No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.
And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.
The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".
What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.
The primary difference here is that Iran captured members of a national military, not simply terrorists or criminals. Iran signed the Geneva Conventions and so did the U.K., which states captives cannot be displayed or humiliated on television for propoganda purposes. That being said, I'm glad that the detained soldiers are going to be released, and that they weren't forced to dig trenches for their own faked execution as the Brits in 2004 were. That is at least an improvement.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The primary difference here is that Iran captured members of a national military, not simply terrorists or criminals. Iran signed the Geneva Conventions and so did the U.K., which states captives cannot be displayed or humiliated on television for propoganda purposes. That being said, I'm glad that the detained soldiers are going to be released, and that they weren't forced to dig trenches for their own faked execution as the Brits in 2004 were. That is at least an improvement.
They shouldved been punished for being on Iranian waters.
The primary difference here is that Iran captured members of a national military, not simply terrorists or criminals. Iran signed the Geneva Conventions and so did the U.K., which states captives cannot be displayed or humiliated on television for propoganda purposes. That being said, I'm glad that the detained soldiers are going to be released, and that they weren't forced to dig trenches for their own faked execution as the Brits in 2004 were. That is at least an improvement.
so everyone in abu ghraib or guantamano is simply a terrorist or a criminal?
They shouldved been punished for being on Iranian waters.
They weren't in Iranian waters. That is now obvious as the Iranians released them without getting an admittance from the British government that they were... only the most gullible would buy the "gift to the British people" nonsense. It was just a diplomatic way out, albeit pulled off with some panache by Ahmednejad.
Sarcasm is only worthwhile when it's clever. This isn't. What the article conveniently forgets is that Gitmo is an American facility, not a British one. The British government has, in fact, made it quite clear that conditions there are unacceptable and that it should be closed. The only reason it has not "demanded" it is that demands are pointless if you know in advance they will be ignored.
They weren't in Iranian waters. That is now obvious as the Iranians released them without getting an admittance from the British government that they were... only the most gullible would buy the "gift to the British people" nonsense. It was just a diplomatic way out, albeit pulled off with some panache by Ahmednejad.
Sarcasm is only worthwhile when it's clever. This isn't. What the article conveniently forgets is that Gitmo is an American facility, not a British one. The British government has, in fact, made it quite clear that conditions there are unacceptable and that it should be closed. The only reason it has not "demanded" it is that demands are pointless if you know in advance they will be ignored.
What's your proof that they werent on Iranian waters? Ad consequentiam.
Good article, it shows how the media can definitely sensationalize things.
"The primary difference here is that Iran captured members of a national military, not simply terrorists or criminals."
How many of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were actually terrorists? The fact that they are military makes them more dangerous than Iraqi civilians.
I was referring to Gitmo, not Abu Ghraib. The point, which many found necessary to ignore, is that Iran and the U.K. signed the Geneva Conventions, which made their use of the British sailors on videos a violation.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I was referring to Gitmo, not Abu Ghraib. The point, which many found necessary to ignore, is that Iran and the U.K. signed the Geneva Conventions, which made their use of the British sailors on videos a violation.
let's not ignore it then-- and we can start by the Geneva convention laws the U.S. is breaking and/or redefining ---sheesh--What double standards!...
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Seeing as how the writer of the article, Terry Jones, was a member of the Monty Python Acting Troupe. I believe we had best keep the article in terms of typical Monty Python Comedy.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks