March 25, 2007
FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by IranÂ’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.
Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”
The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.
However, as Captain Ed points out, this announcement is a clear statement of intent to violate international law as found in the Geneva Conventions.
The Iranians cannot try the men for espionage if they captured the sailors in uniform. Article 46 of the Geneva Convention states this clearly:
2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.The indictment of British sailors in uniform as spies will violate the GC. Can we expect the same level of outrage over this explicit violation as the supposed violations of the US government?
Now since the status of those captured in uniform, as opposed to those captured out of uniform (like, for example, al-Qaeda jihadis), they cannot face criminal charges but must instead be treated as POWs. On the other hand, those captured out of uniform can be so tried, according to whatever for their captors see fit. If this situation does not make the matter clear to even the most dense of observers (including BDS-suffering American leftists), then nothing will.
Oh, and by the way -- the Iranians attacked US and Iraqi forces INSIDE IRAQ recently. Sounds like an act of war to me. Too bad Congress won't let us respond appropriately.
Personally, I like the suggestion at the Jawa Report for dealing with this act of naked aggression by the Iranians. So what if we have to print maps that read "Sea of Glass" where "Iran" used to be.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stix Blog, Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pet's Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pentimento, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger, Pirate's Cove, LaTogaStrappata®, The Pink Flamingo, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, LaTogaStrappata®, sissunchi, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
07:56 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 7 kb.
It is sad to read that you are a teacher. Poor students, leaving the classroom believing that they have learnt history, when they have been served nothing but propaganda.
Note that the Geneva convention says that the uniformed soldiers must be party in a conflict. There is no war between Iran and Great Britain.
That said, I think the British soldiers in any event are much better off in Iranian custody than in Guantanamo where people are held indefinitely deprived of all the rights which your president (a religious fanatic, albeit one who reads the bible instead of the koran) claims to defend. Oh, and you don't count civilians, so I suppose nobody died in the tragedy in New York. After all, when you don't count civilian casualties, that must apply to both sides, must it not?
Posted by: Kjetil Kilhavn at Mon Apr 9 17:32:52 2007 (bV5MB)
I won't get into the rest of your ignorance -- because those at Gitmo are clearly irregular enemy combatants, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore being treated in accord with the same. Actually, I believe they are receiving better than what is required -- Geneva allows them to be executed for their crimes.
As for 9/11 -- FUCK YOU! And as for your insult against and blasphemy regarding the Bible, I find it interesting that you are willing to make such an insult. After all, you know that Christians will not kill you for doing so, while a similar insult against the Koran would result in your death at the hands of your fellow barbarians.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Apr 9 22:09:41 2007 (F93d6)
Posted by: Larcik-fb at Wed Jan 21 17:48:39 2009 (TAhPY)
Posted by: ellaelax-mq at Tue May 19 03:26:16 2009 (Jm0Dh)
21 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.