The first destroyed the Dena's propeller shaft and stopped her dead in the water. Her position was at coordinates 6.0073 degrees North, 79.8654 degrees East: that was nine nautical miles (nm) outside Sri Lanka's territorial waters; 19 nm (35 km) west of the harbour of Galle, a port on the southwestern coast of the island.
At the 30-knot speed the Dena had been moving, she was 18 minutes from the safety of Sri Lankan territory. Immobilized, however, the Dena captain, Abuzar Zarri, gave the crew the order to assemble on the aft deck in full visibility of the Charlotte, and prepare to abandon ship. As the crew mustered, a second torpedo was fired by the Charlotte to sink the Dena and kill the crew.
The torpedo warhead explosion broke the keel; the Dena sank in less than five minutes.
Of the crew's 180-man complement, 32 were rescued from the water by the Sri Lankan coast guard, including Zarri and the first officer; 87 bodies were recovered; 61 were lost. Altogether, 148 were killed.
On the Charlotte, submerged at a distance from the Dena of less than 10 nm (18 km), there was an interval of approximately ninety minutes between the first fire order and the second, the kill order. A close-range film of the second torpedo strike, recorded by the Charlotte, was released to the press by the Pentagon.
Four men participated in the chain of command through which these two strike orders were requested; decided; transmitted; executed.
They are Commander Thomas Futch (lead, left), commander of the USS Charlotte; Captain Jeffrey Fassbinder (second left), chief of the Submarine Squadron 7 of the US Pacific Fleet; Admiral Stephen Koehler (centre), Commander of the US Pacific Fleet; and Peter Hegseth (right), the US Secretary of War (Defense).
Hegseth announced in a Pentagon briefing on March 4 what he wanted the public to believe he had done. "Yesterday in the Indian Ocean, and we'll play it on the screen there, an American submarine sunk [sic] an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo, quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II."
Hegseth was deceiving. He knew two torpedoes had been fired; it was the second which sank the Dena. He knew the Dena did not "[think] it was safe in international waters". This was because US intelligence had been reporting to the Pentagon and the US Navy's Pacific Fleet command that the Iranian Navy had been requesting safe haven for the Dena and its two escorts, IRIS Lavan and IRIS Bushehr, in Sri Lanka, then India, for more than seven days before the March 4 attack.
Admiral Koehler knew because he had met with Sri Lankan officials in Colombo between February 19 and 21 to deter them from taking Iran's side. "We stand with Sri Lanka in facing shared security challenges — from maritime domain awareness to countering transnational threats", the US Embassy announced. On March 4, the Sri Lankan newspaper Tamil Guardian editorialized: "Did Washington's Sri Lanka visit precede a secret naval strike? Questions grow after Iranian frigate sunk."
In the new article just published in the Tehran Times, the evidence of the Dena attack has been summarized and the political implications weighed - for the US and for the governments of Sri Lanka and India, which joined the US in the preliminaries, before the attack of March 4, and in the aftermath.
Click to read: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/525994/IRIS-Dena-sinking-Survivors-testimony-diplomatic-delays-and
Comment: From the link:
What happened off the coast of Sri Lanka, Iranian officials argue, was not simply an attack on a warship. It was the deliberate destruction of a disarmed and disabled vessel and its evacuating crew prevented from reaching safety — and a test of who in the region chose neutrality, and who did not.War on the high seas have strict rules. There are rules of engagement and even in French, there is the rule of being hors de combat (out of combat).
In the case of the Dena being torpedoed twice and her crew of 148 lost, there seems to be a Naval case to be made for when there are Orders to Kill Survivors at Sea:
The deliberate killing of survivors at sea represents one of the most clearly defined war crimes in international humanitarian law, with prohibitions stretching back more than a century and codified in multiple treaties and military manuals. The fundamental principle underlying these prohibitions is that individuals who are hors de combat � out of combat due to shipwreck, wounds, surrender, or other incapacitation � must not be made the object of attack. This principle applies universally in armed conflicts and represents a core tenet of the laws of war that balances military necessity with humanitarian considerations.The codes of war come with Article 60 (and 71) that state:
Article 60 of the Lieber Code states unequivocally that "it is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter." Article 71 went further, prescribing the death penalty for anyone who "intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy." These principles were subsequently incorporated into the 1899 Hague Regulations, which prohibited killing or wounding "an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion."Does Peter Hegseth need to answer for this, and what of the Commander, Admiral and Captain?
Reader Comments
Fair to strike? Not in this case. Didn't you read the comment in blue?
If any doubt resides in your mind about the morals of the Septic Tanks as displayed, fear not, they reenforce their behaviour similar to Curtis Lemay (what a man!) in Korea, that even an Hyena would not display and they do so on the ridiculous claim that Iranian women can’t wear lips stick or some such.
* Insider deals, revolving doors, cronyism, nepotism, rent seeking, profiteering, & speculation by the Democrat & Republican Parties
* More military operations against Russia & Iran
* Sloppy trade war & military buildup against China
* Severe sanctions, military threats, & regime change against North Korea (which is extremely rich with rare earth minerals)
* Severe sanctions & chaotic regime changes with proxy rebels + puppet leaders in Venezuela (which is rich with petroleum, natural gas, & other natural resources)
* Luxury welfare for international communities of self-chosen moneychangers who hypocritically undermine & exploit «unclean outsiders»
* Corporate monopolies + cartels & dishonest shell companies that pamper owners & upper managers, while undervaluing regular scientists, engineers, & artists who actually do most of the work for advancing civilization.
* The Democrats want one world government by means of messy open borders, multicultural malfunctions, & cultural Marxism. The Republicans want one world government according to Judeo-Christians with Bible myths favoring fallacious Pharisees.
* The economic myth of infinite growth on a planet with finite resources
With your permission I’ll expand a bit on Korea.
I’m not sure how much of a market exists for war and or military memorabilia, however Korea especially North Korea is a veritable smorgasbord when it comes to Unexploded ordnance and such, one can claim souvenirs almost anywhere in North Korea including an extremely toxic legacy from the use of Napalm that on a good day they used “70,000 gallons” it's constituents present in the earth to this day, O’ncle Sam is said to be on the hunt for rare earth minerals, an opportunity exists in a circular fashion if you will, they can now dig up the cadmium, lead, copper and such which they deposited in North Korea for safe keeping, who said the USA doesn’t look ahead, “Iron Harvest” can also be profitable.
The attcks on Iran have NO legal basis and are therefore totally illegal. Period!
The USA has been acting like the most dangerous TERRORIST state for decades if not centuries. and it is time that their barbaric terrorism and piracy was brought to a halt.