If the british soldiers were in uniform they can't logically have been involved in espionage.

They should be returned immediately.

Perhaps if America's actions over the past half decade had not direly wounded our international standing, we would have more leverage in this matter.

Geneva Conventions not being followed ?!?!?!?

What goes around, comes around.

Iran needs to be dealt with before they have nuclear capabilities. The question is do we trust the current administration with this? After the failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure. Maybe Bush needs to step down and hand over the reigns to McCain.

Or are you just going to blame this on us?
"Us"? I assume you're taking an extremely generous view of "us vs. them", since these are RN sailors in the pot.

As for condemnation, a lot of people are still trying to figure out what exactly is going on with Iran... but if need be, I'll happily go on the record saying that Iran's about to screw themselves big-time. Taking these guys was stupid to begin with, and pushing through a trial just plays right into the hands of people who already want open war with Iran. I for one still hope that's avoidable, but this is looking grim.

Also, IANAL, but I'm not sure about the espionage charges... If (and this is purely for speculation purposes; I don't actually believe it) the sailors _were_ in Iranian waters, and if they _were_ running intel collection, couldn't they be prosecuted under Iranian law?

pick and choose when we adhere to the geneva convention. all for it when it suits us (against iran), all against when it doesn't (club gitmo, rush). it's the 'right' way.

"So, how about it, lefties - will you gin up some demonstrations? Make demands that Iran adhere to every iota of the Convention?"

Iran and the U.S. are both signatories to the Geneva Conventions and both countries obviously must adhere to "every iota" of the treaty under international law. Where is the debate? Demanding that your own country adhere to its treaty obligations is wholly different from demanding that some other country do the same.

"Or are you just going to blame this on us?"

Um, what the hell are you talking about?

Gar Wood

Thank God Bolton isn’t at the UN anymore. If he was you could almost be certain nukes would be flying any day now. At least with career diplomant Wolff we will take a more pragmatic approach. I guess it is too much to ask if these British soldiers can hold on until January 2009 when we have a real Secretary of State to help sort this out.

Mark:

If Iran violates the Geneva Convention why would any of you care?

After all, Alberto Gonzalez referred to them as "quaint" and "obsolete" in our present time.

I doubt that organizing formal demonstrations in the United States against Iran is going to do much good, just as demonstrations in Europe against the Bush's foolish war did nothing to change policy.

Bush ignores world opinion, and so too the "president" of Iran will likely pay little attention to protests.

This is all real suspect and the timing of all this raises questions. Bush and his failed architects of war desire nothing more than "moving on" from Iraq and continuing their imperialist insanity. So this may provide a perfect "excuse" to march ahead into deeper folly.

Ahmadinejad is a textbook example of a religious conservative. He's one of yours. I as a liberal will not defend him.

Wade

Bush is the one silent here. No report as to what he said he's gonna do, nor has Cheney blustered about how Bushs staying silent on the matter "validates Al Quedas strategy".
Beyond offering our mediation and good offices, and hopes for a peaceful resolution neither Bush or Cheney will say anything because their powerless to and they know it. What are we going to do?
I believe that most Brits, seeing us(And faulty navigation equipment.) as a major reason they got into this mess, would have us stay out of it.
However important this issue becomes, this blog, and most Bush supporters wil remain silent on this issue, beyond this post because it exposes just how powerless Bush has made this country.
Look forward to your responses.

Your post is gratuitous nonsense — anything to take a shot at the political opposition, no matter how contrived and illogical. It reveals a noisy desperation about the situation on your side of the political divide.

The Brits are capable diplomats and have a relatively undepleted military capability — unlike the U.S., thanks to the Bush administration's bad attitude, lack of foresight, planning and sound management. I expect they will work it out.

Demonstrations in the U.S. plus a buck will get you coffee at McDonald's. In case you haven't noticed, thanks to Bush's unwillingness to engage and deal with the Iranians, the most belligerent factions in that country enjoy free rein to be as troublesome as they want.

The Lefties ? They pretty much have their hands full right now. Perhaps the Right wing might consider some giant demonstration. How come the Left is always asked to straighten the mess out.

you assume that Iran cares what any of us think. We can't boycott their goods, as they are under an embargo. We don't get a vote for their leaders. The opinions of Americans is really unlikely to have a lot of sway. I can't imagine that it will do a great deal of good for us to demand the leadership of Iran kowtow and heed our demands. Assuming, of course, that the goal is the release of the soldiers.

Our bad actions would not excuse iranian bad actions. if we don't feel the need to abide by the Geneva Conventions, they don't get a pass. However, it is ludicrous to argue that the Conventions are "quaint" and disregard them then shriek when someone else acts as though the conventions are meaningless. it's not right, but we don't seem to have a moral high ground.

How does one "gin up" a demonstration? Who's pouring? More importantly, will conservatives be demanding that the US and Iran adhere to international law, or will we insist that we can do as we choose while others abide by treaties. How effective do you really think that will be?

Gar,
Even though I'm currently in the military, this is a legal subtlety I'm not sure of & hadn't thought about before now... Do the Geneva Conventions apply under _all_ circumstances, or only in cases involving actual armed conflict between signers? Since there's no formal hostilities between Iran and the UK, and I doubt there's anything like a SOFA (or whatever the UK equivalent is) between them, I would expect the sailors to be left to the "tender mercies" of the Iraninan civil legal system - more the worse for them...

Incidentally, didn't mark just praise Hannity for his speech which included the line "I am saddened and disappointed by the politics that the left is playing with war, social security, health care, border security, education, and fiscal issues." So, in what bizarre universe would this not be politicizing this issue? Can i go to this strange wonderland of delights, or do you have to be totally insane to be invited? Do you need drugs or just a bat to the head?

This is just silly.

Iran should not and does not have the right to charge the soldiers with espionage. If they did violate Iran's waters (and that is not clear), then Iran unfortunately did have every right to take them. Diplomatically, it is most definitely a stupid plan to hold British soldiers, as it will only increase tensions between us and them, and has certainly caused the war cheerleaders in the US (namely, you) to cry for military action. This would be a war that Iran could not win. (Neither could we, given the state of affairs in Iraq.)

The silly part is that somehow 'the Left' must be equally vocal in its disapproval of Iran as it is with the US. Iran is a religious dictatorship, the US is the beacon of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Of course we are held to a higher standard. We should be, and frankly, I'm proud that we are.

The question for you is: why do you want to reduce us to Iran's level?

"The Brits are capable diplomats and have a relatively undepleted military capability — unlike the U.S., thanks to the Bush administration's bad attitude, lack of foresight, planning and sound management. I expect they will work it out."
Posted by: S.W. Anderson at March 26, 2007 03:52 PM

I'm sorry this is off-topic, but do you even have a clue as to how many miliary servicemen we actually have? We've got about 150,000 men in Iraq? (someone correct me, i'm hazy on the numbers) The last time I did some research on this, I thought the US had about a tick over 3 million men and women ready to go to war when needed. (again someone correct me if i'm off)And this is without a national mobility. If my number are acurate, then i would think the US has a relatively undepleted miltary as well.

"In case you haven't noticed, thanks to Bush's unwillingness to engage and deal with the Iranians, the most belligerent factions in that country enjoy free rein to be as troublesome as they want."

-So you would have supported a pre-emptive attack on Iran?! I must admit, you've confused me. And you call us hypocritical war-mongers?

"I believe that most Brits, seeing us(And faulty navigation equipment.) as a major reason they got into this mess, would have us stay out of it.
However important this issue becomes, this blog, and most Bush supporters wil remain silent on this issue, beyond this post because it exposes just how powerless Bush has made this country.
Look forward to your responses."
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer at March 26, 2007 03:27 PM

How has Bush made this country powerless? In what way? Are you talking about with Iran, or just completely powerless. If you're talking about with Iran: I suppose complete naval and air dominance might be considered powerless.(sarcasm)
Look forward to your responses. Or maybe just clearifications.

"Or are you just going to blame this on us?"
-Mark Noonan

"Um, what the hell are you talking about?"
Posted by: Gar Wood at March 26, 2007 01:33 PM

"However important this issue becomes, this blog, and most Bush supporters wil remain silent on this issue, beyond this post because it exposes just how powerless Bush has made this country.
Look forward to your responses."
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer at March 26, 2007 03:27 PM

Gar,
I believe THAT'S what Mark is talking about. Another thing that is completely Bush's fault. I hope everyone can understand how I put that together.

thanks to Bush's unwillingness to engage and deal with the Iranians, the most belligerent factions in that country enjoy free rein to be as troublesome as they want.

Now let me see if I understand this. If Bush were to relent and negotiate with Iran, this would either motivate the belligerent factions in Iran to restrain their activities and be nice, or motivate the leadership to rein everyone in.

Too bad that the number of times negotiation with extremist muslims has produced a lasting peace is zero.

Ahmedinejad (sp?) is not motivated by any desire to bring everyone to the negotiating table, unless it can get the UN sanctions removed. Instead, he wants to spark a showdown because the thinks it would cause the Mahdi (a.k.a. 12th Imam) to return, bringing about (the muslim version of) the apocalypse.

Legion,

If the British soldiers are what Iran claims they are, belligerent actors, then they are subject to the Geneva Convention protections. Here is the text regarding the applicability of the Third Geneva Convention, which addresses treatment of POWs.

Article II
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Here is information about Iran's accession and reservation:
http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/3C3D205CD9858D2CC1256402003F954C?OpenDocument

Gar Wood

I'm with Gar - clearly you would want Iran to follow the Geneva conventions - and if they are in error about detaining these sailors - return them...

Look - sounding like a broken record - Bush is wrong
"if you aren't with Bush you are for the terrorists (or the Iranians)" - your just against Bush...
you can still be against the terrorists - duh

"...even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

Ahhh... that is most enlightening. Thanks for the info.

And kblack, I certainly do hope they are treated humanely - especially since I trust the RN's navigational competence more than the Iranian Navy's. But since our gov't has already declared the Geneva conventions "quaint", and re-defined what counts as torture vs. interrogation, I truly worry for those sailors.

Look - sounding like a broken record - Bush is wrong

You're past souncing like a broken record; you sound like a moron. I wonder why. Is it because you don't know the proper usage of the words "your," "you're," and "yore?" Well, that's part of it. Another part, cementing your status as a moron, is that we're discussing the Iranians kidnapping British sailors and marines, and you have to bring up Bush. Classic BDS, you frickin' moron.

Let's be real, Bigfoot--these kooks are okay with anything the enemy does to embarrass the U.S./coalition forces in Iraq. The kooks own defeat--if we win, they lose. They're, not "their" or "there," all members of the Code Pinko wing of the DemocRAT party. Theit opinions mean nothing here. Read them and laugh...

well your right about one thing - i type phonetically and am a lazy proof reader -

Why did I bring up Bush - huh - perhaps I was responding to the direct association Mark was making between Iran and Liberals on a site called "BLOGS FOR BUSH" - gosh - i just don't know..

But since our gov't has already declared the Geneva conventions "quaint", and re-defined what counts as torture vs. interrogation, I truly worry for those sailors.

Lame, lame, lame talking points again. Legion, are you aware that the last time British military folks were taken hostage by the Iranians, they were subjected to what you kooks refer to as torture? And were you aware that your vaunted MSM described it as "mental abuse?"

You, being an active-duty military person, should know when Geneva Conventions apply. They don't apply to non-uniformed enemy combatants. That's who we're detaining at Git'mo, and in your world, torturing.

You know what real torture is? Reading kblack's post, explaining why he/she/it brings up Bush when we're not even discussing Bush. And torture is reading posts by those who type phonetically. Lazy doesn't even begin to describe such moronic behaviour. I think stupidity drives laziness; in kblack's/tomjeff's/Wolfie's cases, I know it does.

We've been through this GOD they do apply
its in fact explicitly stated. The misstatement that they use to justify this were that
if you were a non-lawful noncombatant then you would not be a POW. However, the 4th convention explicitly states that non-lawful combatants should be accorded due process and be treated with humane conditions. Go read it for the exact phrasing.

Finally , the Supreme court ruled that Bush was incorrect to state that they didn't apply.

So we have been through this and you are just plain wrong

No, no. Real torture is reading a post from someone who declares allegience to the Almighty and yet, in the same "handle" declares that he hates "libs." Slight contradiction for someone who claims allegiance to a deity who sent his only begotten son who commanded that we should "love our neighbors as we love ourselves."

Yes, I will just blame you.

legion wrote, "I trust the RN's navigational competence more than the Iranian Navy's."

So do I, but in this instance the British seamen were captured by "naval forces" of the Iranian Republican (or Revolutionary?) Guards. They're ostensibly a goon squad that is not part of or necessarily controlled by the central government.

The British sailors were where they were, because Dubya lied us into a war.
Anything, and everything, that happens in that theater of war is the responsibility of the Bush administration, and everyday we are over there the odds of it spinning out of control get worse.
Even if this thing escalates into WWIII, nothing will ever change the fact that George W. Bush started the war in Iraq for no good reason.

What I suspect is the many-named sock puppet operated by Mark Noonan wrote:

Let's be real, Bigfoot--these kooks are okay with anything the enemy does to embarrass the U.S./coalition forces in Iraq. The kooks own defeat--if we win, they lose.

That meme has been so overused that it's threadbare. I know you need it and want it, but it has long since outlived its usefulness. People, including those who don't follow politics and international hassles all that closely, aren't buying it any more.

Nobody, left or right, I know of is OK with an Iranian goon squad capturing and detaining British naval personnel.

Grow up, be real and spare us the playground bully approach to political discourse. It will be a hardship, but I'll bet if you really try you can respond to commenters who disagree with your post without calling them "moron" or something equally insulting.

Wade,

Ah, but only in the fevered imagination of the left has the United States violated either the letter or the spirit of the Geneva Convention...you are, deliberately, mixing together apples and oranges...how we treat terrorists at Gitmo or Iranian spies in Iraq has nothing to do with how uniformed British sailors are to be treated in Iran...the uniformed sailors have GC protections, the terrorists and spies don't.

SW,

You'll probably want to go over to DU, Daily Kos and Huffington Post before you boldly state that no one on the left wants the British sailors held captive...given what I've seen in the past, I wouldn't be surprised to find some lefties out there hoping that the sailors are executed.

PM,

Figured you would - because common sense just doesn't appeal to the left these days (if, indeed, it ever did).

Many examples here illustrating how Evan Sayet was right.

iran is called howard dean to send over some human shields.

Just to follow up on what Mark wrote about going to the normal lefty outlets, here is the hufftardian Post on the sanctions placed on Iran after the hostage taking: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/comments/2007/03/24/44169

Guess whose side they take?

Mark Noonan wrote:

. . . given what I've seen in the past, I wouldn't be surprised to find some lefties out there hoping that the sailors are executed.

Given what I've seen at some right-wing blogs, including this one, I wouldn't be surprised to find some righties out there hoping the sailors are executed, so Bush can order another invasion, have another "Mission Accomplished" moment and leave another horrible mess for his successor to have to clean up.

Touché.

Mark:

This country should never under any circumstances employ torture or be a party to any organization that tortures people.

That the United States is now unambiguously associated with torture only further erodes our moral standing.

No benefit ever somes from torturing prisoners.

Wade

Ok, Ok, Ok, this has gotten way out of hand, people here are making references to following dieties? This is all Bush's fault?! I mean, come on people, it sounds like some people here are actually defending Iran? We're talking about 15 Britsh soldiers captured (more than likely)in international waters. How does this have anything to do with Bush? Did Bush order those sailors there?

"Even if this thing escalates into WWIII, nothing will ever change the fact that George W. Bush started the war in Iraq for no good reason."
Posted by: mike h at March 26, 2007 07:44 PM

I actually laughed when I read this. I wont even waste time writing why this is a misguided statement.

Many examples here illustrating how Evan Sayet was right.

Posted by: Leo Pusateri at March 26, 2007 08:42 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen to that!!!

Tis amazing, I feel nothing, no regrets, no pain nor sadness over calling left wing liberal nut jobs exactly what they are!!!! Anti-American, socialist fools! Of course I do feel a bit of compassion as they(majority) are utter fools & usually do think they support........someone ....or something..........hmmmmmm. Yep, fools alright!

Mark:
How dare you suggest that "some lefties" hope the Brittish soldiers are executed. HOW DARE YOU!!!!!
Are you so small and your thinking so arthritic and hateful that you can even vocalize such an ANTI CHRISTIAN hope??
I have some words for you, you disgusting Bushie.
Pat Tillman. An aide to the AG pleading the 5th. The isolation of Bush as written about in the Washington Post by Novak and Kurthheimer (sp, sorry.) The Pew Poll results of last week. Libbys' conviction. Delay conflating "liberals" with the Nazi party in his less than well received book. Chuck Hegel suggesting impeachment as a cure for a president who has married; polygamist like, a lack of integrity, incompetence, corruption and tied it all together with loyality to lies.
The Republican party as a whole running away from Bush and his destructive vision.
He should have been a baseball commisioner; not a world leader who is clearly out of his element.
But you support him, don't you?
To imply: nay, come right out and say that "liberals" support murder of innocents is abhorent. How do you sleep?
Well I guess, if you have no conscious. You should be ashamed, if you have the capacity.

I have yet to see an Asian signatory to the Conventions that adhered to them. Did I miss something? By the way liberals - listen to what REAL torture is:

Japan - Starved American and British POW's to death. Beheaded some. Worked them to death. Regular actual torture sessions that included broken bones. Used British (and some American?) POW's to test biological warfare weapons - MANY died from these experiments.

North and South Korea - Regularly executed each other. The North Korean camps were infamous for the torture and indoctrination techniques they used. In the 60's they captured a U.S. flagged SIGINT ship named the Pueblo and paraded the crew around on television. Unfortunately, they did not realize that the smiling prisoners they said were being well treated were in fact giving them the finger. MANY were tortured and beat up for this afterwards.

North and South Viet Nam - Neither were stalwarts of compassion. We know that the North tortured Americans. Physical torture with broken bones and some dead. That was the airmen. Grunts were regularly tortured to death in the field. There were several reports of tied up and gutted GI's.

The USSR - starved and worked German, Finnish, and Polish prisoners to death. Refused to repatriate many prisoners after the war.

China, Burma, India, Pakistan... how well do you think THEY treat prisoners? Think you'd fare well in Afghanistan? Why should Iran be the odd man out?

Meanwhile, I did not see a single known liberal poster here back up the Brit prisoners. Maybe it goes back to the fact that none of you serve or have served. Maybe it goes back to the fact that you are blood sucking leaches on our society.

And while we're all discussing the fate of these 15 Brits, something pretty cool is happening beneath the radar.

I should have noted that - at least the ones we've been up against (and the USSR) have pretty dismal records. Maybe India and Pakistan would treat you just fine. I must admit, I don't really know how they treated each others prisoners in all those wars they've fought.

Kahn presumptuously wrote:

Meanwhile, I did not see a single known liberal poster here back up the Brit prisoners. Maybe it goes back to the fact that none of you serve or have served.

I'm not sure why a liberal — single, known or incognito — would come here to "back up" the captured British sailors. If it makes you feel better, I have no problem with being tagged liberal and I hope and pray the British sailors are returned safely and soon. They should never have been captured, and the Iranians are fools if they think this somehow advances what they see as their cause.

Also, what makes you think it's OK to flatly state "none of you serve or have served?" The consequence being that doing is sure to convince others you don't know what you're talking about in any other matters, either. FYI, I served 12 years on active duty and two more in the Guard.

"Blood sucking leaches?"(sic)

Are you another Noonan sock puppet ID, or just the product of an upbringing gone terribly wrong?

To imply: nay, come right out and say that "liberals" support murder of innocents is abhorent.

Posted by: tomjeffairplane at March 26, 2007 11:19 PM

ABORTION??????

tomjeff,

You might want to keep in mind that the "good" people over at Daily Kos once wanted me strung up from a lamp post with a meat hook.

Wade,

It is only thanks to a concerted campaign of lies from the American left that "torture" and "America" are joined...the Big Lie really does work, at least for a while.

No, Mark.

It was not the "left" who was responsible for Abu Ghraib.

Wade

Wade,

Yes, the left was - responsible for taking the actions of a few bad apples and broadcasting it better than the wildest dreams of enemy propagandists.

Mark:

Abu Ghraib was revealed to the world through the heroic actions of a military private who after obtaining a CD with the photos felt morally obligated to bring it world wide attention.

It was not simply a case of a few "bad apples" but a systemic problem resulting from a poorly planned war to poorly trained troops and guards. It was the result of "bad barrel makers," as Philip Zimbardo remarked.

You can try to place blame on the left or the media, the New York Times or even Bill CLinton. It does not wash.

The torture that occured at Abu Ghraib and continues at Guantanomo Bay is purely the result and asctions of a Republican president. Thhis same president has tarnished the reputation of AMerica and practically ruined the Republican Party.

Go ahead, Mark, keep blaming the left and the media and Michael Moore. In doing so you fail to address the real problems, allowing them metastize into far more egregious crimes.

Wade

BearmanUSMC wrote:

To imply: nay, come right out and say that "liberals" support murder of innocents is abhorent.

Posted by: tomjeffairplane at March 26, 2007 11:19 PM

ABORTION??????

Bearman, you make a politically convenient and logically faulty assumption that liberals favor abortion. T'ain't so and never has been. What liberals favor is leaving the decision to women and families, not the state.

I don't have statistics, but I'm quite sure nearly all liberals think, as I do, that abortions of convenience are morally wrong and put those who get them on the wrong side of God. But, if getting one is a mistake, it's a woman's mistake to make.

Autonomy over one's own body is, after all, one of the inalienable rights the Constitution recognizes as belonging to every human being, and thus a no-go zone for the state.

It never ceases to amaze liberals that we should have to explain this to those who claim to be conservative these days. Traditional conservatives put keeping the state out of personal and family matters at the top of their to-do list.

"If the british soldiers were in uniform they can't logically have been involved in espionage."
Posted by: Max Power at March 26, 2007 12:58 PM

That makes as much sense as saying that if you paint the US flag on a UAV spy drone it stops being that and becomes a kite.

The powers of a standardised color scheme for clothing, magical as they are, do not prevent the wearer from crossing borders or carrying out surveillence.

Er, the GC's prisoner of war protections apply to uniformed soldiers during a war. If France and Germany are at war, and a uniformed French soldier shoots a German soldier in Germany, he can't be tried for murder under German law. Similarly, if a uniformed French soldier sneaks into Germany and starts taking pictures of a German radar station, he can't be tried for espionage - what he's doing is reconnaissance, a legitimate military activity protected by the GC.

But these only apply a) to uniformed soldiers b) during a war.
If our French soldier is taking pictures while disguised as a German civilian, he loses his protection; legally, he's a spy, not a soldier.

If a French soldier in uniform goes to Germany tomorrow - just drives over the border in his Renault - and shoots a German soldier, he's committed murder, and can be tried as a common criminal. It's time of peace; everyone in Germany is subject to German criminal law.
Or if a French soldier sneaks around the radar station tomorrow, he's committing espionage - whatever clothes he's wearing. Time of peace, you see. Of course, the Germans could decide to treat it as an act of war - a de facto declaration - but they don't have to.

To imply: nay, come right out and say that "liberals" support murder of innocents is abhorent.

Posted by: tomjeffairplane at March 26, 2007 11:19 PM

ABORTION??????
Posted by: bearmanUSMC [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 27, 2007 12:41 AM

B4B SuperHero Rudy Guiliani ?????

next!

You know, throughout this whole thread of comments, I missed the ones where the Lefties came out against the Iranian actions. I wonder why?

The lefties are saying "Gulf of Tonkin" as their talking point. I think I will use "Iranian Hostage Crisis" in mine. You know, where a DEMOCRATIC president ignored a serious violation of the Articles of War and took our people hostage.

Bearman:
Develop a better vocabulary. I did not spell abortion. The word is abhorrent. And Mark, I would not want to see you suspended on a hook. I think your existence is enough subjective misery.

As a rule, espionage is conducted in secret.

Troops in uniform would have a difficult time conducting any operation without observers being able to discern who was sanctioning their actions.

The british soldiers were in uniform, thus it would be difficult to support an arguement that they were involved in covert intelligence gathering.

About the GC issue there are really three issues:

1) should they, or what parts should, apply to those captured in Afganistan

- this I think is pretty clear cut. The 4th Geneva convention explicitly states that unlawful combatants while not accorded "POW" status - should be treated humanely and with due process.

2) how are they being treated

- unfortunately - nobody accept a select few in our government really know the answer to this. As part of the Orwellian nightmare that this administration has created they won't say exactly who is there, why they are there are, or how they *exactly* they are being treated. But the news that has come out from those who have been there doesn't sound all that good. A very large percentage of those who were held for years and then released with no charge - apparently held by accident - have reported conditions which would not be acceptable for a prisoner in the US or a military prisoner and which most people would not consider humane. According to the official policy by written by former government legal council John Yoo - the current administration views torture as something that would be "as serious as organ failure". Now , most people would consider things much less than that torture. Of course its impossible to define exactly what torture is and what it isn't (but as the famous quote goes "i know it when I see it). So the best one can probably do is to say - if I or someone I know were captured by an opposing would I accept this treatment as legitimate? If you can't say that - then you shouldn't be doing it...

Certainly if you have been held in Guitmo for 5 years without a trial - without any contact with the outside wor

3) why is there this obsession with NOT giving people basic GC rights?

Does it really help security to treat people inhumanely - according to the Army's own stance on torture they found that it is unreliable because the person will say/do anything to stop it regardless if it is true or not.So why don't you want to give people due process

Of course if you have the audacity to ask what is going on- they tell you that they can't even tell you anything because it would be a huge threat to national security.. Why? They can't tell you that either. And if you question to much - you must be a terrorist sympathizer or at least unpatriotic and unamerican for asking...

If the 15 did wander into iranian territorial waters they should be tried and prosecuted for this act by a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran an as is customary in such violations when not at war, and lacking a casus belli, they should be repatriated.

This is a matter of clearly defined law not politics.

kahn seems to be confused. Posting stuff here does nothing to help British soldiers. Nothing. iranian decisions are not made based on what you write here.

yes, it would be good to see iran return the British soldiers. I don't think any poster here has done anything that will increase the likelihood of that happening. Americans don't have a lot of leverage with iran. our government has some, and we can pester our officials into negotiating for their return, but I asume that's not a course many here will like, as it suggests our leaders may not be infallible, and that diplomacy might be necessary.

I don't see any real desire amongst conservatives for the soldiers safe return. they are pawns or props, to be used to ancourage certain goals. "Collateral damage" if you will. The lack of empathy or any human feeling is saddening.

Ya know, Iranians are fond of the saying "God is great" and they have generally exiled or executed their liberals. Seems like utopia to some, i'm sure

Did Bush order those sailors there?

Yes. Next stupid question please.

Good news from the past week at Jane's:

"The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) announced on 15 March the successful test of a 30,000 lb (13,600 kg) conventional bomb, which is designed to destroy hardened underground facilities."

I wonder if we have enough prototypes to test their resolve?

William Teach wrote:

You know, throughout this whole thread of comments, I missed the ones where the Lefties came out against the Iranian actions. I wonder why?

S.W. Anderson wrote:

. . .I have no problem with being tagged liberal and I hope and pray the British sailors are returned safely and soon. They should never have been captured, and the Iranians are fools if they think this somehow advances what they see as their cause.

Maybe if you'd set your preconceived notions aside and do some more reading before commenting, you'd learn liberals aren't the anti-American, or in this case anti-British, and anti-military folks right-wing propaganda makes them out to be.

Do you know what 'malice aforethought means?

Well, we could attempt to diffuse this issue via diplomacy, applying relentless pressure behind the scenes, or we could use it to bolster our simplistic views of the world, pursue more adolescent cowboy diplomacy, and use it as a precursor to start another ill-planned war in the middle east.

Gee, I wonder which one the republicans will choose.

Face it folks this is just another mideast ploy to vie for the attention of their peers.."see? I poked a stick at the west too! See? I'm a big boy too!!" they are testing the waters. this had nothing to do with espionage or military action. With the libs so divisive and overtly and aggressively attacking all things conservative in their pathetic power struggle, what have the Iranians to lose? Of course this all comes at a price. The question is do the libs and Iranians really want to pay? We'll find that out as soon as they realize just how steep the price is. As for us conservatives we have no choice. Our understanding is painful enough to bear, but if we leave the world to the fruitcakes we'll be only praying to whomever they allow us. I wonder why the libs don't understand that all the special interest tolerance that they love so much won't be adhered to by our common enemies.
Oh, and let's not forget that the unrest in the middle east has gone on for a lot longer than the republican party's existance, so to say it is due to our foreign policy is ludicrous at best..an outright lie otherwise.