1. The protections of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Accords are only binding among mutual signatories. They were, after all, only intended to civilize war among the European nations. If Iran (I suspect) is not a signatory, they owe us no such rules, and we owe them no such rules. The gloves are off on both sides.
2. The primary principle of any naval operation is force protection. These sailors should have had orders to defend themselves if threatened, and swift reinforcements should have been ready for launch. A couple of attack helos on deck with full ordnance loads and crew in the seats could have been on scene and sinkin' 'em in a couple minutes, if they'd been readied.
3. In these days of GPS, there is no reason for any force to not know who's offsides and who isn't.
I could go on like this for a long time. But until we (meaning Western Civilization) get over mincing about with these people, we're just going to see more and more of this kind of thing.
Niccolo - Iran is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, as are about 188 nations (just about all the nations). You should remember the cardinal rule of commenting: "Google before writing."
Your other points are valid, and it goes without saying that the British navy should have been better prepared for such events. However, my points were directed against peace protesters and the ACLU. These hypocrites can only find fault with and criticize the United States, even when such criticism is totally unwarranted, and have no voice against the true violators of international law and enemies of peace.
Just because the British Navy did an unbelievably poor job of conducting their mission and protecting their people doesn't mean that the peace protesters and ACLU aren't monumental hypocrites.
However, trust the Iranians, the British people, the Germans, and all the rest of the "peace loving" peoples of the world to eventually determine that it's all the fault of the United States.
I believe it's easy to find fault with our policies of keeping prisoners of war. Notice that this administration has stopped using the term "unlawful combatant". We're closing Gitmo. While we will probably always have some sort of holding area for enemy combatants, we are acting to reverse the stain on our good name. If it were up to me, Bush would hang at the Hague. Why? I had no problem with any of his strategy in war. Lying to the American people about reasons for war was annoying, but not something for which I'd label him a criminal. Same goes with micro-managing the intelligence process to produce what he wanted. When it comes to war, the president can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.
No, it was re-introducing torture. In the last administration, you have the CIA asking for them to repeat what they said and put it in writing, you have Rumsfeld telling the Abu Ghraib general to make sure that harsh interrogation happens (like why the hell should he have cared?), and you have them wracking their brains for terms like "unlawful combatant".
How long did it take for them to wrangle the prior policies before they could use recognized torture techniques as part of interrogations? Why would they have to argue semantics with people about what does and does not constitute torture. Why would they drag our nation down like that?
On top of that, before they came out in the open with it, they had been sending people to Uzbekistan and Egypt to be tortured. I've heard that in Uzbekistan, the victim has a much higher chance of being killed in the process (boiled alive for instance).
When the Red Cross cannot say what they think for fear they'll lose access to prisoners, you know things are bad. When your own people send out photos to get into the media because they feel what is going on is wrong, you know things are bad. When the CIA asks for clarification because they don't believe you just said what you did and want ass coverage in case things go south legally (the CIA!) you know things are bad. What the hell is wrong with you, seriously?
I can't wait for the day when Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until dead. They made something which is unethical and should be a crime part of official policy.
On the rest of your points, I agree, Iran is not honoring its agreement if it tries the service members. Extracting confessions is BS. Claiming territory waters that are beyond what is generally accepted is old hat, pretty much all nations do that.
About your wish that "Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are tried, convicted, and hung by the neck until dead," no matter how long you live, you won't see that. We don't even do that to real criminals.
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassm...th-
penalty.html
About lying to the American people about the reasons for the war, I can shovel quotes on you from Bill Clinton and Democrats during his administration saying the same things Bush did.
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassm...-
condemned.html
Terrorist groups, as most but far from all people know, are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and almost all of their activities are illegal in terms of international law concerning warfare. They provide no protections for prisoners, such as access by the Red Cross, and torture and execute them openly. Of course signatories to the Geneva Convention, such as North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, China, Japan and Germany during World War II, and the Soviet Union did the same, only not as openly and accompanied by thunderous denials. The difference between the US and the nations I've mentioned is that the US did no barbarous acts to prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention, and the named states did. Another big difference: the Left supported most of the regimes as they committed atrocities against prisoners while condemning the US.
From your position on Bush and Cheney, I assume you applauded the trial and execution of Saddam. He certainly was guilty of torture, murder, and atrocities such as illegal gas warfare against both his own people and Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war.
Torture should not be used, but from what I've seen and heard, what the US did to prisoners was far down on the scale of torture and was more a harsh method of interrogation. Many fraternity hazings are worse, and I was treated more roughly in certain phases of Basic and Officer training than most of our prisoners were. My oldest son served at Abu Ghraib, and his unit was disciplined and professional. The prisoner abuse was done by a unit that was not trained and professionally supervised. There has been no credible testimony that what they did was in accordance with orders or higher direction.
War is nasty business, particularly involving terrorists. I think it is a miracle that US forces have conducted themselves overwhelmingly in a professional and disciplined manner, and I salute them and applaud their performance.
Diginess
The Wall Street Journal has a timely aticle pertinent to this topic: http://online.wsj.com/
article_em...MDMyNDAyWj.html
Although Obama has decreed that "enemy combatant" is declasse, "To avoid using enemy combatants, we instead get "individuals captured in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations," or "members of enemy forces," or "persons who [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Is that clear?
The Obama Justice Department further: "Justice argues that the U.S. has the right to hold indefinitely, without legal charges, those who "substantially supported" al Qaeda or the Taliban, reserving the right to define what qualifies as "substantial" in each case. It also extends its writ to people who support terror networks away from the battlefield, such as financiers."
The Journal article concludes "that Mr. Obama has come around on one of the most rancorous controversies of the last eight years. Even so, Mr. Obama's supporters must be suffering some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder, because on the range of Bush antiterror policies that Mr. Obama has largely preserved -- interrogation, surveillance, rendition, state secrets, now detention -- no one seems to be vilifying him with the same intensity."
Read the entire WSJ article to get the full flavor of Obama following the same course as President Bush.
So it's the "same old, same old." Do you have spare rope for Obama and his Justice Department?
Commenting by HaloScan
