I have just watched the press conference with the 7 freed Navy personnel and the follow up one-to-one interviews.
I'm left with a deep loathing for the Iranian thugs who put them through what was clearly a tough psychological ordeal. The fact that Faye Turner was told that all the others had been sent home and she was on her own says everything you could ever need to know about Ahmendinijad's regime. They were held in solitary confinement in stone cells with no beds. They thought at one stage they were about to be shot, having heard the sounds of cocked guns. They were only ever allowed to see each other when they were shown live on television.
It's also quite clear that they - and the military in general - are very angry at those who have questioned their actions and the fact they did not fight back. It's hard to see what alternative they had. I hope the media now loeaves them alone so they can spend time with their families before returning to their duties.
It's difficult to see now how we can have proper diplomatic dialogue with the Iranian regime. This incident was executed to a pre-ordained plan. Whatever they hoped to achieve by it in the world's media has been shattered this afternoon. Iran has shown itself up to be a rogue state. It's now up to the Iranian people to get rid of this despotic and evil regime. We should give them every help and encouragement.
75 comments:
I'm left with a deep loathing for the Iranian thugs who put them through what was clearly a tough psychological ordeal
Tough yes. Soul destroying? Probably not. Bullies more than thugs.
They were never threatened with death or voilence. These are supposed to be ourr elite fighting squads. I just feel like they were never trained to be prepared for situations like this. I place no blame on the sailors.
Paragraph 3 Iain: It's simple. You fight, or at least resist.i.e Major's Norman & Noot. C.1983. At least they fired back. Without lose of life.
I think the problem for a lot of people is with the higher echelons in the chain of command and our rules of engagement.
Will we allow everyone who we are not at war with to violate us with impunity? If they were a little more flexible, I imagine that our servicemen could have taken a more defensive and tougher stance, before it was too late.
Whilst we all know that the Cornwall was unable to assist because of the shallow depths, what of the US naval services in the area, whom, it turns out, were offering assistance whilst the situation progressed? Why couldn't they have escorted or watched the boarding party? The Cornwall is meant to overwatch a coalition task force in the area, after all.
Furthermore, with the heightened tensions in Iraq due to Iranian involvement, why were precautions not properly taken with personnel so close to the Iranian border? Why did we not learn from the last time Iran kidnapped our servicemen?
Whilst our servicemen are back home safe and sound, now is not the time for self-congratulatory back-slapping. Questions must be asked, lessons must be learned and these incidents must never be allowed to happen again. This instance was not without cost-
Iran has lost face this week and several British personnel in Iraq have paid the ultimate price for it in what has been one of our bloodiest times out there.
You don't like it when the boots on the other foot...
For spurious reasons, Iran kidnapped these people and roughed them up for a few days.
Yet Britain has been happy to hand over its citizens and others to the CIA so they can undergo years, not days, of abuse in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, again for legally controversial reasons. Waterboarding, psychological games and above all, a giant denial of liberty.
In short, criticise the Iranians but the shrill protestations of British and Americans ring hollow here.
I write as a Dutchman BTW.
Excuse me when you are in the military presumably this is what happens when captured. At all times they should have known the the so called rough tactics would end and that their lives were not at risk. For them to go beyond name rank and number is a travesty. As for the Naval Hiearchy they would say that(hands up and say whatever is necessary) following their Capt BirdsEye leadership. Hatfield Girl got it right. These are Customs and Excise Officers and they behaved accordingly. I suppose Old Brown will tax their goodie bags as benefits in kind plus the free 'suits'. Their treatment cannot have been that bad. 13 days. Come off it. The whole epsidode tells you that we are a nation of emoting and simpering wimps.
And I'm sure the treatment of illegally held captives at Guantanamo is much better...?
USA - Rouge state.
"They were held in solitary confinement in stone cells with no beds"
No beds? Its just not fair is it. Only a machiavellian genius could have come up with that horrific torture.
Why not put them in stress positions, subject them to white noise, or waterboard them?
To obvious. Really fuck with their heads by not giving them a bed to sleep on.
"I'm left with a deep loathing for the Iranian thugs who put them through what was clearly a tough psychological ordeal. "
Me too, Iain. Trouble is after Gitmo do we have much of a leg to stand on?
Iran is indeed a cruel, despotic state. They hang women from cranes. An Iranian I met had lost his wife to the noose. I asked, "Why did they hang her?" He told me, "You don't ask, and they don't tell you."
The melancholy truth is that from time to time great countries fall under the sway of evil men: Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and now Iran.
Sometimes we can do something about it. Often we are powerless. But we know evil when we see it, we should never call it by any other name and we should never, ever, put our trust in evil men.
Iain
You really do disappoint with all that self-righteous, jingoistic emotion.
By way of comparison, try and give some honest consideration to British complicity in extraordinary rendition and the whole sorry Guantanamo Bay prisoners scandal - 5 years detention in grotesque conditions and not a single trial worthy of the name to date - not to mention numerous examples of murderous thuggish behavior by both US and British troops in Iraq that have gone completely unpunished in spite of attempts at prosecution.
Yes, the Iranians no doubt did plan the whole thing. Big Deal! What do you expect from a country that we systematically demonise as part of 'an axis of evil' whilst maintaining a massive threatening military presence just beyond its borders - fawning acquiescence? Just try to imagine the boot being on the other foot for once and ask yourself how you would behave.
We got a bloody nose. So what? Maybe we'll learn some lessons from it. But PLEASE spare us the moral outrage.
...The fact that Faye Turner was told that all the others had been sent home and she was on her own says everything you could ever need to know about Ahmendinijad's regime...
Ah, I wondered about that but had no info to explain why they acted like they supposedly did.
Iain
I was most struck by the Captains comments on why they didnt fight back, I am not questioning his decision for one moment, but he said he was aware of the political consequences as well as the likely casualties.
Is it right that soldiers should have to factor in such considerations when their first thought should be their own safety and those under their command? It seems every area of public life is now consumed with the political ramifications of any decision.
I personally feel very sorry that such brave men and women have to serve such utter cowards as those in our government.
One thing that seems obvious to me is that we should not be putting our people in harms way for no reason and when our political leaders are so pathetically inept and have no stomach for any fight other than for poll ratings.
Another 4 soldiers killed in Iraq seems to pass almost unnoticed, it is truly shaming for all of us.
WE must bring our troops home immediately because it is clear the country is not behind this war.
I am still mystified by Camerons support for this war given the US will be pulling out in 2 years time. Blair is an utter spineless coward and not worth a single British soldiers life, the only reason we are still there is his refusal to accept reality. Shameful.
We have no business, or capability, to enforce regime change anywhere in the world when our own government is so despised by its own people. Time to bring the troops home and move on. I cannot vote for Cameron unless he changes his stance on the war, I will not condone more British deaths. I am sure that everyone supports our troops but the only way to express that support is to bring them home.
One senses that it would take very little to trigger war between Iran and the US/Israel alliance. We should be very grateful to the young men and woman captured that they did not provide the casus belli for this confrontation.
It is immensely tragic that four similarly young service personnel and their translator were murdered at the same time we celebrated our sailors' release. A coincidence? Almost certainly not. But committed by whom? Our forces in the (Shia) South of Iran are now caught in the middle between two sets of enemies with very deep seated grievances and Machiavellian mentalities.
I hope we are able to get out before many more of our brave young service personnel are lost. God bless them.
Sabretache - couldn't have said it better my self!
My reaction to the "confessions" of the 15 is one of embarrasment. I heard an American commentator describe them as "singing like canaries", and I squirmed.
Service personnel in the past have been in the same position - worse, because the eyes of the world weren't on their case - but they resisted, even when tortured, because they believed it to be the honourable way to behave.
It seems now that honourable behaviour is negotiable. Another product of Blair's Britain?
When I said [at 5.50 PM] "we know evil when we see it [and] we should never call it by any other name" I had in mind the moral equivalence brigade who, given half a chance, will make excuses for evil.
They are represented on this thread by sabretache [5.57] who tells us we "systematically demonise" Iran.
Name, rank and number. That's all they should have given the Iranians.
I won't go into comparisons with Guantamano Bay or the Invasion of Iraq. I'm not responsable for either of them and I certainly won't defend them. But this was a flagrant and nigh on catastrophic abuse of international norms, and it is only the level-headedness of the hostages that has prevented no less than a state of war with Iran.
I was also dissappointed and surprised that their actions have been questioned.
People should reflect on what Iran has done and then think of the consequences of a nuclear Iran. These guys would press the button.
Iain, I agree with the other commenters who point out the examples the West has set with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. While I share your dislike of the Iranian regime, we can hardly pontificate about torture can we? Where is the utter condemnation of American and British mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq or of extraordinary rendition and black sites? What about the people in Guantanamo who have been held in appalling conditions for the last 4 years, most of them without being charged with anything?
These sailors had rough treatment certainly, but they weren't waterboarded were they? Incidentally, the Americans tell us that waterboarding is not a form of torture so presumably it would have been fine for the Iranians to adopt that interrogation method but they didn't.
Also, the Iranians would have been within their rights to try these captives for spying because it now turns out that that is partly what they were doing. Less of the moral indignation please. No one comes out of this smelling of roses and the faux outrage just smacks of hypocrisy.
Iain, please save some of your loathing for the Americans who are doing the same and worse.
The military have to answer to the public as much as any other public servant. And there are questions about all this that need answering.
So if they are annoyed, sorry, but that is immaterial. You must account for your actions and for your failures. And the start of this event was a failure to protect the boarding party and to effectively resist aggression.
I am very angry about these Marines. When they were completely surrounded by 6 or 8 Iranian boats they should have opened fire - light the touch paper. That would have taught them a lesson. They should have accepted the 7 years in prison and been used as human shields. After all that is why they get paid about £40 a day. I am sure they might have even served just five years. That would have taught the Iranians not to mess with us.
Now dont get me wrong I am not someone sat at home - with a carefree life. No not at all, I know all about the Army, I have watched Solider Solider and Where Eagles Dare so I know what I am talking about here.
I am sure the world would be a much better and safer place if these Marines had done what they joined for - died for their country.
Where is the bulldog spirit eh? Commonsense got the better of it? Disgusted.
If it is such an evil and despotic regime, can any one tell me why that nice Lord Lamont is always on the tele defending it? Do you think he's being paid, surely not.
"Lets get rid of this evil despotic regime etc and support locals etc." Yeah why not. Lets have two Iraqs. Cheap words.
Sabretache said...You really do disappoint with all that self-righteous, jingoistic emotion.
Agree with this posters comments 100%
and would add "As you sow so shall you reap" and we've been doing an awful lot of sowing of late.
Trumpeter Lanfried said... I had in mind the moral equivalence brigade who, given half a chance, will make excuses for evil.They are represented on this thread by sabretache.
Well he makes a lot more sense than you do.
Trumpeter Lanfried, Oh dear oh dear. Now why do Publicans and Pharisees spring so forcefully to mind I wonder?
The premise of your 'moral equivalence' allegation is that UK/US involvement in the Middle East is somehow justified on moral grounds and that the objectives (being moral) therefore justify the means (or at least render them excusable) because we MEAN well. Did you ever hear about the road to HELL being paved with good intentions?
However I'm afraid that, were you look just a little deeper, you would have to concede that our intent is far from the noble selfless moral assistance of the poor Iraqis that our government would have us believe. It is the calculated, ruthless pursuit of British foreign policy interests as defined by successive UK governments - and morality does not enter into it. Your complaints about 'moral equivalence' and the need to confront evil are clearly ignorant of US/UK involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 that installed the Shah; or our arming of Saddam Hussein to counter Iran after the Shah was finally overthrown; or that the US effectively created and armed what we now euphemistically call 'Al-Quaeda' to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan; or that the vilest of regimes (such as that of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan) are cultivated as allies in our 'war on terror' when they are themselves the very embodiments of rule by terror - I could go on.
Our foreign policy is many things, but moral it most certainly is not. The Pharisee no doubt gained much comfort from his sanctimony; the publican just look to the heavens and begged for mercy. I'm on the side of the Publican myself.
no longer anonymous said...
Name, rank and number. That's all they should have given the Iranians.
Or you would pull their toenails out as you threatened to do to me, for merely disagreeing with one of your postings.
Iain, do grow up! These poor little dears were treated reasonably well compared with many other captives. However, they probably did what was sensible in a non-wartime "hostage" scenario.
However, the real story here is not "human" or political, it is the total and abject failure of the Royal Navy to conduct military operations in a professional manner.
In a decent and well-ordered armed forces, there would now be a board of inquiry, after which Commodore Lambert would be court martialled, demoted to midshipman and posted to a desk for the rest of his hopefully short career. Instead, what do we get? A "Lessons-learned" cover up. Pathetic.
Yes it was psychological intimidation, yes I am sure it was traumatic, and yes I think they deserve a bit more than a fortnights compassionate leave...
...but, compare this with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, compare it with German or Japanese POW camps, compare it with what could have happened and I think they got of far better than it could have been.
Compare their treatment with that of uk prisoners, several men to a cell, sexual abuse and drugs, and access to television and the internet
Finally if we are going to send boys and girls out into such situation then I would hope they were trained to cope with interrogation and the like. I have a few American friends and they are less than impressed.
I sense the debacle that has been visited on our forces is a consequence not of a lack of courage on their part - lets not forget how bravely the marines have been fighting in Afghanistan i.e. bloody heroes check YouTube if you doubt me - but rather a lack of bottle at political levels in Whitehall. People don't generally join up to turn the other cheek. Fighting is what you train to do. Added to which there is a long tradition in British history of heroic stands in seemingly lost situations eg Rouke's Drift, the rearguard at Dunkirk and the Glorious Gloucesters in Korea to mention but a few.
Their interrogation is nothing that British forces do not train their recruits for. The so called 'fives techniques' or 'interrogation in depth' is applied to recruits esp. aircrew who may be shot down behind enemy lines. I suspect that this aspect of their treatment is being spun. It was still out of order.
You claim Iain "It's now up to the Iranian people to get rid of this despotic and evil regime. We should give them every help and encouragement."
The chance to influence Tehran was lost in 2003 as I mentioned elsewhere on your blog. Now we are looking at containment at best. Today's Times has an op-ed by someone advocating the application of Tehran's terror tactics to the Iranian's themselves. I am less sure. After all much of the blowback from the CIA funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan is at the root of the current problem. We could of course invade the country a la Iraq. But as that and indeed Afghanistan show invasions are easy. Conquest and occupation another matter entirely. Probably what will happen is that Iran will face increasing international isolation as she continues to develop the bomb. Israel and the US however will not allow the bomb to become a reality. The lesson of the Holocaust was for the Jewish people quite simple. Do not depend on others for your safety. She will act to protect herself make no mistake. Thus at some point there will be a wave of air strikes which will destroy or cripple the Iranian effort. This in turn will unleash a wave of terror from Iranian and its proxies both in the Middle East and the West.(There are many Iranians in the West, some quite militant.) No doubt the Gulf will be closed and the price of oil will rocket. The world's financial markets will plunge. Even in this scenario Iran will be a 'winner'. The rocketing price of oil will ruin the global economy. Moreover, she will be the undisputed leader of the Islamic world. Battered, bombed but triumphant.
It doesn't look good. And I am afraid there is nothing we can do to stop it. The Iranians are looking for a millennial showdown to hasten the return of the Hidden Inman. And as one of the Nails of Shia Islam Ahmadinejad sees himself in the vanguard of this battle. It seems crazy to us. But our world view is so very different to theirs. As ever to understand this you need to get inside their minds. Not an easy thing to do for Westerners in our secular age of aquarius societies.
Frankly a Press Conference is hardly a Board of Inquiry - not that a BOI necessarily gets to the bottom of things either. Even so, it's clear that we know precious little about the Naval action or the activities of FCO and others.
I'd like to hear a great deal more before forming a judgement.
dolbyn said.....but, compare this with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.
I have a few American friends and they are less than impressed.
Was with you all the way "dolbyn" up to the "I have a few American friends and they are less than impressed" really don't care about what your American friends think of us.I have been disappointed with that crowd of Hollywood heroes for some time now.
I just feel so sad for Iran, we lived there for a few years until forced to leave in 1979 during the revolution. The people were wonderful and the revolution was really grass roots. However I spoke to many before and during it, especially many young students and they all thought they were going to get some sort of Islamic democracy certainly not a Theocracy. Khomeni was seen, at least by the middle and educated classes, as a figurehead for a less western society not as a future ruler of an Islamic State. Over the years I have met many of these people, now exiles, many of their friends were imprisoned or dead and they were bitter about the way their revolution was usurped by the clergy. Iranians I met were lovely, hospitable people who showed us nothing but kindness. We were there when Khomeni returned and saw the hope and celebrations and met no hostility, we were so sad to leave. I can only hope that one day that lovely country gets the leadership it deserves.
sabretache [8.39 PM] You may find much to criticise in our foreign policy towards the Middle East. But we don't hang women from cranes for unspecified crimes against religion.
For starters, let me just say I am not a pinko-lefty surrender monkey - I have been an actve Tory since my early teens. I fully supported our involvement in the Falklands and the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait; and I was prepared to see our outstanding professional troops used in Bosnia and Sierra Leone. And I would normally be outraged at the actions of the Iranian captors of our troops. They have contravened the norms by which captured service people should expect to be treated in warfare - even more so when there are no declared hostilities between us.
But the righteous indignation that underpins my outrage at Iran has been destroyed - because it has to be measured against what is being done by us or on our behalf. It was the US Attorney General who effectively tore up the Geneva Conventions - not the Iranians. In Iraq, our allies - our compatriats in the "Coalition of the Willing" - routinely used practices designed (and I use that word advisedly) to maximise tenets of religious adherence as a tool of psycholigical warfare. We allow our airports to be used for extraordinary rendition to take "suspects" - never the subject of judicial proceedings - to jurisdictions around the world where they can be tortured with means far more extreme than waterboarding.
Put yourself in the Iranians shoes for just a minute. They have a leader who has taken extreme and unacceptable positions, but was democratically elected. The Iranians have the right to boot him out in due course, but for now he has a mandate. The Americans though have put a massive naval fleet in the region - anywhere between two and four carrier groups, supported by the French and the British navies in force.
These forces ranged against Iran now have a track record at imposing regime change, regardless of what the UN or international law permits. Those toppled get publically executed. So the Iranian leadership has good cause to be nervous, and with US special forces widely believed to be active in their country, they can be expected to be nervous when British marines/SAS/SBS are in small boats close to/in their territorial waters (nobody can be sure because no-one has agreed the boundary, which shifts anyway with the moving course of the Shatt-al-arab waterway).
Now the Iranans could have been far worse in their treatment of our troops. They could have shown pictures of our troops being forced to prey to Mecca. Or they could have waterboarded them. Would we still have a moral position to object if they had?
I am not an apologist for the Iranian regime. But I hate being forced into the position where I am an apologist for ours. We have descended from the moral high-ground, into the murky swamps that we thought only "they" inhabited.
I have no idea why we are still in Iraq. But whilst we are - and as a result, tied to illegal and/or immoral activities I do not want to be party to sanctioning - we cannot complain if others use our actions as "norms" against us. That the Iranians did not sink as low as we have should be acknowledged.
I hope that Cameron at least has the strength to reaffirm Britain's commitment to standards set out in the Geneva Convention - for all those we hold, whether regular soldiers, or spies - or the criminal scum who pass for "jihadists".
Sabretache:
Saddam was arrmed by -
1) Russia
2) China
3) France
4) Brazil - yes, they are supprisingly big on the international arms market.
This is because Iraq was a Soviet bloc ally with historical connections to France. China has always provided cheap clones of Soviet weapons. The US and UK provided almost nothing.
Al-Quaeda was started by Bin Ladin because he hated the West. Perhaps you are thinking of the Taliban - who were invented by the anti-Western Islamists in Pakistani Intelligence as their way to control Afghanistan. The groups that the West supported against the Soviets generally mapped to the Northern Alliance - who were the UN recognised government of Afghanistan even after the Taliban seized power....
Recognised by the Iranians, incidentlly.
Facts are annoying, aren't they?
Yes the Iranians are thugs and the Iranian state is a brutal regime, but it still doesn't alter the fact that we should not be in that neck of the woods to start with!!!
Based on their news conference today, they haven't been subjected to anything not used as an interrogation technique by our own and everybody else's forces. They've been trained to withstand these unpleasantnesses, and they have done so. Good for them.
So let's keep a bit of perspective: as I heard someone say on the radio yesterday, you'd think, from the way people that were going on, that they were a ballet troupe which had been held for over a year. They are sailors and marines, and have been gone for less than a fortnight.
And they were safer and better looked after than they would be if sent back to southern Iraq, which it now appears that they are going to be, "armed" with whatever broomhandles, and conkers on strings, Tony Blair (egged on by the Tories, with their own disgraceful record of starving the Forces) can be bothered to provide for them.
I have no doubt that, should they have found themselves in any applicable situation, then the Iranians would have tended their wounds, changed their dressings, emptied their colostomy bags, or what have you. More than can be said for the British, I am deeply ashamed to say.
"Or you would pull their toenails out as you threatened to do to me, for merely disagreeing with one of your postings."
I threatened nothing of the sort, I merely expressed the wish that some minion would do it for me.
All of the armchair generals here should read 'Evil Cradling', by former Beirut hostage, Brian Keenan. Keenan graphically describes how solitary confinement and partial sensory deprivation - and that's what blind folding is - coupled with constant terror, send you quite literally mad.
Keenan describes the terrifying hallucinations which constantly haunted him. Mentally unhinged by exactly the sort of experiences our abducted sailors were subjected to, Keenan relived every film he'd ever seen in the jumbled up, crazy cinema of his mind, 'saw' and 'heard' a flock of birds flying round his cell and heard the ventilator grill wheeze out insane versions of every tune he'd ever heard - continuously.
Keenan did not, however, have to contend with continuous replays of the recent films of hostages being beheaded by extremists - I would imagine that our sailors watched manic replays of this barbarism over and over behind their blindfolds.
If I'd have been in our sailor's shoes I would also have feared brutal reprisals for the evil abuse of Abu Graib, Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition. Such abuse was unknown in Keenan's time.
Auntie Flo'
Pity you don't reserve some of your loathing for the senior officers who put the boarding tesm in such a vulnerable position. We expect the Iranians to be hostile, but the Brass is supposed to be on our side.
Pity also that the Tories are not a bit more voluble in demanding a proper inquiry.
On the subject of madness, how much longer are nulabbers going to tolerate the lunatic policies of our chillingly obsessive Work and Pensions Secretary, John Hutton?
Apologies for going off topic, Iain, but Hutton and nulab's Stalinesque policy of using lie detector tests to weed out benefit frauds must surely be questioned. Use of these tests is tantamount to treating all claimants, even bona fide ones, even honest pensioners who've worked hard all their lives, like criminals. Given how dictatorial and enamoured of Stalinesque strategies Brown is, its not hard to see his fingerprints all over this policy.
Nulab seem to have wilfully forgotten that anyone can be made redundant through no fault of their own. They're wilfully ignoring concerns about low take up of council tax rebates etc by proud pensioners and that this will act as a further deterrent to those pensioners who need the support of council tax rebates.
Is Brown so hard pressed for cash, despite his already massive tax robbery, that's he now sunk so low as to try to scare our pensioners witless and to further pauperise a proportion of them in order to cut back on the cost of rebates?
It surely won't be long before the nulab police state routinely subjects us all to their despicable lie detector tests.
Why aren't all Labour party members screaming their heads off in protest at this? Isn't there any point at which their sense of personal decency and outrage kicks in?
Auntie Flo'
Have any of you bunch of idiots read the Geneva Conventions (to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory)?
There are very specific rules that detail what you can and can't do to captured members of a foreign uniformed military. The treatment reported by our sailors and marines is in violation of several of these rules. (Not that it's much of a surprise to anyone,given that we're talking about Iran.)
Those rules do not apply to people who aren't part of something resembling a regular military.
There is a certain amount of disagreement over precisely what rules do apply to those in Guantanamo Bay, but they clearly don't qualify as prisoners of war.
PS. The druid: everybody wants the return of the Hidden Inman. Are you free?
Getting back to the incident in particular, some of the most interesting analysis and commentary I've read is here.
...and while all this is going on, our Dear Leader, together with that prat Reid, are burying bad-news by shipping out yet another British citizen to the US to stand trial for hacking into the Pentagon's computers. The fact that the computers were not even password protected and the guy is only an amateur, but knowledgeable, hacker does not affect the special "one way" relationship with our "special" friends who have done absolutely nothing to bring into line the existing extradition laws. So, like the NatWest-Three, there goes another lamb to the slaughter. What hope have we got with a government that cannot defend its own citizens against another despotic regime.
@ April 06, 6:51, bebopper said...
It seems now that honourable behaviour is negotiable. Another product of Blair's Britain?
Partly. cf the 'Respect Agenda' - attempting to build a strong moral platform on top of the blancmange of modern society. I've always found that foundations work better if they are underneath...
Partly also the fault of the military, who advertise a career in the services in a way that makes it look like one great, long adventure holiday. It's not. Their job - either directly or indirectly - is to kill people.
To make sense of the behavior of these 15, we need more facts than have been reported:
* What were the specific rules of engagement?
* What are the current rules on what to do in case of capture (we all assume name/rank/serial number - is this still the case? Is it also the case if we are not officially at war?)
* Were they all given training in how to behave in this situation?
* Did they all cooperate so volubly?
If the situation is as clear cut as it looks, then there should be calls for disciplinary action against them. However, neither I nor any of you have the full facts at our disposal at the moment. Sadly, I expect that the MOD will ensure that we never get them.
What a bunch of wimpering apologists most of you are. Abu Ghraib is the exception and I would very much doubt if there were any innocents in Guantanamo. Where is Verity when we need her - she at least has balls.
What it tells me that we need to be out of Iraq and double quick because our young people should not be dying for a bunch of ingrates who wouldn't know democracy if it came up and kissed them. Democracy is a western concept that is utterly foreign to the Islamic world and the fact that we should be wasting young, beautiful lives to 'enforce' it on people who not only don't want it but don't even understand it is a disgrace. Read 'Clash of Civilisations' if you want an honest, unbiased truth of the huge chasm between Judaeo-Christianity and Islam. Islam hates and despises us and we, in turn should not be trying to foist mom and apple pie on them. I no longer give a toss about 'freedom and democracy' when I see young soldiers, scarcely older than my own son, dying-for what? I don't want their filthy, medieval cultural imposed on me any more than they want our 'decadent' culture in their home land. What's more, any Muslims who can't live in the Judaeo-Christian societies of the West without wanting to foist their 'religion' on us should just get the hell out of it. Or by coming to the West do they think they are going to conquer from 'within' and impose their stinking Sharia law on us by degrees? No doubt they are hugely encouraged by the politically correct Government and councils who would rather insult the Judaeo-Christian majority than the Muslim minority. I am sick and tired of it all and there is nothing I would like better than to see the warring tribes of Iraq get on with it - without our 'help'.
As an IT professional for a decade...
It is a known fact that entering other peoples computers without permission is illegal. It was illegal long before I got into business - it was illegal when I was playing with a ZX81.
Whether or not there is a lock on the door, entering someone elses property without permission is an offense - in every country in the world.
The claim - "I was only trying to help/look around" is the same bullshit that evry hacker has tried since before RTFM.
Aside from the issue of how the extradition is carried out, this individual has comitted a crime acknowledged in the courts of this country and the US.
Facts are annoying, aren't they?
P.S. The Nat West Three are guilty. Why is it that their employer has spent a great deal of time and effort *not* investigating them? Simple - they are terrifeid of what will come out when they plee bargin.
Gosh Tear do you have to work hard at being such an idiot? The Nat West Three is about as far from this hacker as Islam is from Christianity. He broke the law - he gets punished. So if your house doesn't have a good lock on it the burglar doesn't get punished? Any chance to have a go at the Yanks is it? So sorry if they offend you. Wonder if your parents and grandparents thought that in World War II? I rather think not.
tear
You really do have USA-itis bad don't you? If some pimply American yoof had hacked into the UK MoD computer systems, I would expect you would be demanding immediate gunboat deplomacy against Washington until he was extradided here for trial.
The only thing going for the hacker in question was that he was apparently looking for proof of a UFO cover-up, so has insanity as a pretty solid defence.
Lady Finchley said...Any chance to have a go at the Yanks is it? So sorry if they offend you. Wonder if your parents and grandparents thought that in World War II? I rather think not.
The Yanks arrived late, and had the fact they joined in at all something to do with Japan ?
Guantanamo. Where is Verity when we need her - she at least has balls.
That explains a lot !
no longer anonymous said...I threatened nothing of the sort, I merely expressed the wish that some minion would do it for me.
Kind of like shipping me over to some friendly country where the removal of toenails is encouraged.
Sir Francis Walsingham said...Facts are annoying, aren't they?
Not half as annoying as you.
Marquee Mark said...April 06, 2007 9:27 PM
I agree with you absolutely and that is a first, there appears to be hope for you yet.
They were arrested (falsely) NOT made prisoners of war.
If they had opened fire first they would All be dead.
They did NOT give away military secrets, they only made a confession which they knew the world would believe to be done under duress.
Those who call them cowards should try to imagine being stood blindfolded against a wall and listen to a gun being cocked.
We have had thousands of our men taken prisoner of war in the two world wars. Are you armchair heroes calling those fine men cowards too?
Until you've been there shut the **** up.
My one criticism of the situation is, if the Cornwall could not support the boarding party because of the depth of water, then the boats should not have been launched.
Shooting back would have probably be a bad plan.
Interesting that no one has commented on the following - if the Iranians, by trying to capture UK personel in Iraqi waters were the ones who should have been detained.....
Ahmadinejad has broken Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, by being involved with that charade of parading them on TV. It would be an open and shut case if you took it to court. No issues of command resposibility or anything - he personally took part.
Anyone care to defend him?
Iain, it's obvious if you want information you're going to torture. Iran is just doing what the USSR used to do, or Russia and the FSB probably still do.
Most of the world has nasty people and no Gareth Pierce to rescue them. Human rights are only for people who have laws and publicly-funded lawyers.
I think they got off lightly. Donald Klein, the German angler was picked up at sea in Nov 2005 and spent 16 months in a 20m2 cell he shared with 11 others. Germany could not get him out.
He was in Evin Prison btw...I wonder how Faye would have handled 7 years there ? Remember Anthony Grey the journalist who spent years under house arrest in Peking ?
http://www.anthonygrey.co.uk/
What did it cost the USA to get Gary Powers back ? And look at how he was treated by his own side.
USA - a rouge state? Baton rouge? Anyway, others have said it. The pure humbuggery of all this when our "allies" the bully boys in the USA have hundreds incarcerated in Gitmo, still including six UK residents with families here and citizens in several cases, and when we are (probably) party to extraordinary rendition, and etc etc.
What a load of hypocritical bollocks!
Glad they're safe and home. Bewildered that all the righteous indignation re them being the Iraq side of the line has evaporated. Amused, guiltily, by the jokes about who was reading the map.
Better late than never Mike, else you'd be speaking German!
The Geneva & Hague Conventions apply to the signatory powers, no matter how they aquire their captives - POWs in shooting wars, "spies", "enemies of the state" or "blokes who you met in the pub and invited back for a beer". Have a read at -
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView
The question then is whether they are in the protected categories under the various definitions or are criminally engaged in armed combat (classic exmaple - pirates). Chains of command, uniforms, recognisable badges etc figure largely in this.
The British personel in question were undoutedly covered by their provisions. The Iranian government broke them. Making prisoners star in films/tv/pictures is forbidden by the customary interpretation of the conventions. Ahmadinejad went ahead and did it anyway.
They were given pyjamas, fed and watered three times a day, allowed two hours recreation every evening to play chess, etc., and apparently Faye was kept well supplied with cigarettes, and they were sent home with a goody bag each and a new suit. And by the way, did you notice when they were meeting the Iranian President, all the Iranian onlookers were smiling fondly at the prisoners.
Cut to the MOD press conference, where the crew were obviously reading from scripts ...
I am sorry, Iain, but this just wasn't torture, not as we have come to know it over recent years.
Firstly I am glad that all 15 have been released and have returned home safe and sound. But these are professional soldiers and sailors working in their chosen career. At the polical behest of their CinC, in order that he might insert himself further up Bush's backside, they are engaged in another country's illegal war for money. They are no better than mercanaries and are lucky to be alive.
daily referendum said "We have had thousands of our men taken prisoner of war in the two world wars. Are you armchair heroes calling those fine men cowards too?"
For daily referendum to suggest any similarity between our largely conscripted men in the two world wars and the volunatary escapades of the current Halliburton Security Detail does a huge disservice to those who gave their lives in those World Wars when they had no say in the matter. Shame on you.
while I wouldn't want to be in their position, there is a marked difference between how they were treated and how our allies treat prisoners in Iraq and Guantanemo.
and I still don't buy that they weren't in Iranian waters.
Lady Finchley said...
Better late than never Mike, else you'd be speaking German!
Would just like to commend you on that posting,it was brief which is more than one can say for your other wearisome efforts.
Sylvia's mother said...I am sorry, Iain, but this just wasn't torture, not as we have come to know it over recent years.
Sylvia, got to agree with you,they could have been forced to read the wearisome postings of Sir Francis Walsingham,now that is a blogger with stamina if nothing else.
Anonymous 5:42 - why don't you just move to Middle East and have done with it? Yeah right, those guys are in Gitmo for no good reason - they were taken out of circulation because it was imperative to do so. They are so tortured - eating 3 square halal meals a day, furnished with facilities for prayer, and the rest. Tortured? Tell it to Sweeney!
As for the other moron who called our soldiers mercenaries - oh sure, they live the life of luxury on the pittance they're paid. No wonder you're anonymous - you'd get a good kicking if people knew who you really were.
Glad the 15 are back safely, but nothing can excuse their final effusive day with their swag bags and new suits. Not since Monica Lewinsky has the world seen a more blubbery 'thank you'.
Reading Iain's blog and these pathetic comments, I cannot blame the sailors/marines for succumbing to 'psychological pressure' (psychobabble for 'we were scared'). They are a product of modern Great Britain:
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." -- C. S. Lewis
However sad their performance was, they have to be commended for the courage to serve. How many other young Brits are more concerned with their 'gap year', free tuition and X-Factor? It's all me, me, me and what can I get for free? Patriotism is derided as racism. History is rewritten so you don't offend anyone.
Then, the inevitable: The Iranians treat you like their prison bitch and you go straight to blaming America. I suspect America is the benevolent straw man for your pent-up rage. Sad.
The Iranians would like a gesture in return for giving you back the people they illegally seized. I know which gesture Americans would give them (and I'm sure the response of the Australians would give the Ayatollahs a harelip.) The apathy and moral equivalence shown here suggests Brits will happily drop their pants and grab their ankles.
A real hero, COL Jack Jacobs (Medal of Honor winner), had this to say on the ultra liberal MSNBC:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25041_Col._Jack_Jacobs-_Brit_Sailors_Disgraceful&only
Sorry guys, but I think we all just witnessed the Sun finally setting.
After reading all the other comments I was reminded of some apt words of J S Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
"As for the other moron who called our soldiers mercenaries - oh sure, they live the life of luxury on the pittance they're paid. No wonder you're anonymous - you'd get a good kicking if people knew who you really were."
They are paid an appropriate wage plus allowances to do a job of their choosing. No mention was there of it being a life of luxury. As for being anonymous, if you post your name and address I am sure a mutual kicking could be arranged. I dare you!
Anonymous@ 5:17 PM
Said: "For daily referendum to suggest any similarity between our largely conscripted men in the two world wars and the volunatary escapades of the current Halliburton Security Detail does a huge disservice to those who gave their lives in those World Wars when they had no say in the matter. Shame on you."
Anon you are a fool, the point is that the 15 captured were there voluntarily not forced. They are serving their country in a dangerous situation because they want to, not because they have been forced. My point about prisoners of war during the world wars is that if you face insurmountable odds there is no shame in being taken prisoner. Would you have gone down in a blaze of glory? I doubt it. Are you saying they should have died to save the country a bit of embarrassment?
Our military commanders have not and do not issue stand to the last man orders. If you can win you fight, if you can't you retreat if you can or surrender.
Also I do not remember mentioning those who gave their lives in those World Wars. It is you that does our current service people a disservice. You should remember that if the shit hits the fan then the "Halliburton Security Detail" has you call them, are the ones who are going to be protecting you. They could be forgiven for not being too keen to do that if they were to read some of the comments on this thread.
''The willingless with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,no matter how justified,shall be directly proportional as to how they percieve the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreaciated by their nation'' --George Washington
Well,now the captured crew are going to cash in. The MOD has given them permission to sell their stories to the media. How do we all feel about that? I must say I am surprised. Cui Bono?
Well,now the captured crew are going to cash in. The MOD has given them permission to sell their stories to the media. How do we all feel about that? I must say I am surprised. Cui Bono?
Anonymous - why don't you go live with your pals in the Middle East because that is where you belong. A sniveling apologist who full of self loathing. I'd like to see you sacrifice your sorry ass for the sake of your country.
Army Captain - hats off to you for putting it all so succintly.
Farewell, then, to neoconservatism. Iran turned out to be the question that it simply could not answer. It was magnificent to behold the incandescence of John Bolton at being denied the whole point of it all: the destruction Iran’s multiethnic emerging democracy outside the global hegemony (in accordance with the precedent set in Yugoslavia), and the theft of Iran’s oil (in accordance with the precedent set in Iraq). But this will never now happen. What has Bolton’s life been for?
But it is not in the United States that the neoconservatives have become most hegemonic. That dubious distinction belongs to the United Kingdom. Here, an indivisible New Labour Project, now effectively led by David Cameron following the political death of Tony Blair, constitutes the electorally irremovable neoconservative junta trading under the names of New Labour, the Notting Hill set or Cameroons, the rising Orange Book Tendency within the Liberal Democrats, The Henry Jackson, the Euston Manifesto, and so forth. There is no difference whatever between any two of these, yet the ideology of which they are all the same expression has now collapsed. Presenting the rest of us with an unmissable opportunity.
After all, did anyone ever ask you if you wanted the political parties to merge in all but name, and that on the basis of a foreign, fringe and now failed system of thought? No one ever asked me if I wanted this. I don’t. And I bet that you don’t, either. But the only political party ever to have begun in the Westminster Village and then attempted to spread out into the country at large was the SDP. And look what became of that.
Instead, we need, in terms of impact, nothing less than a Reformation in British politics. But unlike the Reformation itself, it will be bottom-up rather than top-down, it will be directed at collapsed rather than thriving institutions, and it will therefore be massively popular, entirely without any need for imposition by force.
It will of course leave its recusants, notable for their tiny numbers, for their heavily intermarried families, for the social and cultural insulation provided by their fabulous wealth, for the lavishing of foreign honours on their most outspoken figures, for the fact that all their institutional manifestations are abroad, and for the fact that almost no one abroad (nor even many people here) have any notion that they exist.
If you want better than that for yourself, and for your house and lineage at least for the next three hundred years, then you will now cut all ties to The Henry Jackson Society, to the Euston Manifesto, and to anything else remotely redolent of neoconservatism.
Daily Referendum said...
"You should remember that if the shit hits the fan then the "Halliburton Security Detail" has you call them, are the ones who are going to be protecting you."
Well no actually, that would require me to be sitting in the Middle East which I'm not. If the proverbial hits the fan then those of us at home in dear old Blightly will be reliant on spotty new recruits who are apparently unable to read or write and returned soldiers who are too tired and shagged out from over-stretch to be much use.
Lady Finchley said...
Anonymous - why don't you go live with your pals in the Middle East because that is where you belong. A sniveling apologist who full of self loathing. I'd like to see you sacrifice your sorry ass for the sake of your country.
Ooooo sticks and stones! I actually spent 3 years in Beirut in the late 70s for the greater good of HMG and almost got blown up in the process. The offer of a good kicking still stands.
Anonymous
Yes, well too bad you didn't stay.
Army were you? Or a fat ass civil servant? The latter must proboably.
Post a Comment