So...

[j2k4]

...what of this situation with the British sailors taken by Iran?

Assuming a scrupulously fair POV would seem to require definitive proof of their position relative to whatever sort of geo-synchronous hardware was aloft to provide this information.

We have, instead, a we say/they say pissing contest.

What now?

[bigboab]

It has happened before. There will be the usual sabre rattling. In the end, hopefully, it will be settled diplomatically.

The whole thing has made me realize that education in my day was not as good as they made it out to be. I never realized that U K national waters bordered on Iranian national waters.:wacko:

[Barbarossa]

Oh come on Boab, surely in your day they told you that Britannia rules the waves :rolleyes:

Personally, I think we should invade. Kidnapping of our military personnel is surely tantamount to declaring war. I wonder if we can count on US support :unsure:

[j2k4]

Oh come on Boab, surely in your day they told you that Britannia rules the waves :rolleyes:

Personally, I think we should invade. Kidnapping of our military personnel is surely tantamount to declaring war. I wonder if we can count on US support :unsure:

I'll go. :)

[bigboab]

Oh come on Boab, surely in your day they told you that Britannia rules the waves :rolleyes:

Personally, I think we should invade. Kidnapping of our military personnel is surely tantamount to declaring war. I wonder if we can count on US support :unsure:

:lol:

I think today the USA and the UK waives the rules.:rolleyes:

[GepperRankins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqWeNAopFa0

everything's fine, see

[Biggles]

We say that we were a couple of miles inside Iraqi water they say we were a mile inside their waters. As there is no agreed line for this piece of water this argument could go on for ever. :dry:

It seems to me that the Iranians are trying to provoke a dispute - quite successfully imho.

[bigboab]

We say that we were a couple of miles inside Iraqi water they say we were a mile inside their waters. As there is no agreed line for this piece of water this argument could go on for ever. :dry:

It seems to me that the Iranians are trying to provoke a dispute - quite successfully imho.

Or the Iranians are correct and someone else is trying to create an international crisis requiring the invasion of Iran.:whistling

In my opinion it is just an advert for Tom-Tom. I hope so.:)

[Biggles]

We say that we were a couple of miles inside Iraqi water they say we were a mile inside their waters. As there is no agreed line for this piece of water this argument could go on for ever. :dry:

It seems to me that the Iranians are trying to provoke a dispute - quite successfully imho.

Or the Iranians are correct and someone else is trying to create an international crisis requiring the invasion of Iran.:whistling

In my opinion it is just an advert for Tom-Tom. I hope so.:)

More likely they were using a Tom-Tom and it took them to Iraqi waters via the Tasmanian Sea

[bigboab]

The waters where this took place is in dispute. Knowing that the Iranians are hotheads leaves a lot of questions to be answered from the Navy.

1. Why were the operations taking place in disputed waters and so close to a disputed 'border'?

2. Why did the operation continue when HMS Cornwall was 'disabled'?

3. What happened to the helicopter gunship that was protecting them?

4. What action is being taken to stop the imminent disappearance of HMS Cornwall's Log book?:whistling

[Barbarossa]

According to a "texter-inner" on the BBC Question Time programme last night, the helicopter in question had had to return to HMS Cornwall due to lack of fuel.

This could have been a falsehood however, because I have not been able to verify the story. :unsure:

[j2k4]

It seems Iran cares little for the Geneva Conventions.

How can that be.

[MagicNakor]

Aren't they "quaint."

:shuriken:

[vidcc]

Do we still have the right to lecture about showing captives on TV being against the Geneva convention? I mean all they have to point to is rendition, abu grabass, gitmo, torture, Saddam in his underwear............... How do we justify claiming the high ground anymore?

[j2k4]

Do we still have the right to lecture about showing captives on TV being against the Geneva convention? I mean all they have to point to is rendition, abu grabass, gitmo, torture, Saddam in his underwear............... How do we justify claiming the high ground anymore?

Who is "claiming the high ground".

Are we precluded from pointing this treatment out, especially when it applies to uniformed members of an established regular armed service sailing under a British flag, and not (unclaimed) terrorists.

[vidcc]

Call that humiliation?


No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.nethttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html

[jimbo12345]

It's a bad situation at the right time for everyone.

- US/Brits are looking for more solid foundations to get at Iran, one way or another. This, on top of the nuclear issue, is starting to add up, rightly or wrongly.
- Iran needs to show they follow some rules, thus if someone enters their space, they are doing what is under the book, like everyone else would.
- Iran wants to show they are humane and open to diplomacy, and show they are being bullied.

I did find it interesting that the Brits have shown GPS mappings from the Cornwall and the suspect ship. Iran used a Flash presentation...and got their coordinates wrong twice. Either they lack decent "fake" software, or they got it wrong, or they aren't lieing at all.

I was in Iran 2 months ago working on a solar power project, ironically. I had to travel to many places many foreigners don't go. It's a really beautiful place. I was treated with the best hospitality, though they knew i was English. It's a rich country, and the infrastructure etc is very advanced, not the mud huts and cave dwellers we are led to believe. Hell of a lot better than Leeds!! I wasn't hindered in my movement. My work, although it wa read before i left, was left uncensored, although i criticised Iran and several of it's policies.

Maybe the Iran/British/US etc governments are a bunch of pricks, collectively. The Iranian people are good, kind people, like us. They have kids who want to go to univversity, get good jobs, and live in peace. I hope to God we can solve this in ways which won't see their people dying.

Israel used the kidnap of a soldier as the final straw recently. The international world was quiet at first, then loudly condemned the continous brutality and "you did this, so i'll do that" mentality. I hope the "Allies" were taking note. More of this aggression, and i will sadly start to believe that we ae the terrorists. Then, is democracy soooo good? Is that what we want to print around the world?

Finally, sanctions are fine. But, Iran's economical and social development has been rolliing and gathering momentum. How long will Iran be expected to do this with sanctions that can undo the GOOD work they have done? They will find ways to continue their development, be it making up deficits with trades to non-favorable nations, or lashing out.

I'm not saying Iran are angels. But nor are we, and we are the ones that startd this prodding.

[j2k4]

The subject was (for the moment, at least) whether Iran was flouting the Geneva Conventions in it's treatment of the British sailors.

Do we avoid the question by arguing whether they are excused from any violations that do not exceed those alleged against the coalition, and do we furthermore disregard the fact the sailors are personnel of the precise type referred to in the Conventions.

[lynx]

The subject was (for the moment, at least) whether Iran was flouting the Geneva Conventions in it's treatment of the British sailors.

Do we avoid the question by arguing whether they are excused from any violations that do not exceed those alleged against the coalition, and do we furthermore disregard the fact the sailors are personnel of the precise type referred to in the Conventions.When was war declared?

It is my understanding that they are being held for illegal entry, a civilian matter, not as prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention does not apply.

[j2k4]

The subject was (for the moment, at least) whether Iran was flouting the Geneva Conventions in it's treatment of the British sailors.

Do we avoid the question by arguing whether they are excused from any violations that do not exceed those alleged against the coalition, and do we furthermore disregard the fact the sailors are personnel of the precise type referred to in the Conventions.When was war declared?

It is my understanding that they are being held for illegal entry, a civilian matter, not as prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention does not apply.

Ah, but then wars are declared on/between nations, a distinction that is given short-shrift when extending the Conventions to terrorists, who clearly are not covered, either.

If terrorists are covered, so are the sailors. :yup:

[lynx]

When was war declared?

It is my understanding that they are being held for illegal entry, a civilian matter, not as prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention does not apply.

Ah, but then wars are declared on/between nations, a distinction that is given short-shrift when extending the Conventions to terrorists, who clearly are not covered, either.

If terrorists are covered, so are the sailors. :yup:That assumes that this was situation involving armed conflict, it wasn't.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the location of these sailors when they were taken into custody, the fact still remains that their arrest is being treated by the Iranians as a civil matter, just as it would be if anyone, military or non-military, were arrested by any other country. The Geneva Convention can not be invoked just because military personal happen to be involved and the country is one whose policies you disagree with.

[j2k4]

Ah, but then wars are declared on/between nations, a distinction that is given short-shrift when extending the Conventions to terrorists, who clearly are not covered, either.

If terrorists are covered, so are the sailors. :yup:That assumes that this was situation involving armed conflict, it wasn't.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the location of these sailors when they were taken into custody, the fact still remains that their arrest is being treated by the Iranians as a civil matter, just as it would be if anyone, military or non-military, were arrested by any other country. The Geneva Convention can not be invoked just because military personal happen to be involved and the country is one whose policies you disagree with.

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.

[vidcc]

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.
Just for the sake of argument let's say the geneva convention does not apply to the suspected terrorist (or the "enemy combatants" picked up on the battlefield)

Does that give moral justification to do things that the geneva convention would prohibit?

[j2k4]

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.
Just for the sake of argument let's say the geneva convention does not apply to the suspected terrorist (or the "enemy combatants" picked up on the battlefield)

Does that give moral justification to do things that the geneva convention would prohibit?

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

[vidcc]

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

Absolutely not, however the treatment they have been given does not appear to be either humiliating or showing lack of respect. They were shown unharmed and being fed. Even if the video was set up.
If I were one of those captives I would like my family to see I am safe and unharmed. Given the part of the world they are in I would worry when the videos stop.

I think they should not be using the captives to make statements but even then it's hardly inhumane. I had to laugh at hannity yesterday at his outrage over the statements. He said "these are obviously coerced and therefore totally unreliable". This from the man that thinks a confession or any information obtained from a suspect using waterboarding is rock solid reliable :rolleyes:


Btw. Did Iran sign the geneva convention?

[j2k4]

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

Absolutely not, however the treatment they have been given does not appear to be either humiliating or showing lack of respect. They were shown unharmed and being fed. Even if the video was set up.
If I were one of those captives I would like my family to see I am safe and unharmed. Given the part of the world they are in I would worry when the videos stop.

I think they should not be using the captives to make statements but even then it's hardly inhumane. I had to laugh at hannity yesterday at his outrage over the statements. He said "these are obviously coerced and therefore totally unreliable". This from the man that thinks a confession or any information obtained from a suspect using waterboarding is rock solid reliable :rolleyes:


Btw. Did Iran sign the geneva convention?

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

[vidcc]

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

Obviously I don't feel that the original videos were in violation, they are not prisoners of war anyway but that's beside the point. Is there a specific part of the convention that says prisoners cannot be shown on tv? The only thing I can see that would prohibit this is under the "humiliating or disrespecting detainees." part and frankly just showing them eating doesn't meet that criteria.

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.

[j2k4]

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

Obviously I don't feel that the original videos were in violation, they are not prisoners of war anyway but that's beside the point. Is there a specific part of the convention that says prisoners cannot be shown on tv? The only thing I can see that would prohibit this is under the "humiliating or disrespecting detainees." part and frankly just showing them eating doesn't meet that criteria.

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.

So essentially you feel there has been no violation, and the sailors are are not being detained as "prisoners-of-war", "-of war" being the operative condition.

Glad you've cleared that up.

BTW-

Check Common Article III of the Conventions...the sailors were uniformed, carrying their weapons in the open, under the flag of a signatory government.

Nothing more is required.

[vidcc]

So essentially you feel there has been no violation, and the sailors are are not being detained as "prisoners-of-war", "-of war" being the operative condition.

You must have stopped reading so I shall repeat

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.





but it doesn't answer the question, what part of the convention prohibits showing them on tv?

showing them blindfolded or forcing them to make statements for example would be a violation under humiliating treatment and then it has to be involuntary, as it stands we do not know if this is the case.

showing that they are unharmed and in good health doesn't meet that criteria. As I said before given the part of the world they are in regular video proving they are unharmed is a good thing.

[j2k4]

I don't believe they are candidates for any sort of "on-camera" treatment under GC.

As to "the spirit" of GC, I really couldn't say; what has "the spirit" got to do with anything at all (at all).

Another question:

Do you suppose the Iranians are as concerned with international opinion as we are supposed to be.

[vidcc]

Again I ask under what part of the convention specifically is a tv appearance prohibited.

As to your next question I think Iran plays games just the same as the rest of us do.

the closest thing i can find is this but it specifies wartime





USA, Iraq ‘violating’ Geneva Convention

Washington, March 25
Human Rights Watch has accused both the Iraqi and US governments of violating the Geneva Convention prohibition on exposing Prisoners Of War (POW) to public curiosity.

According to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, a detaining authority in wartime has a clear obligation not to parade POWs or allow them to be exposed to the public, the group said in a release.

The prohibition was not a blanket ban on any image whatsoever of a POW, it said. For example, the prohibition would not extend to incidental filming of POWs when journalists were documenting broader military operations, it added.

But a detaining authority in wartime had a clear obligation not to parade POWs, or allow them to be exposed to the public, the group said. The provision protecting POWs from ‘’public curiosity’’ appeared to have been violated by the Iraqi and the US governments, Human Rights Watch said.

The Iraqi government had filmed American POWs and interrogated them before cameras. On the other hand, the US Government had taken insufficient measures to prevent journalists embedded with US forces from filming Iraqi POWs held by the United States, the group charged.

‘’US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has appropriately criticised the Iraqi filming of American POWs. However, he had said nothing to date about the filming of Iraqi POWs by media operating alongside US forces,’’ the group said. UNIsource (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030326/world.htm#1)

[vidcc]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free the 15 detained British sailors and marines Wednesday



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Britain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If confirmed this is good news.

What I don't get is there has been no invasion, this was done through diplomatic means..how could this possibly have worked :rolleyes:


This isn't going to be easy on Hannity.

[Cheese]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm :happy:

Edit: Jinx

[j2k4]

It'll be good news once the deal is consummated.

[GepperRankins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkf1VP875Q


well i never :o