Iran seizes British sailors, may put them on trial

Post Reply New Topic

Several days ago Iran seized 15 British sailors in what they claim was Iranian waters (something the British dispute).

From the BBC

(source)

Such a trial, if held, would violate the Geneva convention, of which the Islamic Republic claims to be a signatory. Article 46, section 2:



The maximum penalty for espionage in Iran is death. It is possible that this entire action is an attempt to gain some sort of leverage with the British, or even potentially it's (for now) American ally.

I noticed this quote on the BBC's website for this story from , Gary, "The country of Iran needs to have a good long hard look at how this situation will look to the rest of the world."

Unfortunately, since the Ayatollah Khomenei seized power, it has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that the Iranian theocratic leadership do not lie with world opinion nor with the concerns of their own people.

It also says "They were paraded blindfolded on television and later freed."

Yes, there was an incident in 2004:

I just hope it ends that "innocently."

Great.....

I wonder why the British troops did not defend themselves rather than surrendering to the Iranians?

The British Navy boarding American ships in American waters, and in International waters, was the cause behind the War of 1812. They backed out of that one before they were slaughtered at the Battle of New Orleans. Back then they were an Empire, not a failed welfare state. They are not getting any smarter.

An Iranian ship, flying an Iranian flag, in Iranian waters, an armed force boards it, that is an act of war.

During the War of 1812 all British ships, war or merchant, were declared fair targets by America.

Britannia has not ruled the seas for a long time. The Iranian coast is defended by Chinese Silkworm missiles
In the Straits of Homez the British Navy would be sitting ducks. Send in the fleet, never see it again. Iran sells oil to China. Close the Straits, the world economy collapses. No economy, no taxes, no governments.

Now I am for it, nothing left to tax but Capital. Rome went through that just before they fell, so did England. A Social Welfare State based on education, food, shelter, health care, with economic freedom could work. Norway, Sweden, are good models. Americans pay a higher percentage of income, but do not get any services, such as health care, a quality education, being sure of a roof over their head, that their children will eat. That they will not spend their golden years eating dog food.

England an Atomic Power? At the first launch of an atomic weapon in the next war, everybody will launch, use it or lose it. It really does not matter after the first hundred.

America and England are broke, only religious nuts want war, the armies are exhausted, Afganistan is being lost, Iraq does not look good, so adding Iran and Syria will improve things?

Which oil company do they work for?

The Geneva Convention refers to a Party to the Conflict, where A State of War has been declared.

Espionage, or Piracy, would be a closer description of the action.

In a secret directive Bush has abolished International Law, The Law of the Sea, the Geneva Convention, and History, which he never read. Unless Halliburton has a secret plan, he will be out of office in less than two years, but we will still be here, if we are lucky.

Liberty is setting an example for the world to follow.

A sort of correction is in order.

Iran has not ratified (indeed neither has the United States) the part of the Geneva Convention that Article 46, section 2 is in. This specifically, is protocol one. The reasons given by then President Ronald Reagan why the U.S. did not ratify the agreement are here.

Iran is however bound by all the articles and Geneva I, II, III and IV.

From Geneva Part I

Here is a link to the full Geneva texts

There could be a number of good reasons. One is that they probably have instructions not to get involved in any armed conflict with Iran. What would it have achieved if they had? If they were outnumbered and outgunned some would still have been captured, but others would be dead. Also, it would have created a much larger political problem.

Anyway I'm sure pay-back time will come. I think Iran's going to get a very bloody nose sooner or later...

In regards to this

(source]

I kinda wish this American officer had kept his mouth shut, and I bet his senior officers aren't too pleased with what he said. Nevertheless, it is interesting to learn the differences of the rules of engagements between U.S. and U.K. forces in regards to Iran. To be fair to the British sailors however, I can understand why Britain would be more reluctant to engage Iran in such a situation as if the UK were suddenly forced into a full scale shooting war with Iran (which had certainly not been something the U.K. had been actively desiring to get into) they would have been in a more disadvantageous position then the The United States due to their smaller military.

Technically what the Iranians did, and I have little reason to believe the UK is lying in regard to the position of their boat, was an act of war. There was a report the other day of the Iranians softening their position. It looks like Blair might be toughening up his talk, although I'm not sure what that means. There is certainly already a lot of firepower off the Iranian coast.

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:

(source)

Apparently the Iranians have been trying to set traps inside Iraq to get U.S. prisoners. The U.S. used to have the same rules of engagement as the Brits. Coalition forces have taken hundreds of Iranian and Iranian intelligence forces as prisoners as they have tried to trap Coalition forces into becoming hostages.

Well, we'll give them a taste of Brit Power, we will ! !!

And you thought the Yanks would fire the first shot at Iran ! !!

C'mon, lads ! !! Over the top ! !!

I think King George wants to be the one to fire the first shot....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17810017/

The carriers deployment is in connection with the Iranian nuclear standoff. You will note there is a French carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is in the Gulf as well. I would not advocate launching any preliminary strike in regards to this, although if Britain were to invoke article 5 of the NATO alliance it would be our responsibility to join our allies. It would be counterproductive to start something without British involvement (it would be like the U.S. invading the Falklands during that crisis) and I do not see that happening.

For the record, Iranian actions against the U.S. forces in Iraq could be used as a casus belli as well but I don't expect anything in that regards since no Americans have been taken.

Saddam tried for eight years, he lost millions and never got past the border.

Jimmy Carter crashed and burned, Reagan paid, Iran/Contra, Bush the First was smart enough to stay out of Iraq. Now they no longer report the deaths.

Now that the world has seen Abu Greb, Gitmo, the peace brought to Iraq, they will defend their land, homes, families.

You could terror bomb their cities, kill their women and children. You are The Queen's freelance worldwide bullies. We have a right to make the world obey us because we say so. Or we will beat up your grandmother.

We will kill them all and take the land. Everyone remembers what happened to Native Americans, they are waiting for you. You have no friends. They have many.

1. Saddam did get past the border, just not very far. He lost approximately one million men in the war. It should be noted that the Ayatollah Khomenei in the later courses of the war was as stubborn as Saddam in the early courses, refusing to sign as status quo treaty that would have ended the conflict when it was clear he could not topple Saddam Hussein. He lost one million soldiers, including child "martyrs" send to detonate land mines ahead of his main army.

2. Jimmy Carter was defeated in the 1980 partially because he inept weakness in handling the Iranian crisis. The seizure of 444 hostages constituted an act of war on the United States and the failure of the administration to respond as such has been sadly repeated again and again. Yes, Ronald Reagan paid for hostages, and that action was the single worst act of his presidency. George H. W. Bush's decision to "stay out" of Iraq, his decision to do nothing, to provide zero air cover to Iraqi groups rebellion against Saddam Hussein was a terrible miscalculation to say the least. It led the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents and left Saddam to remain in power for more then a decade more.

3. You say that now that "the world" has seen "Gitmo" and "Abu Greb," that it will defend their land, their homes, and their family. Pray what is "the world?" Is "the world" the rulers of Iran, a theocracy with little more then a paper democracy, who is refusing to comply with demands to suspend enrichment of uranium? Is "the world" the "insurgency" in Iraq, that is more then willing to use children as either bombs or the targets of them? Is this "the world?"

Oh the horrors of "Gitmo," a military stockade that violates no international agreements by the United States, and a prison that is so horrible that compared to the prisons on the very Island (Castro's Cuba) it is maintained, it is practicably a luxury spot. Yes, and I do condemn what happen at Abu Graib, and I am sure you think it worth the constant attention it got in the mainstream press. Sure, religious prisoners have had their their heads crushed by steamrollers in North Korea and non-isolated acts of torture are occuring throughout the world (as well as slavery) at this very moment. But no, let's focus on this more isolated (and terrible) event.

4. Actually, neither the United Kingdom nor The United States target women and children. In fact, medals have been awarded to service members who have sacrificed their lives protected them. But who cares, let's lie about that, right?

We also haven't "taken" any land. The Iraqis have their own country and their own resources that belong to them. The United States, and UK has not seized Iraqi resources.

5. Why do many war oppenents talk as if the everyone in Iraq that opposes the war is one united group or even everyone on the planet opposes some "American war machine." This is not the case.



(source)

The U.S. is attempting to persuade insurgent groups to turn on al-Qaida



(source)