The RN and RM personel detained are not actually POW, therefore the rules governing the handling by one country of their EPWs are not germane.
Unless i missed something the UK is not at war with Iran. Not sure how it is in the UK but in the US when your at war and your captured you are supposed to keep doing your job. Say nothing, try to escape, sabotage…bascially anything that will piss the enemy off.
This is my point…The UK is not at war with Iran. Hence they are detainees and not POW’s. If they were at war they I would expect them to act like POWs.
In the US military if you are a POW then you should do all you can … within … reason to piss the enemy off. I can only assume that it would be the same in the UK. However no one is at war with Iran and so no POWs.
By wearing the veil, the female is showing respect for the muslim beliefs and gains sympathy from muslims which increases her chances of being released.[/QUOTE]
By wearing the veil the woman abandons her liberty and submits to her captors will. She gains no sympathy, only disdain and disrespect from them for so easily giving up. Why do not her captors show her respect for who she is, a British sailor, a woman who wears her nation’s uniform, which does not include a veil!
Because they’re intolerant Islamo-fascists who demand that the whole world conform with their medieval, narrow minded, bigoted views which regard women as inferior and subservient to men and which hold the West and everyone in it in contempt.
In case anyone is about to jump on me, I’m referrring to the Iranian leadership and their agencies, not all Iranians and not all Muslims.
Not so sure…she is already in trouble for breaking law in Iran…According to them…not sure if it is smart to go breaking another. Like getting arrested for a minor crime and then when you get to jail you start hitting the cops. Point is she would just be making matters worse.
Sandworm, does not this sentence (in bold) shows that the USA demands it’s soldiers to break the rules of POW as defined by the international convention?
I am just asking as I do not know my self.
As I understand this, if you surrender that is it, else fight and get killed without complain. Otherwise the princip of mutual benefit is broken: I HAVE to treat my POW well, but they HAVE to “piss me off”. Contradiction?
Guys,
Can we say something like this:
If they were in the Iranian waters - they are criminals.
If they were not, then they are innocent victims of Iranian provocation.
I would like to hear your answer, PLEASE.
This could be a problem.
The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html
A very reasonable little article. But I just want to comment this line from:
None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately.
I know how the family of the captured brits and the rest of population feels. They want the guys back. So do I, as I do not want them to be hurt in any way.
But ask your self for how long time can your goverment keep you detained without charging and no evidence and then just let you go by simply saying “you are free now, sorry.” And for how long time can they keep you without any evidence after the judge aproved that you are a suspected of terrorism?
If you think it is few hours - you are sadly mistaken. Check it up!
Rising Sun, any free legal advices? 
Tip: In Denmark they can arrest you up to 24 hours without any prove. And if they accuse you of terrorism and the judge signs the paper - for 3 more weeks. And that is without any evidence. At the end they can just say “sorry”.
The border is not accurately marked that is why they were well inside Iraqi waters and proved it by showing you the position on a GPS. Unlike the Iranian one that was in a room many miles away.
If you go to google earth and put in the position you will see that it is closer to Iran 7.53k (a headland) as apposed to 9k but you will also see that there is a deep channel coming out of the Shatt. If you followed this logic then the deep channel would be inaccessible to Iraq.
The border was not worked out by Britain it was done by the UN but like little children with a toy Iran and Iraq continue to argue over it.
The point is this was a UN force under UN mandate.
Craig Murrey has an axe to grind, look him up.
In an interview with the BBC he puts a different spin on it,
Craig Murray, formerly head of the maritime section of the Foreign Office between 1989 and 1992, believes neither side in the dispute could claim to be right.
He told BBC2’s Newsnight: "The truth is nobody can say if we were in Iraqi waters or if we were in Iranian waters because at this point the boundary is extremely fuzzy.
“This area is extremely contested. It is an area of great dispute.”
He said the UK had “made a big mistake by producing a map that has a very definite red line and saying we were definitely in Iraqi waters”.
He stressed that, equally, Iran could not say definitively that the UK crew had been in its waters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6496559.stm
Iran has been trying to start a fight unfortunately for them the UK has a habit of talking before shooting. This happened two weeks before this incident, see any similarities?
As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army’s statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html
sorry it has taken so long i can only log onto one PC for this site.
in a word no.
That rather alters things.
It’s been presented, and apparently allowed to run, by the UK and Iran as a contest between them.
Do you have any more info on the UN force aspect?
As I know, they should have UN mandate now. They got it well after the start of the second Gulf war. The westren troops intered Iraq based on falsified accusation fabout WMD and with no UN mandate.
The UN mandate was granted later, can’t remember when, right away. A year or so later.
But they should have it now. The question is DOES IT MATTER? IF they were in Iranian waters it makes no difference. Right?
State the conventions you are talking about and maybe I can help! Remember this is war time. Im under the impression that a POW should do all he/she can to etc… How does this undermine conventions rules? Example have you seen the movie “Harts war” this is what im talking about. Weather its escape, sabotage, gaining intell, doing you best not to give info…etc. You still a combatant and should do your job. Natually most keep in line cause they dont want to risk death. This help?
I was wondering partly whether the mandate was running from Gulf War 1?
I’m not too clear on this, but I have a feeling that Western navies operated in the waters around Iraq after GW for quite a while afterwards, maybe as part of enforcing UN sanctions on Iraq and or other measures which could still give some authority for the British naval actions in this case?
Egorka you are wrong, this is about smuggling not the war, try and keep up.
In one report I have seen the mandate number but can’t find it now 
typical.
The Navy chief said that the group were engaged in routine anti-smuggling patrols under a UN Security Council mandate at the time, operating with the authorisation of Baghdad.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1579646.ece
I do not know which convention applies today for POW. It was Geneva convention during WW2 but it might have been a new one agreed upon during the last 60 years.
Any way, I have not read it. That is why I am explaining my general understanding of the situation.
My logic is this: While you fight you can be killed and treated badly by the enemy. If you surrender, you give up fighting and therefore declare your self out of the war. Because you are out of the war by the time you surrender, you must be treated well by the captor. So it is a mutual “resposibility” if you wish. Otherwise I surrender and demand to be treated well, while myself plan to cut my captors throat.
Do you follow my logic? Where did I make mistake?
No the UN mandate was not running from the first Gulf War. The present mandate they have is obtained many months after the operation started (well after the fall of Baghdad).
And I still repeat that it changes nothing regardless if they did or didn’t cross the Iranian border. The mandate was given for Iraq.
I am sorry, I can not quite get what you mean I am wrong about.
Do you mean that the brits were not conducting any hostile military activity against Iran and only made the anti smugling patrol? You might be entierly right. Or you may be entierly wrong. What they did there does not matter as such (neither if they UN mandate or not). If they crossed the border they are formaly CRIMINALS. Like it or not. And they can justifiably can be detained as long as the law in Iran allowes.
I do not know where the bush (I sincerely hope it is “bush”, G.Bush you are sitting under! ) you are watching me from is located, but in many countries that one would call democratic people can be arrested and held with no charge for many days. You might end up wearing a sexy orange outfit instead of a muslim scarf.
What happened if USA or Britain captured in they waters bunch of guys dressed in military foreighn uniform, with weapons? And to make things worse one of them have a beard…
P.S: By the way, I personally think that 2/3 of the chances that it is an Iranian provocation. But crime is a crime. Crossed the border - welcome to jail.
Free legal advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. 
It is the duty of all prisoners of war in all English-speaking armies (I’m not favouring Anglophones, I just don’t know what other nations require) not to co-operate with the enemy and to escape and rejoin their forces.
The general obligation of POW’s to escape is recognised by the moderate penalties and special provisions for recaptured escaped POW’s in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Article 91
The escape of a prisoner of war shall be deemed to have succeeded when:
He has joined the armed forces of the Power on which he depends, or those of an allied Power;
He has left the territory under the control of the Detaining Power, or of an ally of the said Power;
He has joined a ship flying the flag of the Power on which he depends, or of an allied Power, in the territorial waters of the Detaining Power, the said ship not being under the control of the last-named Power.
Prisoners of war who have made good their escape in the sense of this Article and who are recaptured, shall not be liable to any punishment in respect of their previous escape.
Article 92
A prisoner of war who attempts to escape and is recaptured before having made good his escape in the sense of Article 91 shall be liable only to a disciplinary punishment in respect of this act, even if it is a repeated offence.
A prisoner of war who is recaptured shall be handed over without delay to the competent military authority.
Article 88, fourth paragraph, notwithstanding, prisoners of war punished as a result of an unsuccessful escape may be subjected to special surveillance. Such surveillance must not affect the state of their health, must be undergone in a prisoner of war camp, and must not entail the suppression of any of the safeguards granted them by the present Convention.
Article 93
Escape or attempt to escape, even if it is a repeated offence, shall not be deemed an aggravating circumstance if the prisoner of war is subjected to trial by judicial proceedings in respect of an offence committed during his escape or attempt to escape.
In conformity with the principle stated in Article 83, offences committed by prisoners of war with the sole intention of facilitating their escape and which do not entail any violence against life or limb, such as offences against public property, theft without intention of self-enrichment, the drawing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing, shall occasion disciplinary punishment only.
Prisoners of war who aid or abet an escape or an attempt to escape shall be liable on this count to disciplinary punishment only.
Article 94
If an escaped prisoner of war is recaptured, the Power on which he depends shall be notified thereof in the manner defined in Article 122, provided notification of his escape has been made.