You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran Shows Video of British Crew
2007-03-28
Iranian state TV showed video Wednesday of 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive in a white tunic and a black head scarf who said the British boats had "trespassed" in Iranian waters. Britain called the broadcast "completely unacceptable" and said it was concerned that the statements from sailor Faye Turney were coerced. The British government earlier released what it called proof the boat crews were seized in Iraqi waters, and said it was freezing all contacts with Iran except negotiations to release them.

Iran's foreign minister said Turney—the only female captive—would be freed on Wednesday or Thursday, but British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said it had received no confirmation of that. The British military said its vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were taken Friday, and it released what it said were the GPS coordinates that proved that.

Several hours later, Tehran broadcast the video on an Arabic-language satellite channel, along with a letter from Turney saying the sailors and marines were inside Iranian waters when they were captured. "Obviously we trespassed into their waters," Turney said, sitting by herself against a floral curtain and smoking a cigarette. "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," she said.

Turney, 26, was also shown eating with several fellow sailors and marines. What appeared to be a handwritten note from Turney to her family said, in part, "I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering their waters." The video also showed a brief scene of what appeared to be the British crew sitting in an Iranian boat in open water immediately after their capture.

Before the video was broadcast, a Blair spokesman said any showing of British personnel on TV would be a breach of the Geneva Conventions. "It's completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television," the Foreign Office said after the broadcast. "There is no doubt our personnel were seized in Iraqi territorial waters."

The statement also demanded that British diplomats be given immediate access to them as a "prelude" to their release. The Foreign Office said it had "grave concerns" about Turney's state of mind when she spoke on video. "I am very concerned about these pictures and any indication of pressure on or coercion of our personnel," said Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. She added that Britain had "comprehensively demonstrated today that our personnel were operating inside Iraqi territorial waters."

British officials declined to comment after the broadcast on whether it violated the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. The chief spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross also declined to comment, saying the ICRC was not involved. President Bush spoke to Blair over a secured video conference call about the standoff Wednesday, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. "The president fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain," she said.

Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday—a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position two miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters—a claim he said was not verified by global positioning system coordinates. "It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said.

Style gave the satellite coordinates of the British crew as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude, and said it had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki denied this, saying, "That's not true. It happened in Iranian territorial waters." Iraq and Iran have never agreed on the ownership of waters near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where Britain said the sailors and marines were seized. Fixing the dividing line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf.

Mottaki told The Associated Press in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that Turney would be released Wednesday or Thursday, and he suggested that the British vessels' alleged entry into Iranian waters may have been a mistake. "This is a violation that just happened. It could be natural. They did not resist," he told the AP. "Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Mottaki said Wednesday on the sidelines of an Arab summit in the Saudi capital.

The Iranian Embassy in London also said: "We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation."

In a first act of retribution against Iran, Beckett suspended bilateral talks with Tehran on all other issues. Visits by officials were stopped, issuing visas to Iranian officials suspended and British support for events such as trade missions put on hold, her office said. Oil prices rose by more than $1 a barrel Wednesday as the standoff continued and on rumors that Iran had fired a missile at a U.S. ship in the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. is carrying out its largest sequence of military maneuvers since the launch of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In 2004, eight British sailors were captured as they were delivering a patrol boat to the Iraqi Riverine Patrol Service. Britain described the mission as "routine" but Tehran accused them entering Iranian waters illegally. A day later, Iran said the sailors would be put on trial, and Iranian TV broadcast video of them blindfolded and sitting on the ground. Two of them later read a statement of apology for entering Iran's territorial waters, saying it was a mistake. The sailors later told reporters they had been mistreated and subjected to mock executions. The eight were eventually returned to British diplomats in Tehran and flown back to Iraq. Iran initially promised to return the seized boats, but later decided to keep them for display at Tehran's War Museum. The Iranians also kept the crew's GPS equipment, and their coordinates have never been released.
Posted by:Fred

#27  com'on let's see some throat slicing...don't you miss it? Kill the limy bastards. Cowards...Basara..pffff...the The Swiss could have held Basara...
Posted by: Saveababykillademocrat   2007-03-28 23:24  

#26  The CIA has always preferred to hire "gentlemen" from the Ivy Leagues, Swan dear. It's nothing to do with being Left or Right, and everything to do with being One of Us. That crowd despise President Bush because he rejected them by going down to Texas -- even to the point of his accent -- much as a previous generation loathed FDR for betraying his class. (In fact Barbara Bush still won't speak FDR's name, that was so drilled into her in her youth.) Such is their loathing, that they've openly worked to sabotage whatever Bush does, even though he invaded Iraq based on CIA repeated assurances that Saddam Hussein had serious stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Equally, the mainstream media decided before the 2000 election that Bush was some sort of crazed Rightwing, radical Christian set to force us all to be baptized and study the Gospels instead of evolution in our schools. Based on the reportage I've seen in the New York Times, et all since the 2000 campaign, they haven't been interested in investigating anything that contradicts those memes -- with a few interesting exceptions. That's why I ended up here at Rantburg -- the news is raw, not predigested pap, and for the most part the commentary is startlingly well-informed. Stick around, Mr. Rutgers student, and you'll learn things well worth knowing.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-03-28 21:29  

#25  Devilstoe....the Iranians notified the Brits of the GPS co-ordinates. Unfortunately for them, those were in Iraq waters. Two days later, the Iranians changed the co-ordinates to Iran water. Iranians lie, always have, always will. It's hereditary.
Where is the Geneva convention outrage from the EU rights organizations regarding uniformed military captives being forced to wear an islamic headscarf for the cameras?
Posted by: Phineter Thraviger   2007-03-28 21:28  

#24  Bat Boy!
Posted by: Mark E.   2007-03-28 21:25  

#23  Or maybe it was aliens. Weekly World News told me so.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-03-28 21:16  

#22  funny that the report didn't factor in the 5X as many Clintonista-purgegate-prosecutors that were fired and replaced with obedient cronies ie, 'friends of Bill' in the 1990s...
Posted by: Swan Dive   2007-03-28 21:14  

#21  OT

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

Re: prosecutor-purgegate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10315.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10322.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldnÂ’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldnÂ’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldnÂ’t talk about it.
Posted by: Swan   2007-03-28 20:55  

#20  Actually I think the opposite Devil, I think the mullahs was getting scared that W was going to attack and took some leverage.
Posted by: djohn66   2007-03-28 20:44  

#19  Guys, Devilstoenail is rhodesiafever's son. They live in England, and both father and son are on the side of the angels.

Devilstoenail dear, Rantburgers play rough. But stick it out, learn what they have to teach, and they'll come to respect you as much as they do your father. You came here because you wanted to learn more than BBC drivel, and so you shall. And you'll get one round the ear 'ole to let you know when you absorbed some BBC rot without noticing. That's 'cause they aren't treating you like a kid. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-03-28 20:37  

#18  I'd prefer the SAS to get Sadrs head and airdrop it into the Iranian home of Imonajihad.

He obviously can't cope with English, so use the universal language.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2007-03-28 19:38  

#17  DevilToe Nail Man, talk to yur, dad.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-03-28 18:24  

#16  If the Brits really desire to make a statement, Gordon Brown would stand up in Parliament and announce an emergency 50% increase in the MoD budget for the current fiscal year. Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: mrp   2007-03-28 17:48  

#15  In June 2004, eight British sailors and marines were detained for three days in Iran after being seized during another routine operation. They were paraded blindfold on television and forced to apologise for their "mistake."


On that occasion Iran insisted that the British boats -- which it has not yet returned -- were intercepted only after they entered Iranian waters on the Shatt al-Arab.


Sorry, Brits have no excuse for allowing Iran to again publically humiliate their military.

Thus, Brits should get troops back, roll out serious career ending sanctions on appropriate chain of command, exact double + payback on the slightest Iranian transgression in that area-I'm talking body count and reduction of iranian naval assets, and finally, don't let it happen again.

Posted by: Lanny Ddub   2007-03-28 17:41  

#14   Take it easy on toenail. He's not saying he thinks it is a conspiracy, he's just saying maybe. I find it hard to blame him for being skeptical about it.

He's not skeptical - he's a true-blue Moby-style provocateur.
Posted by: mrp   2007-03-28 17:30  

#13  Jesus Christ I'm an idiot. That word is supposed to be important.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-03-28 17:10  

#12  Take it easy on toenail. He's not saying he thinks it is a conspiracy, he's just saying maybe. I find it hard to blame him for being skeptical about it. He's not an American (all Americans should know better than to think Iran wouldn't do this) so perhaps his country doesn't view Iran the way ours does. This move is so mystifyingly fucking stupid, I can see it being tough to wrap an inexperienced (WRT Iran) brain around.

The inportaby part is, he wants them wacked anyway.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-03-28 17:08  

#11  
Actually I have come to a similar conclusion. None of anything is real. This is just a dream. It's all about me.

However, in my dream we bomb them back to the stone age.
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2007-03-28 16:59  

#10  Moby
Posted by: mrp   2007-03-28 16:56  

#9  GET IRAQ'S OIL!
Yeah, I got mine--it came on Tuesday. It was the super-duper-secret payoff to all of us war supporters. Bet you those Leftards didn't know how right they've been all along. I keep mine behind the couch downstairs, because I like the way it sounds when I thump the barrels.

:-D Do you think actually reading this makes them realize how dump that war-for-oil meme has been?
Posted by: eLarson   2007-03-28 16:55  

#8  DT - makes perfect senses, cause we all know - the Iranians would NEVER be party to an illegal kidnapping.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-03-28 16:54  

#7  Hmmm. Is Rosie O'donnell using the pseudonym
"Devilstoenail" now?
Posted by: GK   2007-03-28 16:49  

#6  Gee, perhaps you could weigh the relative credability of the two parties, one a dictatorial theocracy with a history of lying and seizing hostages, and the other a democratically elected government in a country with a free press and a history of openness. But I guess you already have, huh?
Posted by: Mark E.   2007-03-28 16:48  

#5  Yes, Devilstoenail, because we all know that BUSH LIED! Right? and HALLIBURTON WANTS IRAN'S OIL! and BLAIR LIED TOO! just so we could GET IRAQ'S OIL!!! because it's so much BETTER now that oil prices have gone up, right? What next? 9/11 was an inside job? the attacks in London and Madrid were organized by the Mossad? the Japs were tricked into attacking Pearl Harbor?

Try to think. Quit reading the NYT.

There is no need to manufacture a casus belli -- we've already got ample supplies of that, thanks to thirty years of rule by the mad mullahs.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2007-03-28 16:47  

#4  this just all seems like the perfect excuse to go to war over.
Yeah. Because war is just so fun. Why we do it just for sport! Because we LOVE IT!

Posted by: eLarson   2007-03-28 16:22  

#3  Quite possibly, no no, but possibly the sailors were sent into Iranian waters, knowing that they would be captured, then who do we believe? I don't know, I'm just saying it sounds to perfect to be true if you like and it could be a massive publicity stunt to try and boost ratings to go to war (which we should)
Posted by: Devilstoenail   2007-03-28 16:20  

#2  Unless you're sayin that these sailors are imaginary, I maybe don't understand.

Are you saying the coordinates are bogus?
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-03-28 16:09  

#1  Although normally being in full support, and that all of us here want to see Iran's nuclear program 'abolished' by all means necessary, does this not all seem to perfect.
The US army as I've read today is hoarding just outside of Iran's boarders, with massive war games only a few miles off the coast of Iran, this just all seems like the perfect excuse to go to war over.
We have all been here waiting to see what Blair will do, and now there appears to be mass confusion over what is happening (Iran convinced it's there water, Britain claiming it Iraq's, break of Geneva convention) was that not what happened with Afghanistan (yes we're glad it happened, but it happened in mass confusion, same as Iraq... where are the WMD's)
Although Iran is a threat, if this is all one big lie to go to war over... and please hear me out, it could be one big cover up just to lead and convince the British and American public that war is the answer (which it is, but 75% people in the UK are already fed up with the other 2)

Sorry to cast doubts into the integrety on British and US Governments, but this wouldn't be the first time, evidence can be made up, neither side wants to lose face. Convince me otherwise. e-mail whatever!
Posted by: Devilstoenail   2007-03-28 15:58  

00:00