British sailors arrested at gunpoint by Iranian navy.

[GAP]

They can dress her up like Woody Woodpecker, as long as they let her go.

edited to add: ps...I don't believe they are signatories to the Geneva Convention

 

[TN2IC]

"Please don't worry about me,'' the letter said. "I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people.''

What are they hinting at here? Makes me raise an eyebrow. Thoughts?

Regards,
TN2IC

 

[GAP]

Since it is not harming her, why would it be in contravention of anything. It is their way of displaying her in a noncontroversial way, but making their point that religion rules in Iran....

I'm not making out like an expert on anything, just pointing out what my gut feelings are when I see the pics, based on the little I know. If someone else has a better explanation, by all means post it, and I will learn something.

As for the Geneva Convention thing, I happen to remember that during the Iran-Iraq war when they were sending kids ahead in total massacres, they were slammed for it and they basically told the world to piss off.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

this is straying from my lane little, but I recall from a law course I took that while a nation may not be a signatory to the conventions they may still be held to them by the international community as they have become "customary international law"

Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation, so much so that it becomes custom. As such, it is not necessary for a country to sign a treaty for customary international law to apply.[citation needed]
Customary international law can therefore not be declared by a majority of States for their own purposes; it can be discerned only through actual widespread practice. For example, laws of war were long a matter of customary law before they were codified in the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.

This was all taken from Wiki

 

[tomahawk6]

Here's a larger shot of the Garmin posted on the MOD web site. Anyone else think it odd that the EU has been silent on this event ?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I think the EU is letting the UK take the lead on this matter.

But found this:

The European Union backed Britain. Angela Merkel, chancellor of the bloc's president Germany, said the EU extended its "absolute support and solidarity

From here: http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=53&show=article&a_id=11502

 

[Sig_Des]

"Obviously we trespassed into their waters ... They were very friendly and very hospitable, very thoughtful, nice people. They explained to us why we've been arrested, there was no harm, no aggression

and

I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from Iranian people

At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?

Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?

Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.

I think that with something like this we should probably not try to speculate on any conclusions until we know a lot more of what happened/is happening ...

 

[tomahawk6]

From the MOD web site. Answers some of the questions, but not all. So far the female sailor has not been released.More Iranian gamesmanship.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

 

[geo]

At first, when it was said she was to be released, I thought it was the Iranians trying to get some good PR out of good treatment of a female prisoner. Now I'm wondering if they granted her early release in return for making statements?

Could just be the paranoid and suspicious side of me, though.

Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
I don't think so.  There is no point in their facing extreme forms of interrogation and risk personal injury.
If the Iranians want them to say something - accomodate them & try to say your lines with a straight face (regardless of how silly the statement happens to be).
Everyone will know that what has been said has been said "under duress" and no one who matters will believe a single word.

As to wearing a Hijab?  what harm was there in accomodating the Iranian request?

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually Geo I disagree.US service personnel are required to resist even during captivity.The female sailor appeared to have made her statement under duress. The Iranians by forcing the female sailor to wear the hijab was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Below is the US Code of Conduct.

I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

 

[FredDaHead]

From the MOD web site. Answers some of the questions, but not all. So far the female sailor has not been released.More Iranian gamesmanship.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

Anyone else think it's odd that the Iranian government, after being told their coordinates meant their ship was in Iraqi waters, suddenly changed their mind and gave a position slightly further North, outside of Iraqi waters?

 

[tomahawk6]

The Iranians are practicing the Big Lie, say something strenuously enough people might believe you. It is not an accident that this is the second time British military personnel have been taken by Iran. The reason for this is that they view the UK as weak. There are US patrols in these waters. Why havent USN or USMC personnel been grabbed ?

 

[CrazyCanuk4536056919]

Looks like they are being held at Evin Prison. Most likely moved now that this picture was released. An American citizen pointed this out to a US media outlet, and they ran with the story. I am searching for it now.

Edited to add:

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5077180.stm

 

[KevinB]

Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
I don't think so.  There is no point in their facing extreme forms of interrogation and risk personal injury.
If the Iranians want them to say something - accomodate them & try to say your lines with a straight face (regardless of how silly the statement happens to be).
Everyone will know that what has been said has been said "under duress" and no one who matters will believe a single word.

As to wearing a Hijab?  what harm was there in accomodating the Iranian request?

There are so many things wrong with your statement above, that I cannot give a honest reply without violating the code of conduct for personal attacks.  One of the many things I admire about the US military is their code of conduct in captivity and the way they reinforce it over AFN, so troops are clear with their duties.



 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Hey, these are Sailors and soldiers.
Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?

Yes, there's a damn good reason: it's called the Code of Conduct After Capture (CCAC) and it applies in both wartime operations and Operations Other than War ... the R in PRIDE is Resist Exploitation by All Means Available: http://www.dcds.forces.gc.ca/jointDoc/documents/GJ110-010CCAC_e.pdf

We are far from being in a position to pass judgment on LS Turney, but if she was a Canadian sailor (and I presume the British rules are similar), she and the other crew members definitely have an obligation to resist this type of exploitation.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Frankly, I'm surprised that after so much speculation, criticism and hyperbole the mods haven't stepped in to put a stop to it.  I am certain that had we been dealing with such heavy criticism of US forces, the warnings would be flying and the usual suspects would be dog-piling the poor poster who had the temerity to criticise the US military or American policy.

So where do we sit?  First, as I've said earlier, no one posting here has the slightest idea of what happened on the water a couple of days ago.  If BBC reports are to be believed, the tactical situation wasn't nearly as clear cut as the "kill 'em all" posters would have us make out.  Moreover:

• We have no idea what political direction - from the coalition, British Government or Iraqi government - that Cornwall was operating under.
• We have no idea - and probably never will - what ROE the ship and her crew were directed to follow.
• Indications are that the tactical situation did not lend itself to the immediate use of overwhelming force - a position supported by the master of the Indian cargo vessel being boarded at the time.
• Had the Cornwall followed the course of action recommended by many Americans and their supporters, the UK and, by extension, the US would be at war with Iran right now.  Consider the implications on oil prices, shipping through the straights of Hormuz, the Iranian capability to interfere in Afghanistan, the overstretch currently being experienced by both US and British forces, the lack of prepositioned ground forces, the volatile situation along the Iraqi border... but we wouldn't want to give this any thought, would we?  Kill 'em all, and let the chips fall where they may - as Canadians find themselves surging into Herat or some such to deal with Iranian incursions and Canada gets sucked into all of this.

My second issue is with those who quote conduct after capture doctrine in an effort to criticise those being held.  I_am_John_Galt makes reference to Canadian doctrine, but does so in a misleading and ill-informed fashion.  Some points:

• The British marines and sailors are not PWs, they're detainees.  Doctrine differs for detainees.  From the Canadian doctrine quoted by IAJG:

411. DETENTION BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DURING OOTW
1. Once in the custody of a foreign government, regardless of the circumstances that preceded the detention situation, detainees are subject to the laws of that government. CF members detained by foreign governments shall maintain military bearing and must not participate in antagonistic or illegal behaviour. In addition, CF members should:

a. Ask immediately and continuously to see Canadian embassy personnel or a representative of an allied or neutral country. Members should also attempt to contact the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent;

b. Provide name, rank, service number, date of birth (blood group and religion if situation dictates) and the innocent circumstances leading to their detention. Further discussions should be limited to and revolve around health and welfare matters, conditions of fellow detainees and going home.

c. Avoid signing any form or document or making any statement oral or otherwise. This is a common tactic used to exploit the detainee. If forced to sign a document or make a statement, the member should provide as little information as possible and then continue to resist to the utmost of his or her ability.

d. Escape attempts shall be made only after careful consideration of the risk of violence, chance of success, and detrimental effects on detainees remaining behind. Unsuccessful escapes will provide the captor with further justification to prolong detention by charging additional violations of its criminal or civil law and might result in bodily harm or even death to the member.

• The US tendency to rely on high-sounding "codes" has hardly prevented US service personnel from appearing in orange jumpsuits and giving statements on television, despite the plethora of AFN ads.
• You are not there, and have no idea what pressures (if any) are being applied.

I'm tired of the chest-beating that has seemed to accompany this "discussion".  Those posters favouring a US-style shoot it out approach would do well to remember that US foreign policy has hardly been characterized by either strategic or operational success over the past decade and that many, including me, have serious misgivings about the attitude, posture, and tendency to shoot first and ask questions later displayed by large segments of the US military on operations.

American policy has displayed little in the way of nuance and much in the way of counter-productive activity since 9-11 and the US is hardly in a position to effectively criticise the British approach in this particular case.

 

[army outfitters]

Frankly, I'm surprised that after so much speculation, criticism and hyperbole the mods haven't stepped in to put a stop to it. 
VERY GOOD POINT.

I'm tired of the chest-beating that has seemed to accompany this "discussion".  Those posters favouring a US-style shoot it out approach would do well to remember that US foreign policy has hardly been characterized by either strategic or operational success over the past decade and that many, including me, have serious misgivings about the attitude, posture, and tendency to shoot first and ask questions later displayed by large segments of the US military on operations.

American policy has displayed little in the way of nuance and much in the way of counter-productive activity since 9-11 and the US is hardly in a position to effectively criticise the British approach in this particular case.
EVEN BETTER POINT

 

[exspy]

Gentlemen,

I'm afraid I agree with Geo.  I think the captured personnel should do what they need to do in order to survive this ordeal.  Now it's not known if the Iranians want any top secret details of the ship's operations etc, and if they do than that would be a completely different matter.  But if we are only discussing accepting responsibility for their arrest in a public forum in order for Iran to receive a perceived world PR advantage, than I see no reason not to do it.  As has been mentioned already no one in the west is going to be swayed by the captured personnel's admissions, and those persons who will believe the Iranian's version would already possess anti-west sentiments anyway.

I am reminded of the 2001 forced landing in China of a US Navy EP-3E Orion spy plane by the Chinese Air Force.  At the time there were persons who believed that the aircraft commander should have ditched the aircraft into the ocean to prevent its capture at the cost of the lives of the 24 crewmen.  The US government eventually issued a letter containing apologies, the 'letter of the two sorries'.  The crewmen were all released unharmed 11 days after their capture.  The aircraft was returned (in parts) 4 months later.  It's still not known if any of the gear aboard was compromised.  (There was speculation at the time that the crew tossed it off the aircraft into the ocean prior to landing.)  Yet all these years later does anyone remember the incident or recall the names of the naval personnel involved?  Was the strategic balance between China and the US in the Far East changed one iota by the incident?  Would anything positive have been served by the deaths of the crewmen?  In my opinion, no, no and no.

My personal belief is that the captured 15 should do whatever they have to do in order to survive.  Their deaths or any injuries received would serve no purpose or further any British interest in the region.  This is not the first time a second rate dictatorship has tried to gain an advantage in its strategic political position by trying to humble a world power and it won't be the last.  It's certainly not worth losing a single life over, Iranian or British.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Teddy Ruxpin, I think you've misunderstood my post.

I twice stated categorically that we are not in a position to be judging LS Turney: my post was in response to Geo's comment that they (the Sailors and Marines) should be accommodating and say/do whatever the Iranians ask them to.  You've highlighted the part of the CCAC states that they are to continue to resist ("to the utmost of his or her ability") and avoid signing documents/making statements, unless forced to do so. 

More specifically, how is

Is there any reason why they should limit themselves to the old "name, rank and SN" thing?
I don't think so.

anything but a direct contradiction of

b. Provide name, rank, service number, date of birth (blood group and religion if situation dictates) and the innocent circumstances leading to their detention. Further discussions should be limited to and revolve around health and welfare matters, conditions of fellow detainees and going home.

? ???