The UK Servicemember press conference is on TV

[MADem]

Pretty interesting. Turns out they were coerced, put in isolation, blindfolded, stressed.

What a shock....not.

[ShortnFiery]

1. But NO mock executions or physical abuse.

The worst treatment was the "rumor" that Faye Turney was given that the rest of the sailors and marines were sent back home. They let her believe that for four days before coming clean.

They clearly stated that they were *treated humanely.*

Gee, has the world turned upside down, or what? :wow:

[MADem]

2. The very act of 'parading' them contravenes Geneva.

I'm not getting into a "Which government is worse?" game. Two wrongs never make a right. It's not a binary issue.

The business with Faye Turney wasn't a rumor, though. Her OIC got up on TV just a short while ago and told the press that she was told that she was alone, the males had been sent home.

All of them were kept isolated from one another, save for the time they gathered them together and took video of them eating, where they were watched closely and their conversation limited.

They were told if they didn't confess they'd be tossed in jail for seven years. They were interrogated round the clock.

The post - 79 Iranian government has a pisspoor record when it comes to hostage-taking. The only bright spot is that they didn't take 444 days this time.

The capture was illegal; the individuals were carrying out a United Nations (not a George Bush) interdiction mission; the Iranians were dead wrong. Apparently, not one but two GPS systems had them almost two miles from Iranian waters as well.

The press conference was very instructive as to their treatment, and the decisions they took to expedite their release. There's more than some disagreement as to the methods the crew decided to use, with most old-schoolers and even current servicemembers feeling that they shouldn't have agreed to make fake confessions, but that's really a Monday morning quarterback question--the bottom line is that they're home now, they've put their side of the story out there, and the Iranians have some footage to rally the nationalistic beast when shortages rear their ugly heads.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. This press conference is occurring after their 'debriefing' by their government, no?

[MADem]

4. Of course. Likely their debrief started on the plane ride home.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the "flight attendants" on that aircraft were actually UK debriefers. They closed off the entire business class of the plane and made sure they changed. I'm guessing they brought uniforms for them--no opportunity to do laundry, certainly, while held in isolation in a cell.

Keep in mind these people were on a UNITED NATIONS mission.

They weren't working for the "Coalition" when they were taken by Iran.

Keep that in mind. No one here seems to be doing that. Everyone wants to say that it's "OK" for Iran to harrass and detain "UNITED NATIONS" servicemembers who happen to have been loaned out by the UK, because "Bush" did it in Abu Gharaib.


It's a bit amazing how often I am seeing that theme repeated.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I don't really want to argue, but there seems to be some doubt as to

what the UK navy was doing. The British reported that they had boarded a ship and were hunting for smuggled weapons. Yet, I know of no UN authority to inspect vessels and if they were on an UN mission, why were they wearing uniforms without UN insignas?

"The U.K. Navy personnel were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, the U.K.'s Defense Ministry said."


Then there were stories such as this one:
http://news.morningstar.com/news/ViewNews.asp?article=/DJ/200703231050DOWJONESDJONLINE000782_univ.xml&Cat=Economy


DUBAI (AP)--Iranian naval vessels Friday seized 15 U.K. sailors who had boarded a merchant ship in Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf as part of efforts to protect the Iraqi coastline and its oil terminals, U.S. and U.K. officials said.

Do you think the UN would inspect incoming ships to our ports for possible WMDs? It would probably make us safer, but I don't think we would allow it.

[MADem]

6. They were acting under an express UN mandate.

From the Canadian press--dateline, United Nations:

Still, with this crisis having been sparked by an Iranian claim that the British crew had crossed into Iranian waters as they acted under UN mandate to inspect a cargo ship near the Iraq-Iran maritime boundary, it is expected Britain will continue direct contact with Iran at least to draw up a formula aimed at avoiding further clashes.

Peter MacKay, Canada's Foreign Minister, had called arrest of the Britons an "unacceptable incident."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f915d8b6-8744-44c9-90ec-50863509130b&k=88599


Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891790.htm

Iran says they had strayed into its waters, but Britain says they were in Iraqi waters on a regular United Nations mission.

And you have to ask, why did Ban Ki-Moon get involved if he didn't feel some responsibility?