I just heard Moron- in -Chief George Bush demand the return of the hostages.

[pennylane100]

As he explained it, they have done nothing wrong and were summarily plucked out of international waters.

That may or may not be true, they could have been in Iranian waters when captured.
But what old numb nuts did not mention was their treatment. They appear to have been fed and sheltered and show no obvious signs of abuse.

But something is missing, Where are the guard dogs that are attacking them? Where is the pyramid of human naked bodies with a group of laughing soldiers busy snapping souvenir videos to be played later and posted on YouTube... Where are the wires attached to their genitalia and the hoods covering their faces.

Iran has mentioned putting them on trial, If they follow our rules, No evidence will be allowed in order to protect National Security and any competent or caring lawyer will be removed from the case the day before sentencing. And of course they must be held in complete isolation and tortured daily for five years to earn a nine month sentence.

[skiddlybop]

1. Hm. That's funny.

I thought he was demanding return of the men and women of the US military who have been held as hostages and human shields for the Republican party neo-cons.

[durtee librul]

2. Dumbnuts also called them hostages

a word I believe that the UK has been avoiding. I bet ol' Tony Blair is just having his hands full keeping * in line to not drop a bomb or two or push the red button on his desk over this. You can bet if it were our boys (and a lady) he'd have bombed them already.

[wake.up.america]

3. Bush should put 2 and 2 together, but he won't.

[gratuitous]

4. Haven't they been declared enemy combatants?

Which means that Little Boots has to shut up, tap, tap, no tap-backs, according to the Bush Rules of International Engagement, promulgated by John Yoo and endorsed by Alberto Gonzales. And the Iranians are entitled to do anything they want to them, and nobody anywhere has any right to object, or the terrorists win.

I believe this is also covered under the Goose and Gander Principle of Long Standing.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. What hostages? Aren't those Brits simply 'non-combatant detainees'?

And how long have we been holding our detainees? About 5 and 1/2 years without any charges.

[marlakay]

6. Its almost like they did this on purpose

to have an excuse for war in Iran. I know, probably not, but Bush would jump at anything to do what he wants.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. My favorite part of all this...

Is the video's they released of the British soldiers, and how the pundits breathlessly pontificating about how improper it is to use them this way and how Faye Turney's confession has obviously been coaxed or coerced, and how we should all be shocked and offended by all this.

WERE ANY OF THE STRIPPED NAKED AND BEATEN TO DEATH?

What a bunch of effin' hypocrites. Compared to what innocent Iraqi's have endured at the hands of U.S. interrogators, these soldiers are getting an all-expenses paid vacation. I don't mean to belittle their predicament, or course, but if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be in serious physical danger.

[paulk]

8. parading the British soldiers on TV

was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Iran is hardly the good guy in this, and defending their actions towards the Brits by trying to draw some parallels with US actions is not a very credible exercise, IMO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Considering our own violations of the Geneva Conventions

I can't consider them being shown on TV as being terribly egregious. At least we can see that they have NOT been tortured, beaten, starved. IMO, that shows considerable restraint on the Iranians' part.

[paulk]

14. actually, neither you or I know how they were treated.

The Iranian government does not have a particularly good record when it comes to human rights. That their very first action was a violation of the Geneva Convention should, at the very least, place some doubt in your mind about further actions they may take, or have taken. Unless you trust their PR more than ours, there is no way of knowing how the "confessions" of the Brit sailors were obtained.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. The Geneva Conventions concern the treatment of prisoners of

war.
Is Britain at war with Iran? No. Therefore, the conventions don't come into play. As things stand, these are simply military personnel being held by Iran for violating their territorial water. The only possible evidence of mistreatment is in the fact that they confessed. For those who believe that the Iranians are uncontravertably bad guys, that can only mean they were coerced. For the rest of us it could have several meanings - they are agreeing to a lie to win their release; they were in waters claimed by both sides, therefore both sides are telling the truth; they actually were in Iranian waters; or, they were coerced. For the last choice, there are no physical signs of coercian. If they were coerced it would be a violation of human rights, but would still not be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
As for trusting in PR, while the confessions might be PR on the Iranians' part, the mistreatment of prisoners on the part of the US is a documented fact, so our accusing them of something for which we have no evidence is disingenuous at best.

[pennylane100]

12. In the spirit of fairness you might want to mention how many times

the UK and the US violated the Geneva Conventions while you are mentioning the fact that Iran also violated it. I think every detainee we have cared for since the beginning of the war could testify to the fact that there were violations, many of them were gross ones, including murder, torture and rape.

I reread my original post and could not find where I defended their actions toward the Brits. I an not naive enough to think of Iran as a benevolent tolerant society, but I do think that it is very important to look at the way we, a civilized and open society with a great deal of respect for "the rule of law" treat our prisoners/hostages as compared to them, "a member nation of the axis of evil"

If you do not find that to be a credible exercise, fine, I can life with that.

[jobycom]

13. I don't see a defense of Iran, I see a condemnation of our own policies.

Bush has no credibility in this. The rest of the world sees him as a hypocrite and shouts at the television images of him when he says stuff like this.

As far as Geneva goes, Bush threw out the Conventions in 2001, so no other nation will feel obligated to obey them, especially against Bush or his allies. That was the point military, diplomatic, and legal experts all tried to explain to Bush. Now we are seeing it manifest.

This has nothing to do with who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The entire point of Geneva and every other international treaty is that both sides will see themselves as the good guys, so you get past such judgements and draw lines that no one crosses no matter what. Bush crossed those lines with impunity, which in international terms erases them. Iran can hardly be expected, in realistic terms, to observe the lines. A person who follows rules that the other side violates is going to lose. Whether that makes Iran right or wrong is going to depend entirely on who wins and gets to write the history.

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. I propose a swap - 15 of them for one of him.

Fair enough?

[KansDem]

10. But they "confessed," Georgie!

Don't know what made them confess, but it couldn't be any worse than the torture you put Iraqis through to get their "confessions."

[Javaman]

16. Call me kooky, but isn't this an issue between the brits and the Iranians? nt

[Solo_in_MD]

17. In all fairness the EU and the French have said much the same thing

[JetCityLiberal]

18. Did he stomp his feet and stick out his permanent pouting lower lip

as well. He is an ass and even that is an insult to asses....