Via the indispensable Tim Blair:

UK Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt on the capture by Iran of 15 British sailors and Royal Marines:

"It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."

Linky:

W3.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/01/nbook01.xml

(see “FO paid back by Iran”)

The UK soldiers ought to have refused the requests of the Iranians, not out of any sense of British superiority - as the author suggests was the 'old British style' - but out of respect for the validity of their mission and, with regard to the young woman, out of respect for her own religious and national identity.

With regard to the woman now pictured wearing a heaad scarf - she ought to have refused, saying that IF it is viewed as a requirement of the Muslim religion (it is not in the Koran), then, she must refuse because she is not a Muslim. And IF it is viewed as a requirement of the Iranian society (it is not), then, she must refuse because she is a British citizen.

And, all of them ought to have refused to apologize, or to declare that they were in Iranian waters. They were on a UN authorized mission (I note that the UN has done zilch to help them in this situation) and, were in Iraqi waters, carrying out this authorized task. They, as soldiers under orders, cannot apologize or declare anything. And furthermore, they are lying.

Their behaviour is indeed, disturbing - why are they not refusing to play the Iranian game?

I wrote the following before reading that Derbyshire was citing the same incident, but there's still the separate link to the poem and I've included its last stanza.

During the Taiping Rebellion in China and the Pekin Expedition of 1860, the Imperial Chinese executed and tortured many British and French prisoners, broke truces etc. With this background, a Scottish (and not Kentish) private was captured with an Irish sergeant and others (whether British Sikhs or civilian Chinese is disputed) and the Scottish private refused to kowtow to the Chinese general, leading to his beheading. [The scene is recounted in the fictinoalized Sir Harry Flashman adventure Flashman and the Dragon, which is where I remembered it from] and inspired this poem:
The Private of the Buffs by Sir Francis Hastings Doyle

http://www.bartleby.com/246/562.html

It's final stanza is as follows, including a reference, coincidentally enough, to Leonidas of Sparta:

Vain, mightiest fleets, of iron fram’d;
Vain, those all-shattering guns;
Unless proud England keep, untam’d,
The strong heart of her sons.
So, let his name through Europe ring—
A man of mean estate,
Who died, as firm as Sparta’s king,
Because his soul was great.

Adapt, improvise, overcome.

Look, these poor bastards have been hung out to dry.

Here you have a country that sends its people in on a mission and apparently is doing nothing militarily to get them out of a tight situation.

If the full weight of the British military along with the assistance of the US and Canada and other Western allies were kicking in doors at this very moment, shooting officials in the knee and forcing them to reveal the location of the prisoners, then that would be one thing.

But here Britain sticks these poor SOBs with pathetic rules of engagement into a situation where people cut off your head if they don't like what you ate for dinner. And then these guys are supposed to eat their pistol barrel.

***
Mr. Prime Minister! What do you think about our people being captured?

Well, all things being taken into consideration, with the political, religious situation being what it is here and abroad, and so forth, I regard it as well, ...would "dreadful" be considered too strong a word in a situation of this sort?
***

It's a new ethos and a new day because governments have become weak and corrupt. Don't expect your military in every case to turn around and take all the heat that stupid politicians and tacticians are responsible for.

Without commenting on whether or not they are playing the Iranians' game, ET, I suspect the reason they're going along is because their other option is "tortured, possibly to death, in some dank, sweaty basement of Tehran."

Tough to ignore.  Tougher to laugh off.

Isnt it part of the military training and indeed the instructions that, if captured, they do or say whatever it takes to stay alive?
Everyone knows that whatever they are forced to say is meaningless.

But here Britain sticks these poor SOBs with pathetic rules of engagement ...

I believe that the 15 were operating under the auspices of the U.N., doing post-Gulf War 1 work.

If so, Britain sold the poor SOBs out to the U.N. and their pathetic rules of engagement.

(military types are more than welcome to confirm or deny).

What a shame that Maggie Thatcher is not in charge.

Tony Blair and his Labour Party are an absolute disappointment.

Brits on their knees, before a terrorist rogue state, geez!

And that stupid UK Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt drawers in a knot about the hostage girl smoking!

Meanwhile Argentina is flexing its muscle over the Falklands.

Any bets on when capitulation day by the Brits is in that scenario?

Derbyshire doesn't even have to go back to his mother's generation. Even the veterans of the Vietnam war were tougher than these guys. For all of John McCain's follies there's no denying that he's made of a resolve today's "soldiers" just don't seem to have. McCain and thousands of POWs like him would rather be tortured than to be used a propaganda tools against their country. I can't say how I would react if I were captured by Iran, but it doesn't seem it took very much for them to crack.

I'll just note this. In all the countries of what used to confidently be called Western Civilization, the same people who love to get their panties in a knot over Guantanamo haven't had a damn thing to say about the Iranian flouting of the Geneva Conventions in this case of the kidnapped, abused British sailors and Marines.

Selective concern for international law; selective morality. They are beneath contempt.

(And that remark by the British Health Minister -at first I thought it was satire, until I read the article- is breathtaking in it's stupidity and gutlessness.)

"I can't say how I would react if I were captured by Iran, but it doesn't seem it took very much for them to crack."

A chickenhawk remark if there ever was one.

There is plenty of speculation going on here. How about waiting for some facts to surface before passing judgment on these servicepeople and their superiors?

The religion of the beetlebrowed baggage handlers and busboys strikes again.

"It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."

And wearing a veil to identify yourself as being half the worth of a man doesn't?

The British are worse than the French.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070403/Iran_britain_070403/20070403?hub=TopStories

Tony Blair sounds like his late 1930's predecessor in this one.

BTW; where in Hell IS the UN, on this one?

"A chickenhawk remark if there ever was one."

Ah, for %@#$sake, get off this thread. And blog.

"If you're already having a lousy day, perhaps best to skip this one.'

With leftards like 'truthseeker' commenting, you're right Kate.

The UN is pwned by they Mullahs!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O6R8V03.html

I denounced UN, it does not exist for me anymore, you should denounce it too and call on PMH to denounce it. There is no purpose left for UN in OUR world, only in THEIRS.

Where's the UN? It's in the same place as Britain's EUro-"allies": nowhere to be seen. France and Germany account for 40% of Iran's foreign trade. Just like with France and Germany's position against taking out the Saddam Regime, money talks and b******t walks, as they say.

And here in the US, our wonderful Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't allow a Republican-sponsored resolution expressing strong support for Britain to reach the House floor. (She's happy to run off to Syria, undercutting US foreign policy, to kowtow to the Syrian Regime but won't give support to America's closest ally.)

Apparently, the left wing of the Democratic Party doesn't like that House Resolution idea. One analysis I read concludes that the extreme left doesn't want to risk giving any support to the Bush Administration in any dealings with Iran. And Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic Party "leaders" don't want to risk a split in the party between the hard lefties and the minority of moderates who'd vote in favor of the Resolution.

In a contest of cravenness and intellectual bankruptcy between the British Labour Party and the American Democratic Party, I don't know who'd win. They're both world class contenders in that regard.

Where the hell is the UN is right, they are there sanctioned by the UN. More proof of the useless organization it has become.

Iran needs to be brought to it's frigging knees. Have the Western Democracies no guts, no pride?
They rely heavily on imported gasoline, cut them off and make them beg for mercy. We're dealing with a terrorist supporting state run by madmen,a President and Ayatollah who have no qualms about public be-headings and all manner of torture being wrought on fellow members of the HUMAN RACE.

We in the West are sitting by watching while they become a nuclear power. Then we can start to worry,maybe?

In VietNam they were worried about captured military personnel revealing information.

According to the Geneva Conventions card everyone carried around, we only had to disclose our name, rank, and serial number.

If an American combatant had information that was so sensitive that it could not be discovered, Sparrowhawk teams (highly trained snipers) would be sent to blow the soldier's brains out.

These guys don't have any information sensitive enough to require them to bite the bullet.

As a consequence there is no point in them trying to go throught heroic measures to keep from revealing information they don't have.

In today's world, as in Nam, civilian populations are doing so much propaganda for the enemy that a little more done by military personnel being foully used doesn't make any difference.

Never be fooled somewhere outside of Tehran there is a group of SAS with the coordinating air support of the US waiting on the green light. If it gets to that point have no fear the calvary is near. The great part about a covert rescue Crazy Jihad, President Ahmadinejad would never give that his forces were defeated and his POW's taken, a phone call would be made from Britian saying "thanks for releasing our people, thats the line." and this little fiasco will be over. Well at least in a perfect world. Lets hope that the British Royal Marines don't make themselves and their country look more foolish in the meantime!
Where is the outrage in London demanding the release of their citizens outside of the Iraian embassy. Europe is so screwed! Our prayers are with the men and women who are in very evil clutches.

garth wood - I doubt if the other option to accepting being used as a propaganda tool of the Iranians is a 'dark dank tortured basement'. The very public capture by the Iranians would preclude that. To kill any one of them would have moved the issue into a different type of interaction.

The Iranians have been very careful to show that they are being treated well (eg the video of them eating).

The Brits should have refused to play the propaganda game. Remember, they are on a UN mission. Again - where is the UN? The action by the Iranians is not simply against the UK; it's against the UN - which has sanctioned Iran's nuclear ambitions. Where is the UN????

It's all craven political calculation.

If the UN can send Romeo Dallaire home saying gee sorry we lost 800,000 souls; what chance do these poor sailors have under UN rules of engagement?

Getting the UN to do something is farcical. The Darfur crisis would be a case in point. That yawning abyss has been going on for 3 odd years now with nary an intervention in sight.

In the end, geopolitics is a blood sport harking back to the Roman Empire days. In view of the UN's inaction, the Geneva Convention is for pussies.

One would give the UN some creedence if they didn't behave like such a useless brood of vipers injecting their poison around the globe.

The talk is all good, but there is no action. They have no shame and no brains. The UN regrettably is DOA Dead On Arrival.

The brits have other more important issues to deal with!!! See cbc site,in 'your view'..Britain Experiments With Gay Literature in Schools.Wonder what the muslims think of that?

The story in the newspaper is just incredible. Of course it was only a matter of time before they blamed Bush.
With crowd that have a mouthpiece like the ethics free newspeople, the climate of the discourse is poisoned by the 'journalists' that are supposed to tell the news. Those same characters being of course so much superior in their ability to comprehend the news, they tell everyone how the news should be interpreted.
It is difficult to watch, listen and read the news when sensible person can determine the twisting and the spin rather easy. So what to do?
A word of advice to the media would be, just give the news, if you want to spin publish a separate paper so those who do not care don't have to pay for it.

William Sampson is a hero to me. An example that I hope I would have the faith and courage to follow.

Reid, you have far more faith left in the UK than I do. I fear the UK is too far gone to mount that sort of response, or they would have done it already - or their soldiers would've shot back rather than be taken in the first place. No, Blair will preen on & on about how "critical" and "urgent" the talks are, getting nowhere all the while. The Iranians will keep this going until they get bored of the game or decide they've gotten all the propaganda out of this that they can, then release them in a "gesture of good faith" or somesuch garbage. Blair will claim a diplomatic victory while the mullahs laugh at how pathetic he is.

Churchill must be rolling in his grave at what his country has become.

Churchill must be rolling in his grave at what his country has become.

No doubt,

The question of resolve and unwillingness to bow a knee to one's captors is one that has been plaguing my mind ever since Faye Turney donned the hijab, whether by force or an act of willful submission.

Juxtapose John McCain and the submissive British soldiers and we see that something immense has been lost in the British psyche.

I really don't blame the soldiers for this. Their training states they are to act within their best interest. So if the choice is apologize on tv, or the guard starts applying pressure on sensitive parts of the body, the best way to go is to apologize. Its not very brave, but its reasonable in this situation. The UK is not currently at war with Iran, and from the 2004 hostage incident it seems the quickest way to get home safely.

Now the captain of the British ship that phoned Britain while the sailors were being taken captive, should be demoted. If he had done his job rather than call home for further orders, this could have been ended quickly and easily.

Lets hope Blair grows a pair after his 48 hour deadline is up.

Perhaps someone here can go through what training the soldiers are given about this situation.

I think the name rank and serioal number is outdated and that while they arent to reveal secrets they are told to do what is necessary o stay alive till rescued or released.....perhaps I have misunderstood it.

If this is the case the soldiers arent to be blamed but the training they have been given.

Despite their training many of them will have enormous feelings of guilt and shame...I dont envy them.

From the LA Times:

"The total size of its (UK) armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.

Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France."

But then, we already know here in good old Canada that socialists hate our own military more than they hate the Taliban.

...."I suspect the reason they're going along is because their other option is "tortured, possibly to death, in some dank, sweaty basement of Tehran."

I've been thinking about that, the Iranians certainly could threaten torture or death, but, surely in the mind of a more senior officer among them, who should bave called their bluff, that threat should have been calculated as not too plausible. Iran wouldn't want to lose the Guantanamo, America as evil torturors, card. What is disturbing is that this group capitulated in their boat while armed and were on the airwaves as meek contrite captives almost immediately.

Tony Blair at core, the totally nutty lefty wife is a whole other story, aside from his stint with us in Iraq, is a limp pretty boy lefty when left to his own devises. I feel sorry for him. The UN and the EU so loved by the left aren't there for him. Lessons learned.

"The Brits should have refused to play the propaganda game. Remember, they are on a UN mission. Again - where is the UN? The action by the Iranians is not simply against the UK; it's against the UN - which has sanctioned Iran's nuclear ambitions. Where is the UN????"

ET, that's it right there. It isn't just about diversion from sanctions announcement, this Iranian crew is a vain bunch. They are having a temper tantrum. "How dare you criticize us," then grab some sailors (where's a 50 calibre machine gun when you need one - yikes, rewrite SOP and ROE). I really don't mind the "confessions" because I believe the sailors will be returned to publicly repudiate them and outline their mistreatement. Nobody actually believes them anyway. If I were Brit PM, I would apologize to Iranians, get sailors back, repudiate apology completely and give Iran a real good spanking. I know that doesn't fit in with the niceties of the UN (after all they've been so helpful, but I understand their leadership is far too busy slaughtering their people), so that won't happen.

"He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!"

I think the captured British troops are doing the right thing. Play the propaganda game and get out of there. Don't be stupid enough to get beheaded. Six months from now - the shoe might be on the other foot. Iran is heading for big trouble down the road.

For those who think the sailors should have refused to cooperate, I ask this question:

How far are you going to stick your neck out for a government whose health minister makes a crack like Patricia Hewitt did? (Way to dig that one up, Mississauga Matt!)

For those who think the Brit armed forces have lost their spine, I remind y'all of the 20 Argyles who saw off 100 Iraqi "insurgents" with a bayonet charge in 2004. 35 dead, all bad guys.

No lack of guts in Her Majestie's Forces. Possibly some lack of common sense in the officer's corps, or possibly not, we don't know all the info yet.

Lack of both common sense and guts in the Labour Party? Absolutely.

One thing being overlooked is the fact that the exact location of border with Iran is unknown. Prior to the Iran-Iraq war talks would be held on a regular basis to determine where the border should be. Prior agreements decided that the border is supposed to follow the navigable waterway between the two countries and would be set when the two countries sat down to agree on its location. Seeing this is a river and the channel's location is dynamic, the border must change along with the natural changes of the navigation channel. Since hostilities began 25 years ago no new agreement exists and the location of this border has not been agreed on.
Maybe it's time to sit down with the Iranians and figure out where the actual border should be.

For anyone who thinks the these sailors did anything wrong in helping their cause; might I suggest you offer yourself up to the nearest Iranian embassy and offer to take their place?

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Ottawa, Canada
245 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2K2 Canada

Phone: (613) 235-4726
http://www.salamiran.org/

Can we have a change in rules of engagement already? Like, you are allowed to fire live ammunition at an Iranian that is trying to capture you while you are within Iraqi waters.

If and when Britian needs the U.S. we will be there and I for one hope it is soon. The only thing these degenerates recognize is power, the appeasement being practised is only making them stronger. Mr. Blair please do something to save your sailors or you and the British people will pay as the French have for years to come. Appeasement never works the appeased only come for you last.

"Maybe it's time to sit down with the Iranians and figure out where the actual border should be".

Beyond naive. And while you're at it I.Q. 39 maybe you can persuade them to stop sending bombs and terrorists into Iraq.

Terry, did you even read why we should be talking to them?

(no longer Great) Britain has been lost. The yellow-bellied socialists, combined with the infestation of Muslim swine, has doomed the Empire. These terrorists in waiting along with brown skins, commies, feminists - they've all made the UK a shadow of its former majestic self. (Not to mention the unfortunate influence of certain others who have disproportionately influenced the world for the worse.) Where are Churchill and Thatcher when we need them to flatten Iran once and for all?

39a, your approach in a nutshell sounds like: "Oh, we're so sorry you had to snatch our troops away from us at gunpoint and start parading them around on TV like a bunch of trophies, even making the woman wear a headscarf, could we please sit down and talk about it so you don't do it to us again? We're not being judgmental of your actions!"

Rotgut. Chamberlain would be proud.

One thing being overlooked is the fact that the exact location of border with Iran is unknown.

Hardly. If the Iranians don't know where the border is, no one else know where the border is, than, the principle upon which they snatched the Brits is pretty damn bogus. The point. The whole point.

It's rather late in the game to negotiate the border, don't ya think? It's a red herring anyway.

For anyone who thinks the these sailors did anything wrong in helping their cause; might I suggest you offer yourself up to the nearest Iranian embassy and offer to take their place?

Sweet for a fifth grader. But, here is how it works in the adult world, just because you aren't in the specific circumstance, you still can critique behavior, actions and policy. That's what juries, editorial opinions and awards committees are all about.

Point being, if you don't know where the border is, how can you tell thr Iranians they are in the wrong?
As for parading the Brits around, what is to stop the Iranians, the sailors are not prisoners of war. Even if they were POWs, it’s not as if the Iranians would be the only ones to ignore that line in the Geneva Convention. http://www.quartermasterdesign.com/pointman/i3-4IRAQ/3-7marines-tables.html (can you spot the violations?)

This is a chess game and we can*t see the board. Speculate . . .

Brits grit teeth, remain calm, play along quietly while various conditions within Iran close in on Acmahdinejad and the mullahs.= TG

Point being, if you don't know where the border is, how can you tell thr Iranians they are in the wrong?

Point being, that if no one knows where the border is then the Iranians ARE WRONG. Read that sentence twice, slowly, see if you can catch the logic.

albatros39a, your 15 minutes of troll fame has ended.

read this from ralph peters he nails it.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/wheres_winston__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=2

Penny:

albatros39a fits into the Monty Python sketch!

The 15 British personnel fit into the same situation as the Israeli soldiers who were abducted by Hezbollah.

Same modus operandi, the question is how many pounds are they worth to the Iranians.

Recall the US hostages in '79 were freed after approximately 10 billion in Iranian bank accounts were unfrozen.

Same schtick, different year.

albatros39a fly off and get a clue.

penny - excellent comments. Many thanks.

Again, where's the UN? This was a UN, not UK, mission. Where's the UN?

As for Iran, I agree with Penny; it won't mistreat the Brits; it doesn't want the image award of 'worse than the Americans' to be flung at them.

Albatross - your illogical assertion has been accurately pointed out by Penny. If the border between Iran/Iraq is unclear then Iran can't claim that the British were in Iranian waters. End of point.

And your suggestion of 'take their place' is not an argument but a copout. We have every right to criticize Iran. Your suggestion of 'you can't criticize unless you are in that situation' would reduce all reasoning, questions, debate, dissent (and science) to the dustbin.

"And your suggestion of 'take their place' is not an argument but a copout. We have every right to criticize Iran."

That's a blatant straw man. The 'take their place' bit had nothing to do with criticism of Iran, but rather about criticism of the British sailors and why they submitted to their captors.

It appears the Iranians want their hitmen in the IRG/ Al Qods and diplomat back as the following story would suggest. Maybe after losing one of their generals the Iranians feel they would be losing too much intelligence not to have taken in the 15 sailors.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/03/ap3579288.html

The sudden release of an Iranian diplomat missing for two months in Iraq raised new hope Tuesday that 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iran may soon be freed.

It also suggests the standoff over the captive Britons may end with a de facto prisoner swap - something both Tehran and London have publicly discounted.

Diplomat Jalal Sharafi arrived in Tehran on Tuesday, hours after he was freed by his captors in Iraq, officials said. He was seized Feb. 4 by uniformed gunmen in Karradah, a Shiite-controlled district of Baghdad.

Iran alleged the diplomat had been abducted by an Iraqi military unit commanded by U.S. forces - a charge repeated by several Iraqi Shiite lawmakers. U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.

In Baghdad, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said the Iraqi government had exerted pressure on those holding Sharafi to release him - but he would not identify who had held Sharafi.

But another senior government official said Iraqi intelligence had been holding him. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information.

Sharafi was a second secretary at the Iranian Embassy involved in plans to open a branch of the Iranian national bank. U.S. officials allege that Iran provides money and weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias.

Sharafi was abducted a month after the U.S. military arrested five other Iranians in northern Iraq. The U.S. described one of those captives as a senior officer of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said his government also was working "intensively" for the release of the five other Iranians to "help in the release of the British sailors and marines."

Neither Iran nor Iraq nor Britain has said explicitly that a prisoner swap was in the works. Iran has denied it seized the Britons to force the release of Iranians held in Iraq, and Britain has steadfastly insisted it would not negotiate for the sailors' freedom.

In Washington, President Bush signaled the same. "I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages," Bush said.

It was unclear whether the Iraqis had won Sharafi's freedom on their own initiative to encourage a settlement, which would ease tension without endangering their own claim to the waters where it occurred.

Nevertheless, the release of Sharafi and efforts to free the five other Iranians suggested that the parameters of a deal might be taking shape.

If the Iranians believed a foreign nation's military personal are operating in their territory, how are they in the wrong apprehending those personal? What would happen if Iranian naval personal were caught operating in Iraqi water or even say if caught inside New York harbour, would they just be politely told to go away? The most important thing to do is define the border soon so this doesn't happen again. Lets not forget that this is the second time this incident has happened, and the last time the Brits openly admitted their boats strayed into the very same Iranian waters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-24-iran-sailors_x.htm

albatros39a:

And you think the Brits wouldn't have modified their orders to prevent a second occurrence?

Secondly, these waters have been disputed since Saddam went to war with Iran in the 1980-88 period.

Do try to stay up to speed.

They should bomb IRAN back to the stone age and turn the area where TERHAN sits into a crater

There are numerous serving and ex serving Canadian miliatry on this board. Can anyone elaborate on what the training these sailors might have had and what their standing orders might have been?

What are they for Canadian sailors, pilots, etc?

Lets point out that the last agreement between Iran and Iraq stated that the border will follow the deepest part of the channel in order that no nation can claim sole right to the waterway. Since that agreement was signed, the channel has moved to the west. The Iranians are not the ones who cancelled that agreement. So if the Brits crossed the channel, based on that past agreement, the British sailors would have indeed been inside Iranian territory.
Negotiations need to be carried out between Iraq and Iran to decide if the border still follows the channel agreed upon years ago, or whether it follows a static line on the British map.

"And you think the Brits wouldn't have modified their orders to prevent a second occurrence?"

You would think so wouldn't you? Ever heard of the term “military intelligence”?

"Secondly, these waters have been disputed since Saddam went to war with Iran in the 1980-88 period."

The Iranians still go by the last agreement signed between the two nations. What else should they go by?

"Do try to stay up to speed."

Sorry if you don't like the way it is. Brits do make mistakes too.

"There are numerous serving and ex serving Canadian military on this board. Can anyone elaborate on what the training these sailors might have had and what their standing orders might have been?

What are they for Canadian sailors, pilots, etc?"

Canadians airmen (not sure about the navy) would have been given an escape and evasion course. Failing escaping and evading, you do not give information out without being asked, but don't endanger yourself either. A trained interrogator will get the information out of you and can do it without even putting a hand on you. Seeing he is going to get the info anyway, follow the Geneva Convention to the best you can by giving name rank, unit, service number etc., but if you are in danger go ahead and co-operate. Chances are, any usable info your interrogator may get out of you will be quickly made obsolete by your own military.

Apparently Pappy Boynton once co-operated with his captors, the Japanese, by giving them the location of his C.O. hut. The C.O. was a man who apparently was highly unpopular with his men.

Albatross,

Thanks.

Has it just been the sailors who have been shown "co-operating" or have the marines been involved as well?

Hence the Brits are pronounced guilty by EROSION of the channel waterway! Next year the Iranians will be offside as the center of the Shatt Al Arab waterway has moved again, and the Brits take the Iranians captive?

So the coordinates released by the Brits were incorrect?

The Iranian coordinates were initially correct, but needed to be corrected again?

I'm glad the Iranians got their news release straight the first time. But of course that doesn't cast doubt on the veracity of the information given in the first place.

But I forgot the Iranians don't recognize the UN Security Council as a legitimate authority for matters nuclear or otherwise. Must be that UN Oil for Food scandal orchestrated by Saddam and participated in by a plethora of other states.

Small wonder the proposed solution should be solved bilaterally.

Guilty by EROSION, hang them high say the Iranian mobs.

Too stupid, it beggars belief.

I too, was surprised at the 'co-operation' of the sailors; don't know if the marines co-operated.
No doubt the captives/hostages are being kept in the dark, without BBC/CNN access; the Iranians may simply have told them that they trespassed, and only need to apologize to be released. They may have been told that the border is in dispute, no matter which side they were on.
If this wasn't the Middle East, and the fourth largest oil-exporter in the world, the Brits wouldn't have to be so diplomatic.

Per Geneva Convention III

Article 13

"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

[edit] Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men.

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires."

I gather the Iranians interpret "public curiosity" and "respect for their persons and their honour" by parading detainees on television to 'confess' their trespass into disputed Iranian waters.

Nice little propaganda exercise, wasn't it? If the UN had any gumption, they would have been all over this like a wet rag.

Imagine the hue and cry if the British had paraded Iranian detainees to 'confess their trespass' into UN controlled waters.

Hans,
I agree completely.

That's what it was; a stunt to score propaganda points internationally, and make themselves appear 'tough' in the eyes of their own people (although, I believe the captives aren't 'technically' POW's).

Which brings me to something that REALLY ticks me off:
We treat even terrorists(!) within the rules of the Geneva Convention. I suppose that's the price we pay for being a civilized society.

A week ago, I was curious what the GC rules were for NON-uniformed combatants, so I searched it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law

For anyone's who's interested.

Should read : 'For anyone who's interested.'

If this wasn't the Middle East, and the fourth largest oil-exporter in the world, the Brits wouldn't have to be so diplomatic.

Iran has one fourth of the world's natural gas reserves, that very vital resource that Putin is squeezing the EU with too, so expect nothing in support from the EU for the Brits, they won't counter Putin either. Personally, I'd rather burn my furniture next winter than smarmily appease Iran, but, then again I'm not French, Dutch or German. Suffering to a socialist is an overpriced latte.

If the EU had a spine, principles and resolve, it could encourage and join the Brits in nailing Iran's ng and oil installations. It would be a winter of hardship perhaps, but, how much are principles and liberty worth?

The unscrupulous slobs that continue to invest in Yukos keep Putin afloat. It's all about immediate gratification versus long term goals, a mantra heard a million times by adolescents from good parents.

An anonymous cruise-missile strike on the reactor(s)?

I wonder if the Israelis, or anyone else, could pull it off?

Probably not, due to enhanced radar developements, I imagine ... but I'm sure they, and others, are itching for an excuse to try.

Time to play advocatus angelus...

Problem's simple, really. Cash liquidity in both shia and sunni states is far too great. They have oil and world oil prices are high. One of these situations has to dramtically change. No money = no mischief.

The second option requires that North America fracture the world market, and dramatically reduce our dependence on mideast oil. But then there is China to absorb the spare capacity.

Looks like the global oil market is safe.

The only other option is destroying the oil fields of any mideast nation that harbours terrorists. I suggest we begin with Iran.

World economy is resilient enough to accomodate losing Iran's capacity. Meanwhile, oil extraction from saner parts of the world can ramp up, as can coal mining.

The only open question is: will China and Russia let us get away with it?

The oil fields ? Nah, China and Russia would never agree.

But the nuclear weapons capability, well, they would certainly look the other way, 'cus it is THEIR future problem as well.

I just came in from the salt mines and see that the conversation is still going on.

Let me add something about the idea that they are treating everyone humanely and that no obvious torture is occurring.

You don't have to torture people to get their cooperation.

First, the sailors and marine are probably following their orders in terms of behavior with a country where they're not at war.

However, they can put the girl in one room and the guys in another room and say,

"You know, obviously her family doesn't care about her because she is still in possession of all her sexual equipment. I hope you cooperate, so we don't have to start slicing parts of her off to bring you for dinner."

Likewise, they can go to the ranking member of the team and say similar things to him and so on and so on.

Plenty of pressure to enlist peaceful cooperation can be brought to bear.

Tenebris - I'm a big believer, call it tough love, that if you use your assets as in ME oil revenues to foster evil you lose your oil. If the US, Canada, and the EU tomorrow took away the ME oil fields from the Arabs I wouldn't lose one night's sleep agonizing over the morality of it.

What have these losers done, even for their own people, with the revenues to better and advance mankind. Of course lefties would swoon at the thought, but, the same question posed to them results in a zero.

The EU's response to the sandbagged mess they are in, hate America. On any given day if they threw their lot in with the Americans and said enough is enough, the world's creeps would be backing down.

Greg,
Undoubtably, they could try to traumatize/coerce the captives/hostages, but I think the Iranians are too smart for that.
Unless they were willing to put them on trial and imprison them, then I'm sure the Iranians are eventually planning to free them, and will know that the captives will all tell their story about detention/treatment.
Here's their chance to appear slightly-civilized.

I think that David Frum is right here..... We should start measuring the values of a nation by what they do

"The "realist" foreign policy that has returned to fashion in recent months holds that we should judge foreign states not by their internal policies - human rights etc. - but by their external behavior.?

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTQwZjRjOGM4ZmJhNzRjM2ZkMWU4M2FlYTQ3MGVjMDQ=

Let's start now!

Here we see Pelosi properly dressed for her future as dhimmi:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070403/capt.xhm10204031738.mideast_syria_us_pelosi_xhm102.jpg?x=242&y=345&sig=cTrnWSwdWjeT3kk5uvS0WQ--

"Suffering to a socialist is an overpriced latte"

ROFL - now THAT was a good shot!

ET: re - your question, "Where is the UN?", this worthless organization continues to show its true pedigree.

U.N. = Ultimately Neutered

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm