Captives 'May Face Trial' (British sailors)

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: Sky News

Iran's ambassador to Moscow has said the British sailors and marines seized in the Gulf eight days ago may face trial and legal moves have begun, it is reported.

"It is possible that the British soldiers who entered into Iranian waters will go on trial for taking this illegal action," Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari told Russian television channel Vesti-24, according to Iran's IRNA news agency.

"The legal phase concerning these British soldiers has started and if charges against them are proven, they will be punished," said Ansari.

IRNA said he made the comments on Friday evening. It gave no further details.

Read more: Sky News

[still_one]

1. Iran is misjudging this entire incident. If they release the 15 sailors

they would be viewed favorablly in world opinion. Instead they want to have a pissing contest, and if they continue to push this, not only will they lose international support, but risk unforseen consequences.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran

[youngdem]

3. To the West, they look as you describe

Their intended audience however is in the other direction.

They are paying us back for the detention of their countrymen in Iraq, and I suspect, for Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. This is to expose our weakness on this issue.

What are we going to argue in our attempt to free them? That they are illegally detained? That they didn't do anything wrong? That we are gonna bomb them? Rich excuses and threats.

We are impotent in such situations now because of how WE treat prisoners and foreign adversaries in diplomatic situations. This is meant to expose that, and to embarrass us because of our inability to accomplish even very minor diplomacy due to our policies and personnel.

What countries of the world have realized is that it is easy to stand up to us now that we have a fully occupied army and no diplomatic skills.

Frankly, I don't see their position as untenable. I don't agree with taking the soldiers captive, but we have some Iranians in custody that we are refusing to treat in accordance with international law, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? They are just doing the only thing that works with these administrations (Bush and Blair), fighting fire with fire. Because, as with all bullies, these two morons don't quite know what to do when the victim stands up to them.

We have to understand that our unreal hypocrisy has REAL consequences.

[still_one]

4. The U.S. has the Iranians, NOT THE BRITS

The only audience that they will get favor with will be the Shia, the Sunni, and most of the Arab world are not going to have much sympathy for Iran.

As for your premise that blair or bush woundn't bomb them, I wouldn't count on it. They are looking for the slightest excuse to do such a thing, and if that happens Iran WILL be on its own. The Sunni sure aren't going to come to their aid, and Russia will not engage militarily against the U.S. or the Brits in this.

The one thing it will do is increase the price of oil, perhaps to a 100 bucks a barrel.

Hopefully, the sailors will be released, and this will not escalate any further, but I wouldn't count on the U.S. releasing the Iranians. I am assuming you are talking about the Iranians we detained in the Iranian embasy in Iraq?

Funny, but the very thing we were upset about when the Iranians took our people hostage in the U.S. embasy in Iran, we are doing.

Again, hopefully diplomacy will suceed, but if it doesn't, I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was bombed.

As I said before this administration is looking for any reason to do it, and they don't need Congressional approval either. In fact, I would not be surprised if at least a third of the Democrats in Congress would support it.

Lets hope cooler heads prevail

[Kagemusha]

5. Distinction without a difference, and Blair sanctimoniously cheered those detentions

He's been telling the press how that's COMPLETELY different from the seizure of Brits and that one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other, because the Brits are there at the behest of the UN while Iran is not, so butt out.

[still_one]

6. I sure am not going to defend the detentions of the Iranians by us

from my understanding they were in their embassy in Iraq when it occurred which makes it even more of a double standard

[Kagemusha]

10. Not embassies technically but only technically

Like, one was basically the Iranian embassy to Kurdistan, dating back from when the US was protecting it with a no-fly zone, but Kurdistan isn't a country, and the er, Iraqi sovereign government was going to get it approved as a consulate I guess. There's another one in Basra. That wouldn't normally be unusual.

So while not embassies, the Iranians were honored guests of Kurds and Arabs of extremely high importance in the government, including the president of the country himself. The US didn't care, and still doesn't.

[still_one]

19. The bottom line for me is we should be out of Iraq

It is now up to the Iraqiis to solve their problems, many of which were a result of our actions

As far as Iran is concerned, they should release the British sailors.

I don't think either one will happen soon

[daleo]

22. To much of the world the U.S. and U.K. are one and the same thing

Tweaking the lion's tale is the same as pulling the eagle's feather (or some such metaphor). I don't suppose the British people like it, though.

I hope the Iranians give the hostages back too, with some face saving measures for both sides. It would be awful for this to become the causus belli for another war. Sadly, Bush is probably thinking along those very lines right now.

[ckramer]

37. Quite right

They seem to step over the line.

Dumb move.

Edit - Tony also wasn't doing it right. Can Britain invade Iran just by herself?

[Eugene]

2. Envoy says arrested British sailors could be tried (IRNA)

Source: IRNA

Envoy says arrested British sailors could be tried

Moscow, March 31, IRNA

Iran-Britain-Sailors

Iran's Ambassador to Moscow Gholam-Reza Ansari said here Friday
that the 15 British naval personnel arrested for trespassing Iranian
territorial waters could be tried for violation of international law.

Ansari was speaking to the Russian TV news channel Vesti-24 on the
ongoing standoff over the arrest of the 15 British marines by Iranian
forces in Arvand River in the northern part of the Persian Gulf on
March 23.

"Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been
launched. They will be tried if there is enough evidence of guilt."

But the ambassador hinted at a diplomatic settlement, saying "if the
UK government admits its mistake and apologizes to Iran for its naval
personnel's trespassing of Iranian territorial waters, the issue can
be easily settled."

-snip-

News sent: 11:59 Saturday March 31, 2007


Read more: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0703314703115914.htm

---

EDIT: Replaced story with corrected version

Original story: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0703317739112150.htm

[pampango]

7. Try them for what? Trespassing?

You can't try them as spies if they were in military uniform. (Unless you want to try them for being very poor spies.)

If you want the world to consider them to be POW's, not hostages, you can imprison them as captured soldiers, but you can't try them. It would be like trying German soldiers captured in France for trespassing on French soil. We could hold them, exchange them, or release them, but we couldn't try them for doing what soldiers do. (This assumes that the British sailors were indeed in Iranian waters, which is still under dispute.)

[bemildred]

8. Trust me, they can try them if they want to.

Logic has nothing to do with it.

[pampango]

9. I realize that politics trumps logic in almost all cases and for almost all

governments. :eyes:

[Eugene]

11. Iran warns Britain over politicising sailor crisis

Source: Agence France-Presse

Iran warns Britain over politicising sailor crisis

by Hiedeh Farmani
38 minutes ago

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran on Saturday again warned Britain against politicising
the seizure of its 15 navy personnel, saying that could complicate efforts
to resolve the escalating crisis.

The warning from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki came as a senior
Iranian diplomat said legal proceedings had begun against the sailors and
marines for illegally entering Iranian waters but denied reports of a trial.

"British leaders should avoid media storms and politicisation to prevent a
further complication of the affair," Iranian media quoted Mottaki as telling
his Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, in a telephone conversation.

The government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair has received strong
backing from both the United States and the European Union, with Tehran
on Saturday slamming the EU's "irrational" support.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070331/ts_afp/iranbritainmilitary_070331142427

[agincourt]

12. Whenever the conservatives are in trouble,

Iran always does something to give them a boost, like clockwork.

[INDIA]

13. What are you implying? n/t

[agincourt]

18. Hitler said once

A hard core communist could be converted to Nazism, a social democrat never would. Even though they risk war with helping RW politicians, I beleive they think conservatives are much more likely to embrace hard Islam rather then liberals so they help the conservative faction politically. You must think inside the Mullah's mind. If I wanted to help create a radical Islamic world I would try to turn fundamentalist Christians rather then secular humanists. Richard Dawkings in his book "The God Delusion" makes the point that there really isn't much difference between Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim. Secular Liberal humanists are much farther into infidelism than a conservative bible thumping Christian would be. All you have to do is get him or her started on the Koran. I think they are pulling strings. Laugh if you will.

[Igel]

14. Are you talking about Iranian or

American conservatives?

[agincourt]

17. American

During the 1988 campaign Iran's persian gulf exercises helped the Bush campaign. Of course Carter would have had a much better chance in 1980 if the hostages were home. Now when the crimminals in power get a little heat from the new congress we have this incident. Khobar towers if done by Iran would have hurt Clinton in 1996. It's like they are trying to move our political system to the right even risking war while doing so. Do they perchance think that conservatives would be a better convert to Islam then liberals? Call me mad but it makes sense to me.

[hack89]

36. Have you ever considered ...

that it is the Iranian conservatives that are in trouble and needed to manufacture a distraction? Iran has enough internal problems of their own.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Are you suggesting...

that the Iranian government, under pressure, decided to invade Iraqi waters, kidnap British sailors, take them back to Iranian territory, and claim they had entered Iranian waters?

Because that's just silly.

[hack89]

43. Sure - look at the results

Iran is seen throughout the ME as standing against the West - England and the US are seen as weak. The Iranians know we won't attack.

[Eugene]

15. Update: Ansari now says he was mistranslated.

Source: IRNA

Envoy rejects report of Russian TV network
Moscow, March 31, IRNA

Russia-British Sailors-Iran
Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Gholam-Reza Ansari on Saturday dismissed the
remarks attributed to him by a Russian television network about the possible
trial of the arrested British sailors.

The statement was part of an exclusive interview with IRNA.

The Iranian diplomat said that what he told Vesti 24 television on Friday was
that the case of detention of British sailors has taken on a judicial form.

Ansari said that the TV network made a mistake in translating part of the
interview concerning the arrested British servicemen and declared by mistake
the possibility of their trial.

-snip-

Read more: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0703314917173050.htm

[Taxloss]

24. Tsk, the standard of translators nowadays, especially in Farsi. Always getting what the regime says

wrong! Especially when whatever it is reflects badly on them.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. If the roles were reversed,

I greatly doubt the Iranian soldiers would have been taken alive, they would probably have been blown out of the water and reported to the world as a squad of suicide bombers who were sucessfully intercepted.

[INDIA]

23. WTF? Roles Reversed?

You mean like the Iranians being in Iraqi waters? Guess what, that "role reversal" is most likely what actually happened. The Iranians WERE in Iraqi waters, and the British were almost definitel NOT in Iranian waters.

[Kagemusha]

27. Just for my information, who decides that it's not Iranian waters, anyway?

I mean seriously. Who decided that? Saddam never signed a treaty with Iran on the point after their little 8 year war over that and other issues. So who decided that there's an internationally recognized border that Iran is bound to heed and obey, anyway?

[INDIA]

30. The U.N/Iraqi Government. n/t

[Kagemusha]

31. Uh, really?

The U.N. declared a border with the cooperation of the Iraqi government without a treaty with Iran?

That's not how I understand the U.N. to work re: every other similar border dispute since the U.N.'s creation so I am expressing some surprise.

[JetCityLiberal]

40. No, you are wrong

nothing new.

[Phelan]

35. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 n/t

n/t

[Kagemusha]

38. k, I'll look into it and see if it did define a border there

because it's really odd that experts in the region have not mentioned this before...

[PATRICK]

20. A smarter motive,

which unfortunately is usually either smaller or even imaginary compared to big dumb motives like risking war for public morale consumption, is always something I like to pick out.

The weakest link in the plot to hit Iran among the actual armies might be Britain. Israel is set and so is the US under Bush. Maybe this is a test of the weak spot diplomatically of those most politically reluctant to be seen as instigators of a programmed war. Pretty dangerous tactic and unlikely it was planned beforehand. Maybe though they are yanking the Brit chain to get SOME leverage in this heretofore open Juggernaut plot to make an inevitable strike(while posing unbelievably as not doing such a thing at all). Note that the Saudis have suddenly been tipped and the excuse factory of the iran strike force has been put on the defensive. The Saudis are the second weakest plotter in this new mess simply because they have to rally against a common cause and outrage symbolic of so many worse ones they'd prefer their fellow Muslims not notice(re. their role).

This is perhaps a part of the "public consumption" argument that cannot be seen in Western media whose sole offering is "our team" and the big dumb Iranian "outrage". The danger is that so far the pretext for war still is ominous, advancing and weakly enjoined now by the sucker indignation of the EU.

15 sailors in captivity don't seem much like 650,000 murdered Iraqis. Millions more to be killed on schedule in Iran are more hostage to fate than the 15 are. In the past even Hussein released his Western
captives as his own people faced inevitable slaughter. If there is a math to outrage something is always missing in the Western equation.

[stormymonday]

21. The problem is who has set up this incident and for what aim ?

Who stands to benefit most and who is likely to be the loser ?

As far as I can see the big winners in this scenario however it plays out are likely to be the hawks in Washington and Tehran.

A question for all you tin foil hat aficionados out there - who supplies the GPS data to the British navy ?

Have they been used to bait a trap ?

[cali]

25. Well,

As the latest news is that GB is preparing to send a high level military person to Iran to hand deliver a promise to the Iranians that the Brits will never knowingly enter Iranian waters in the future, that kind of blows your theory away.

[stormymonday]

26. Sorry I do not understand your point

If the UK deliberately sent its naval personnel into Iranian waters to provoke an incident as a potential 'casus belli' why would they then suddenly decide to reverse course and issue a promise never to do so again. Surely rather than being conciliatory they would be seeking to spin out the crisis. This public humiliation of the British government is exactly what the hardliners in Tehran wanted when they seized the sailors in the first place. Whether the act was opportunistic or premeditated remains to be proven. Nor do I see how Cheney & Co in Washington are loser in the affair since the events allows them to paint the Iranian government as dangerous and unpredictable. If they are looking for that 'Gulf of Tonkin' moment then this is the sort of scenario that could provide it.

With regard to potentially spoofing GPS this is a known risk in the civilian world so it is likely to be an option of electronic warfare

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/external/c-adi/seals/spoof.shtml
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/archive/2001/Oct/FinalReport-v4.6.pdf
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html

[Kagemusha]

28. Brits aren't being conciliatory at all.

As for the Iranians, the Brits are saying the evidence is that this op was planned days in advance. I have no doubt. I'm sure that the Brits have been nudging the Iranians on that waterway for a while now, and Iran just chose to retaliate at a time and place of its own choosing, to use the old American line.

[bemildred]

32. I think they were sort of blindsided by it.

They may have been being provocative, in the way of spooking the Iranians about war, but I don't think they were trying to get their troops captured, the current situation. I think the Iranians foxed them. Tony has uttered nothing but incoherent platitudes so far on the subject.

[Kagemusha]

33. You're probably right about not trying to get their troops captured...

Maybe they assumed if anything happened, they'd have the advantage? Perhaps. I agree about incoherent platitudes. And NOW his foreign secretary tries to talk softly. Like that matters. Like it should, except to complete suckers. (Nevermind that the Iranian leaders are also not nice people, but still, it's like, here, shake my hand, now that I have punched your face. It's polite to shake my hand. Sure it is... unless you've just punched me in the face.)

[bemildred]

34. No, the Iranians "leaders" are not nice people either.

But they have taken control of the situation, at least for the moment, and I see lots of agitation in various quarters, but little sign that anyone has figured out what to do about it yet.

[Psephos]

29. You seem not to understand how GPS works

GPS equipment takes a read from four GPS satellites simultaneously, and calculates position by noting tiny time differences in the arrival time of the synchronized timing signal from each satellite. Those atomically-regulated timing signals are beamed continuously across the planet's surface.

It is not possible to pinpoint beam four falsified signals to a handheld receiver in a boat without corrupting readings across a great swath of the Earth. No one would even know which satellites the receiver was accessing. The receiver does not transmit back to the satellites; it can only listen. Which satellites it chooses to listen to at a given time is also not knowable.

If the GPS signals had been corrupted, the event would have been noticed (and logged) by untold thousands of devices, and the media would be jammed with stories about it. GPS would then never be trusted again, and the European or Chinese systems would take its place as the new standard.

Surely there are cheaper ways to bait traps than by ruining the reputation of, and effectively scrapping, a ten billion dollar satellite system. Surely there are more covert ways to bait traps than by leaving recorded evidence of the deed in thousands upon thousands of independent locations, with a 100% chance of being caught.

Just a thought...

[stormymonday]

39. You dont understand how spoofing GPS works

It is the receiving system not the satellite signal that is the target. There is plenty of intelligence literature showing how it is done and it can target at the level of an individual user.

Spoofing and Meaconing - Spoofing is a technique that has long been used to deceive a radars target-ranging operation. In the case of GPS the intention is to cause an active GPS receiver ( whether or not it is presently tracking GPS signals) to lock onto legitimate appearing and then slowly be walked off the desired path suv#ch that sufficient time passes prior to the discovery of the deception thereby precluding satisfactory corrective measures .....

Spoofing can be more difficult to achieve than jamming and is less likely to be used as it is often targeted to the individual user

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/archive/2001/Oct/FinalReport-v4.6.pdf

[Psephos]

41. You seem to think militaries use GPS receivers bought from Circuit City

I do understand how GPS spoofing works, and so do the national militaries. That's why they don't use off-the-shelf consumer GPS equipment.

The GPS signal can be altered in a number of ways to provide false location data, but each of them leaves a particular signature (temporal, spatial, lambda-shift, etc.). A military-grade receiver may use a multiple array antenna to discriminate among true and spoof signals; it may incorporate a dedicated DSP to detect the harmonic signatures of faked signals, and will usually incorporate a LORAN-C receiver as well. LORAN-C provides a redundant, non-GPS check on the accuracy of the GPS location. As one might guess, military-grade equipment also includes a few classified circuits not well-known to the public, as well.

The chance that the players in this incident were spoofed is effectively zero.

Recall, too, that the Iranians originally supplied coordinates to the press showing the Brits were in international waters when abducted. After U.K. pointed this out, the Iranians came back and said never mind, here are the "real" coordinates.

DU LBN is not a good place for technical discussions, so I'm going to leave it at that.