British Marines Captured By Iran 11


I explained that in international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim. For the Royal Navy to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unneccessarily provocative. This is especially true as apparently they were not looking for weapons but for smuggled vehicles attempting to evade car duty. What has the evasion of Iranian or Iraqi taxes go to do with the Royal Navy? The ridiculous illogic of the Blair mess gets us further into trouble.

Incidentally, they would under international law have been allowed to enter Iranian territorial waters if in “Hot pursuit” of terrorists, slavers or pirates. But they weren’t doing any of those things.

Having said all that, the Iranian authorities, their point made, should now hand the men back immediately. Plainly they were not engaged in piracy or in hostilities against Iran. The Iranians can feel content that they have demonstrated the ability to exercise effective sovereignty over the waters they claim.

Any further detention of the men would now be unlawful and bellicose. One of the great problems facing those of us striving hard to prevent a further disastrous war, this time on Iran, is that the Iranian government is indeed full of theocratic nutters.


11 thoughts on “British Marines Captured By Iran

  • Richard II

    >Any further detention of the men would

    >now be unlawful and bellicose. One of

    >the great problems facing those of us

    >striving hard to prevent a further

    >disastrous war, this time on Iran, is

    >that the Iranian government is indeed

    >full of theocratic nutters.

    And what are Blair and Bush, if not theocratic nutters? Didn't Blair say he can murder, in cold blood, as many men, women, and children as he wants, and he'll leave it up to "God" to judge his insanity?

    Why are the lives of a handful of British citizens more important than the lives of the 1000+ Lebanese citizens which Israel, America, and Britain massacred last year for no justifiable military, political – let alone – moral reason?

    Why do we have a right to avenge our own, but those in the Middle East do not?

    As for unlawful. America, with full British backing, has ILLEGALLY imposed brutal economic policies on Iraq against the wishes of the people. Bremer's 100 orders still stand:

    The hand-Over that Wasn't

    Iraq's new patent law – a declaration of war against farmers

    Order 81, of Bremer's 100 orders, authorizes the introduction of GM crops, and gives intellectual property rights to the developers of new seed varieties:

    Critics decry GM rule in Iraq

    America and Britain have ripped up international law, so, now, anything goes.

    If we can't take the "medicine" we dole out to others, we shouldn't prescribe "cures" in the first place.

  • Craig

    Yes, the US neocolonial agenda is indeed driven by theocratic nutters, and they strongly influence Bush and Blair. I have said that repeatedly. I think theocratic government is a very bad idea anywhere.

  • Richard II

    Craig – like many others – has recommended we all attend marches. I've done so, and it's been a waste of time.

    So, it's time to sober up and realise what we're up against – a regime that will ignore peaceful action for change.

    In this well written and informative article, Arundhati Roy describes the experiences Indians have had with peaceful protests over the decades, and how many are now drawing the conclusion that things must turn violent to effect change:
    http://www.tehelka.com/story_main28.asp?filename=

    Arundhati Roy, an Indian, won the 1997 Booker Prize for "The God of Small Things". She has also written books about America's "War on Terrorism", the occupation of Iraq, and Western imperialism:

    More about Arundhati Roy here:
    http://www.chitram.org/mallu/ar.htm

    Arundhati's speech at the opening Plenary of the World Social Forum in Mumbai, on 16 January, 2004:

    "Do Turkeys Enjoy Thanksgiving":
    http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/200401180

  • Craig

    I think we helped get rid of Blair sooner than he wished to go.

    Violence always has victims. It is idiots perpetrating violence who give Blair and Bush the ability to get backing of the extablishment to launch their own much greater violence.

    I can see a role for civil disobedience, and perhaps sabotage damaging only property, if the government were to look set to attack Iran. Wider violence I don't think is helpful, or moral.

  • Strategist

    I don't think the marches have been a complete waste of time. They haven't had the impact they should have had because of the deliberate policy of news blackout (ponder the enormity of that undeniable fact).

    But I think we have still been part of creating a climate that makes it unlikely that New Labour will dare to participate in an attack on Iran or Syria, all without killing or hurting a single innocent person (although I concede that we have done less to achieve this than the men of the Iraqi resistance who have fought).

    Richard II you want to be effective, and succeed. But what New Labour fear the most is the loss of Middle England votes and marginal seats as a direct result of public disgust at the war. The marches have certainly not achieved a breakthrough there. But they haven't done as much damage as violent demonstrations or terrorism would do.

    Don't kid yourself that New Labour at one level were cock-a-hoop about 7/7. It shored up the vote beautifully, gave them something to with which to say, look all our scaremongering of you lot in Middle England has had a basis in reality. Be afraid, and vote us back in.

  • Strategist

    Correction: Don't kid yourself that New Labour weren't cock-a-hoop. The spinmeisters were cock-a-hoop. Oh yes they were, those disgusting bastards.

  • writeon

    Craig,

    I agree, it's probably in the interests of Iran to hand the soldiers back, before things get out of hand. I do, however, and unfortunately, think we're in a run-up period before real hostilities begin, so maybe Iran would be wise to hang on to them a little longer. Seen from an Iranian perspective a low-intensity war with the West has already started and any sign of compromise or lack of resolution could be misinterpreted by their enemies as weakness.

    Personally I regard myself as a realist, a pragmatist and neutral in the extreme. What I don't want to see is more war, we've surely had enough of that particular "solution" and in the Middle East of all places! There's an old Texan saying that goes something like this, "The quickest way to put out a fire is to douse it with gasoline!"

  • Richard II

    A reply to Strategist. I'm a bit late, so he probably won't see this, not that I'm saying anything particularly engaging.

    >I don't think the marches have been a

    >complete waste of time. They haven't

    >had the impact they should have had

    >because of the deliberate policy of

    >news blackout (ponder the enormity of

    >that undeniable fact).

    I guess the point I was trying to make was if a war comes at very little cost to the British taxpayer, the immorality of that war will be overshadowed by concerns much closer to home. If the economy is doing well, and people feel optimistic, Blair can ride that wave, and not worry too much about a conflict abroad. If, on the other hand, the economy is tanking, and people feel let down, then the war could be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back.

    Attacking Iran, however, could incur steep costs, engender broad hostility, agitate fears and concerns that things are getting out of hand, and create widespread anxiety over the long-term consequences of such action. So, perhaps, that is what is giving Blair pause – if he is, indeed, pausing.

    >…look all our scaremongering of you

    >lot in Middle England has had a basis

    >in reality. Be afraid, and vote us

    >back in.

    None of this scaremongering works on me, and there's nothing Blair can say, or a "terrorist" can do, that will make me follow the Pied Piper of Washington.

    2,973 people died on September 11, 2001.

    . In 2002, 90,000 people died in the U.S. due to hospital related infections.

    . 107,000 people died of accidents.

    . 125,000 died of lower respiratory diseases.

    . 65,000 died of influenza/pneumonia

    . 73,000 died of diabetes.

    And on and on the deaths go – and they happen each and every year!

  • MACABHAIRD

    Mr. Murray, I want to thank you for

    sharing your insight and expertise

    on the Alex Jones Program today. I

    had hoped Alex would ask you what

    you think of the suspicious video

    interview of Faye Turney, of HMS

    Cornwall, just days before she was

    sent into disputed/Iranian waters

    in what appears to be a provocation?

    Thank you.

  • John

    Plot the latitude and longitude on Google maps/satellite.

    It appears to be about 10 miles offshore, just where the water starts shallowing and at the edge of the channel.

    A logical place to anchor.

    Decimal latitude and longitude

    you enter in google is about:

    29.833382, 48.716818

    Which corresponds pretty well with

    the degrees, minutes, seconds

    format in this picturefrom

    a helicopter over the ship:
    http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478

Comments are closed.