborne, armor, mobile infantry, light fighter, strike-fighter, advanced air, and maritime presence in addition to training, advising, and exercising with host nation forces.

You have made most of this persistent presence possible through your support for the European Reassurance Initiative, or “ERI.”  The assurance measures it supports enable the Alliance to remain strong and cohesive in this new security environment. In facing both of these serious challenges – to Europe’s east and to its south – EUCOM is working closely with many others,.our sister COCOMs, NATO partners as well as Allies, and other international organizations including the European Union.  There is plenty of work to go around, and our collaboration, and our unity, are essential.   EUCOM is also drawing heavily on great new efforts underway in the Department of Defense – not least the Defense Innovation Initiative, which applies cutting-edge approaches to some of the toughest challenges in our theater, like anti-access area denial.

The strong threat posed by Russia, and the growing challenge to the south, lead me to three areas where EUCOM could particularly use your help:

First – sufficient persistent forward presence.

Our forward presence in Europe is the bedrock of our ability to assure Allies, to deter real and potential adversaries, and to be postured to act in a timely manner should deterrence fail.

It was our permanent presence in Europe that gave EUCOM the ability to respond immediately after Russian troops illegally occupied Crimea. Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Germany deployed to the Baltic States and Poland within 96 hours of receiving their mission. And our F-15s from Lakenheath, England began flying missions out of Poland within 18 hours of mission receipt.

That same permanent presence ensures that EUCOM can play a full array of essential supporting roles for other Combatant Commands – from neighboring AFRICOM and CENTCOM, to STRATCOM and TRANSCOM.

Rotational presence is not a substitute for permanent forward presence in building relationships or signaling our commitment.  A fully funded rotational presence can play an important role in helping meet the requirements in our theater – but only if it is heel-to-toe and properly resourced.

Second – sufficient intelligence support.

Since the end of the Cold War, our nation’s community of Russian area experts has shrunk considerably, and intelligence assets of all kinds have been shifted to the wars we’ve been fighting or to understanding potential future threats.

Russian military operations over the past year, in Ukraine and in the region more broadly, have underscored that there are critical gaps in our collection and analysis.  Some Russian military exercises have caught us by surprise, and our  textured feel for Russian involvement on the ground in Ukraine has been quite limited.

Earlier indications and warning – and the ability to better understand Moscow’s thinking and intent – are absolutely critical for avoiding future surprise and miscalculation, for deterring effectively, and for preparing to respond if required.   Getting this right requires more ISR, high-power analytical support, and appropriate intelligence-sharing with Allies and partners.  The same holds true for effectively waging counter-terrorism and counter-ISIL operations in and through the European theater.  A small investment in this capability could lead to a large return in our understanding of the complex challenges we face.

Third, and finally, sufficient future resourcing.

In the near term, EUCOM’s particular request is for your support for European Reassurance Initiative for Fiscal Year 2016.  Your support for ERI in 2015 demonstrated commitment to our Allies, increased our ability to shape the European Theater, and allowed EUCOM to build and sustain the capacity of our Allies and partners.

The request for ERI funding in FY16 builds on this initiative.  Key components include: maintaining air superiority presence, participating in NATO exercises, supporting the rotational presences of an Armored Brigade Combat Team,  repositioning equipment, funding Global Response Force exercises, fostering SOCEUR engagement with partners, and increasing Guard and Reserve participation across the theater.

We understand that these reassurance measures come at a cost, and in the current budget environment, additional cost means making tough choices.  As a result of previous budget constraints, EUCOM has already assumed greater risk to our mission.  Specifically, our deployment timelines are longer, our preparations are less robust, and our fundamental ability to deter and defeat in a timely and effective manner is less sure than it was a decade ago.

As Secretary Carter testified recently, further reductions would damage our national security, and have a direct and lasting impact on our ability to protect and defend the nation in and from the European Theater.  Meanwhile, the security challenges in and around Europe are growing sharper and more complicated.

*** It is complicated and the ambitions of Russia are not without notice, but are certainly without dispute or consequence from any Western leaders.

Moscow Likely to Choose Control of Territories Over Their Economic Development

The Russian government is considering building a new water link connecting the Caspian Sea to the ocean via the Azov and Black seas. The new route is supposed to be the shortest and the cheapest way to carry Chinese goods via Central Asia to Europe. Existing oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to outside markets also have hit the limits of their capacities, and finding new ways for exporting oil and gas is another important aspect of the project. Central Asian countries are regarded as the primary beneficiaries of the new transportation link, with Kazakhstan reportedly being its most ardent supporter. It is believed the new link will also boost the stagnant economies of the North Caucasus, creating new jobs and providing better access to world markets and investment. The Eurasian Development Bank has allotted $2.7 million for early project assessment, and the results of the research was discussed in the Russian Ministry of Transportation, but that discussion was closed to the public (Kavkazskaya Politika, April 17).

The proposed water link, commonly referred to as the “Eurasia canal,” would significantly affect the economic and political situation in the North Caucasus and southern Russia more generally (see EDM, June 25, 2007). Southern Russia has significant agricultural potential and would certainly be of interest to Chinese investors. Access by Chinese investors to the North Caucasus would also substantially improve local economies and decrease their dependence on subsidies from Moscow. As a rule, the Russian government prefers control to development. Unless the government is reassured that there is no threat to its control over the North Caucasus, it is unlikely to proceed with even the most lucrative developmental projects.

Iran’s Free Pass on Hijacking Cargo Ships

Posted on by

Members of the U.S. Congress insist on reviewing any agreement with Iran before it takes effect, largely over Israeli concerns shared by many in Congress over Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Zarif said Tehran does not want “to get bogged down into the domestic procedures of the United States” and was negotiating with the government.

He also said Iran was committed to maintaining freedom of navigation in the Gulf in the aftermath of the seizure of a commercial ship by Iranian forces on Tuesday. “For us, freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf is a must,” he said. More here.

A few days ago, Iran seized a cargo ship. The U.S. has no plan nor responsibility to free the ship as told by the U.S. State Department. The ship is owned by the United States by flies a Marshall Island flag. There is more intrigue.

Here’s Why Iran’s Seizure of a Cargo Ship Is So Odd, and Disturbing

While Revolutionary Guard boats often harass passing vessels, the capture of the MV Maersk Tigris appears to be something new:

No one knows why Iranian military forces seized a 52,000-ton container ship in the Strait of Hormuz, and that’s worrying. Nor is it clear what the U.S. Navy or anyone else can do about it.

The strait is one of the world’s great maritime chokepoints; among other cargo, nearly 20 percent of the world’s annual supply of crude oil passes through its 6-mile-wide shipping channel. From time to time, Iran threatens to close the strait to shipping, though any such move would be vigorously contested by the United States and other countries, and it’s doubtful that the passage would remain closed for long. Still, news about maritime threats in the strait can send tremors through global markets.

The MV Maersk Tigris — a brand-new cargo ship built to carry more than 5,400 standard shipping containers — was heading westward through the strait in Iranian territorial waters on Tuesday, according to Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren. It was approached by several patrol vessels of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, or IRGCN, the maritime arm of the paramilitary unit that is generally tasked with “preserving the Islamic revolution.”

So far, nothing terribly unusual. The IRGCN, assigned to patrol the Gulf, routinely sends boats to shadow — some say “harass” — vessels of other nationalities as they transit the strait. Just three days ago, CNN reported, four IRGCN boats surrounded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington in the Strait of Hormuz and followed it closely for some time. The U.S. Fifth Fleet subsequently issued a notice to mariners.

What happened next to the MV Maersk Tigris, however, was quite out of the ordinary.

“The master was contacted and directed to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters,” said Warren. “He declined and one of the IRGCN craft fired shots across the bridge of the Maersk Tigris. The master complied with the Iranian demand and proceeded into Iranian waters in the vicinity of Larak Island.”

William Watson, a maritime consultant based in Washington, D.C., called the situation “very strange and peculiar.”

Iran, which claims the entire strait as its territorial waters, might legally board a vessel if it deviated substantially toward the Iranian coast, Watson said. But ships moving normally through the strait have the right of innocent passage, a right routinely and firmly asserted by U.S. warships, among thousands of other vessels.

Via its Fars News Agency, the Iranian government said, “The ship is a trade vessel and has been seized by the Iranian navy at the request of Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization…The ship was seized after a relevant court order was issued for its confiscation.” The article said the IPMO had monetary differences with the ship owner.

Watson found this mystifying. If someone has a financial claim against a vessel’s owners, the claimant can “arrest” the vessel, or hold it until the dispute is resolved. But he added that in his decades of watching the world’s maritime trade, he’d never heard of such a thing done on the high seas. Arrests happen in port or at anchor, he said.

Soon after the container ship encountered the IRGCN boats, it sent a distress signal. The U.S. Navy responded by dispatching a guided missile destroyer, the USS Farragut, to have a look. As well, it sent a maritime patrol aircraft (the Navy has two kinds, the propellor-driven P-3 Orion and the jet-powered P-8 Poseidon).

It’s unclear what the Navy might do from here. The U.S. can act forcefully to protect ships under U.S. flag, and generally must lay off when a vessel is sailing under some other country’s banner. The Maersk Tigris is a bit in the middle; it flies the flag of the Marshall Islands, which in the wake of World War II placed itself under the military protection of the United States.

“NAVCENT [U.S. Naval Forces, Central Command] is communicating with representatives of the shipping company and we continue to monitor the situation,” Warren said. “According to information received from the vessel’s operators, there are no Americans aboard.”

The incident comes just days after the U.S. Navy dispatched an aircraft carrier and escort to ward off Iranian ships headed for the civil-war-wracked country of Yemen, and amid tense and ongoing negotiations surrounding the framework nuclear deal between Iran and other nations. It is also part of a long history of naval confrontations between the U.S. and Iranian forces; most dramatically, the daylong naval battle in 1988 in which the U.S. retaliated for the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts by sinking two Iranian warships and damaging other assets.

Update (4/29): The day after the seizure, Maersk officials told Reuters they still did not know why their ship had been taken, and that they were working with Danish diplomats to learn more. The world’s largest shipping company, Maersk is based in Copenhagen.

Update 2 (4/29): Via the government’s IRNA news agency, Iran added a bit to its explanation for the seizure, saying that “the decree was issued upon a complaint lodged by a private company named ‘Pars-Talaeeyeh Oil Products Company’ against MAERSK Shipping Line. The case passed its legal proceedings and finally MAERSK was sentenced to pay financial damages….The [Navigation and Ports Organization] underlined that the issue is merely a legal case and has nothing to do with political issues.”

Update 3 (4/29): The website MarineTraffic produced this video showing the course of the MV Maersk Tigris before, during, and after its interception.

Now there are talks with the Marshall Islands about future interceptions. Officials from the United States and the Marshall Islands are discussing “the way ahead” after Iranian patrol boats forcibly diverted a cargo ship flying a Marshall Islands flag into an anchorage in Iranian waters, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

A US Navy destroyer, the Farragut, and three coastal patrol ships, the Thunderbolt, Firebolt and Typhoon, were operating in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz conducting maritime security operations following the detention of the cargo ship, the MV Maersk Tigris, the Pentagon said.