Iran seizes 15 British Navy Personnel

[freedom78]

there were a few mentions of teh geniva convention and how that Iran is violating the standards laid down with in it. since there is no war with Iran thenit does not fully apply..... yes they were taken hostage from another country with intent, howeverbased on Irans stance of illegal entrance then they are within their own right to proscute though it is a fabricated situation. The denying of access to consulte with their diplomatic rep's can get a bit intresting, though even with westren law if someone enters illegaly... "and are caught" they will be arrested and deported, or they can claim asslyum... lol... if they are entering to preform a criminal act they will be charged and locked up..... they will get access and counsel... and even access to thir own goverment reps.... but i start to wonder.... simply the convention really does not directly apply, but the basis should still be used as a guide to trement of prisioners regardless of the state of affairs and relations between the capturing country and the captured persons country

Of course, this ties in greatly with the captured combatants held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.  Technically, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they aren't part of an state military.  But I personally don't want to deny these protections to anyone based on such trivial issues, which were written in the early part of the 20th century, and are somewhat out of date.   

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Now Iran wants to put the 15 sailors on trial for " violating  international law"

Wasn't international law violated when Iran put the British sailors on TV with coerced apologies?

[Prometheus]

there were a few mentions of teh geniva convention and how that Iran is violating the standards laid down with in it. since there is no war with Iran thenit does not fully apply..... yes they were taken hostage from another country with intent, howeverbased on Irans stance of illegal entrance then they are within their own right to proscute though it is a fabricated situation. The denying of access to consulte with their diplomatic rep's can get a bit intresting, though even with westren law if someone enters illegaly... "and are caught" they will be arrested and deported, or they can claim asslyum... lol... if they are entering to preform a criminal act they will be charged and locked up..... they will get access and counsel... and even access to thir own goverment reps.... but i start to wonder.... simply the convention really does not directly apply, but the basis should still be used as a guide to trement of prisioners regardless of the state of affairs and relations between the capturing country and the captured persons country

Of course, this ties in greatly with the captured combatants held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.? Technically, they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, because they aren't part of an state military.? But I personally don't want to deny these protections to anyone based on such trivial issues, which were written in the early part of the 20th century, and are somewhat out of date.? ?

see the Gitmo side is plain fucked.... because a vast majority of these POW's are from teh former state military, or thoes that fought on behalf of it. and they should be considered POWs. however the brits dont fall into that distenction as their is not state of hostilties present between Irand and Britian. So they are being held under local law. If britian interdicts with its military then the proper state of affairs exist and they become POWs.....

However i do agree with you that the GC needs to be overhauled and realined to a modren reality of warfare and enemies of the state.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

you there are "Human Rights" too .... they cover a lot of things already ... we don't need a state of war to protect people.
well RightWingers don't like Human Rights anyway, cause it can slow down profit sometimes

[eddie_dean]

you there are "Human Rights" too .... they cover a lot of things already ... we don't need a state of war to protect people.
well RightWingers don't like Human Rights anyway, cause it can slow down profit sometimes

Where do you come up with your shit?  What you define as "human rights" is subjective at best.  The limit of a right or freedom is when it limits that of another.  The so called "rights" you espouse limit or hinder one segment of the population over another.  Doesn't that seem contradictory to rights?  Middle-Eastern nations that grasp no concept of human rights garner no attention from you, yet Western nations, namely the US, who founded the concept of human rights are the recipients of all your rhetoric and babble.  People don't have a right to equal health care because you would FORCE others to pay for the service of others.  People do have the right to life because you would be prohibiting someone from negatively affecting them.  You advocate alot of negative rights with no justification.  You continually refer to the military as a bunch of "kids" that don't know any better, but I think it's you that needs to put the video games aside and enter the real world.  There is a reason why your opinions are held by a laughable minority and often possess no capital.  The real leaders and decision makers know your ideas are about as plausible and realistic as the video games you play.

[eddie_dean]

Bush calls on Iran to free U.K. sailors
AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush&printer=1;_ylt=AjOtx21RDMZz.OJFAgr3FZgGw_IE

President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for their immediate, unconditional release.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"Iran must give back the hostages," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."

It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

Bush did not answer a question about whether the United States would have reacted militarily if those captured had been Americans. The president said he supports British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, now in its second week.

Bush would not comment about Britain's options if Iran does not release the hostages, but he seemed to reject any swapping of the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq.

"I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said.

Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise."

Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."

Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain.

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.

The British sailors were detained by Iranian naval units March 23 while patrolling for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that has long been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran. Britain also insists the sailors were in Iraqi waters.

In London on Saturday, the political wing of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq said the capture was planned in advance and carried out in retaliation for U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Britain, the U.S. and the European Union.

Blair has expressed disgust that the captured service members had been "paraded and manipulated" in video footage released by Iran. He warned Tehran that it faced increasing isolation if it did not free them.

Britain has frozen most contacts with Iran. The U.N. Security Council has expressed "grave concern" about the incident. The EU has demanded the sailors' unconditional release and warned of unspecified "appropriate measures" if Tehran does not comply ? a position the Iranian Foreign Ministry called "bias and meddlesome."

Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a professor of politics in Tehran's Allameh University, said he's convinced that Iran is prepared to stand its ground and insist that the British violated Iranian territory.

"Iran will seriously continue the case and will put them on trial," Bakhshayesh said. "Only an apology by Britain can stop it. Iran thinks that Britons trespassed to test Iran's reaction, and now London is trying to isolate Tehran instead of apologizing."

But British officials are hopeful that diplomacy can resolve the crisis. The Foreign Office confirmed Saturday that Britain had replied to a letter received earlier in this week from the Iranian embassy. It declined to reveal the nature of either letter.

"We have been exchanging letters with the Iranian government, and we will continue to conduct or diplomatic discussions in private," a spokesman said on the government's customary condition of anonymity.

[freedom78]

Iranian students target U.K. Embassy
About 200 students throw rocks, fire crackers; Britain weighs new dialogue

TEHRAN, Iran - About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy on Sunday, calling for the expulsion of the country?s ambassador because of the standoff over Iran?s capture of 15 British sailors and marines.

Several dozen policemen prevented the protesters from entering the embassy compound, although a few briefly scaled a fence outside the compound?s walls before being pushed back, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

The protesters chanted ?Death to Britain? and ?Death to America? as they hurled stones into the courtyard of the embassy. They also demanded that the Iranian government expel the British ambassador and close down the embassy, calling it a ?den of spies.?

Britain?s Foreign Office said there had been no damage to the compound.

A British Foreign Office spokeswoman in London, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government rules, said diplomats were working normally inside the embassy.

?There is a police presence outside and there is no risk to those inside,? said the spokeswoman.

Britain and Iran are at a standoff over the 15 seized sailors and marines. Britain said they were in Iraqi waters when detained, but Iran has contended the Britons entered its waters illegally.

British government and defense officials refused to discuss a report that claimed a Royal Navy captain or commodore would be sent to Tehran as a special envoy to negotiate the return of the personnel.

The official would deliver an assurance that British naval crews would never deliberately enter Iranian waters without permission, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported.

Transport Minister Douglas Alexander said Britain was engaged in ?exploring the potential for dialogue with the Iranians.?

?The responsible way forward is to continue the often unglamorous, but important and quiet diplomatic work to get our personnel home,? Alexander told the British Broadcasting Corp.?s Sunday AM program.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett appeared to soften rhetoric against Iran Saturday ? though she stopped far short of the apology sought by many in Iran.

?I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen,? Beckett said in Bremen, Germany, before returning to England. ?What we want is a way out of it.?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17896952/
*************************************************************************

Yeah, talk about not getting the point.  The idea that someone is protesting the British in this is truly hysterical. 

[TAP]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq. Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued against speedily returning the Brits, preferring to use them as a bargaining chip in Tehran's efforts to free five of its own officials captured by the U.S. in Erbil earlier this year. News that an Iranian soldier had been killed in a clash with American forces would do little to ease those tensions.

In the months after the incident, U.S. forces have kept up joint patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, where their movements are closely monitored by Iranian outposts. Increasingly, however, U.S. troops stationed in Diyala Province are moving to help counter-insurgency efforts in the Baqubah area, leaving a thinner American presence at the border. On some days, says Lt. Col. Ronald Ward, the U.S. commander tasked with helping Iraqi units maintain border security in the area, no U.S. troops appear there at all.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I know Butters will get off and shout me as an anti semite pro nazi pro islam anti christian pro iran .... whatever ... but Iran DID turn all this issue at their advantage.
It was a very well handled diplomatic process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

The suspicious British and American silence and well-mannered handling of the situation tells a lot about the real truth ...

anyway, Iran, Usa, Israel .. fucked up countries i tell you most hated countries in the world according to bbc

[freedom78]

I know Butters will get off and shout me as an anti semite pro nazi pro islam anti christian pro iran .... whatever ... but Iran DID turn all this issue at their advantage.
It was a very well handled diplomatic process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

The suspicious British and American silence and well-mannered handling of the situation tells a lot about the real truth ...

anyway, Iran, Usa, Israel .. fucked up countries i tell you most hated countries in the world according to bbc

What is "the real truth"?

[The Dog]

I know Butters will get off and shout me as an anti semite pro nazi pro islam anti christian pro iran .... whatever ... but Iran DID turn all this issue at their advantage.
It was a very well handled diplomatic process.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

The suspicious British and American silence and well-mannered handling of the situation tells a lot about the real truth ...

anyway, Iran, Usa, Israel .. fucked up countries i tell you most hated countries in the world according to bbc

hahaha any other assumptions you want to make about me?  Maybe you're just being passive aggressive about your true nature??  Think about it bud.

I find it funny that you think coerced confessions and taking prisoners using false accustions is "handling it well".   

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

[The Dog]

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

i don't think ANYONE forgot about the nuclear program, this incident only exacerbated it.  I'm sure it made UK citizens angry and only helps the US in telling the world how dangerous Iran can be.

As for you being an anti-semite, anti-US - i don't need to say it, you do a fine job on your own of letting people know 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

i don't think ANYONE forgot about the nuclear program, this incident only exacerbated it.  I'm sure it made UK citizens angry and only helps the US in telling the world how dangerous Iran can be.

As for you being an anti-semite, anti-US - i don't need to say it, you do a fine job on your own of letting people know 

I dont see the way you do. The output of this little crisis i say.

On the last sentence ... blah.

[The Dog]

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

i don't think ANYONE forgot about the nuclear program, this incident only exacerbated it.  I'm sure it made UK citizens angry and only helps the US in telling the world how dangerous Iran can be.

As for you being an anti-semite, anti-US - i don't need to say it, you do a fine job on your own of letting people know 

I dont see the way you do.

Thats the smartest thing I've ever heard you say   

[TAP]

I was just saying, that the played it well - in the sense that they got away with it.

Butters i ain't making assumption about you, just teasing you about the fact that you love to see me as an anti semite, nazi anti american anti capitalist (i'll give you that one) anti israel mofo

We can argue about the issue, but i personnaly think that Iran got away with the story pretty easily, and managed to turned it at their advantages (engaging diplomatic talks, making the international community forget about the nuclear ....)

Diplomatically, or strategically it was well played.

Real truth : meaning we don't what happened. iranian waters? Iraqi waters? mission ? behind the scenes talk ....

i don't think ANYONE forgot about the nuclear program, this incident only exacerbated it.  I'm sure it made UK citizens angry and only helps the US in telling the world how dangerous Iran can be.

The UK has/had a better diplomatic relationship with Iran (having embassies) and is more pro-Palestinian than the US. And with the UK as the US most likely "go to" ally if there is any "multilateral" military action because of the nuclear program, but also the most likely buffer against it, parading UK sailors/marines on TV with coerced confessions was pretty dumb. No one who doesn't already hate the US is going to buy the pardoning bullshit.

[COMAMOTIVE]

I'm very happy that no violence or military action was caused by this - and I am thrilled that the guys are ok, but c'mon - Am I the only one who feels a little creeped out that these guys had to apologize and thank this little ass-pirate on National TV for being allowed to go home after they were fucking kidnapped?

[badapple81]

Glad they are free and safe now! 

[The Dog]

I'm very happy that no violence or military action was caused by this - and I am thrilled that the guys are ok, but c'mon - Am I the only one who feels a little creeped out that these guys had to apologize and thank this little ass-pirate on National TV for being allowed to go home after they were fucking kidnapped?

we'll never know what was said behind the scenes.  I would wager the UK said if you don't release them we will flatten some buildings.  Iran then said, fine, but you need to let us release your men without losing face with our hard-liners.  So the marines apologize, but not the UK itself...... 

Like someone else said, nice to see this not escalate.

[Edward Rose]

  On British soil! 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264181,00.html