Brits taken Hostage

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#81

I agree (You see again and again. How many times have you told me that? :wink: ).

Maybe it was just a figurative speach by Gen.Sandworm.
But the POW are subject to the laws of the detaining power and are supposed to obbey them or else risk being prosecuted (article 82 of the convention).
The POWs also have to “salute” and “show marks of respect” to the detaining power officers (article 39).
Article 17 states that any POW is “bound to give” those well known info about him like name, number and so on.

Also article 93 speaks: “…facillitating 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 drwaing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing, shall occasion disciplinary punishment only.” As you see, in case of “offences against public property, theft without intention of self-enrichment, the drwaing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing” the punishment can be more severe (but not being a torcher) than just disciplinary.

My popint is that the current convention not only defines the obligations of the detaining power (that is of course the main goal of it), but also indirectly (but also directly in case of articles 17 and 82) the obligations of POW!

So maybe I understood GenSandworm litteraly, but the impression I have is that the US code of conduct obligates US soldiers not to follow article 82 and 39, to say the least.

Please, show me that I am being wrong! Let me keep good faith in the American values.

#82

In an effort to preserve our previous relationship, I disagree with you agreeing with me. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

#83

I have an Iranian acquaintance who escaped from Iran in prolonged and very frightening circumstances in the mid-80’s. (You can ask why. She and her husband were Christians. They had their reasons.)

She is not an authority on Iranian borders, apart from managing to get through one and perhaps live longer, and certainly much better, than she and her husband would have in Iran.

Her view on the borders is about as much value as your friend’s.

We are debating where the water border is as a matter of fact and law, not where somebody with no relevant qualifications or knowledge thinks or hopes it is.

“It should go in the middle of the watter.”

Produce the documents which establish the undoubted borders and you’ll be ahead of Iran and Iraq because, as far as I know, they haven’t managed this task for themselves yet.

Along with a few other things that are beyond their abilities as decent and rational nations, before and after Bush et al and his predecessors made their own useless contribution to the region.

#84

Im sure soldiers are brief on how they are supposed to act. And what im refering to is in time of war. Now today insurgents play by different rules…those being their own. If I were captured by them if I was sure they werent going to kill me right away I might hang around but other then that im not going to sit and wait for my head to get chopped off.

But in times of war yes im sure they follow a code of conduct. And if you could escape … causing loads of soldiers being called in to help hunt you down then great. Or maybe you just might make it. There would be no reason to assault or kill a guard just coz you found a way. This doesnt make sense.

I dont understand what you have a problem with! Place your self as a POW in ww2. What would you do?

#85

Hi,

With all due respect, I do think that my colleague knows more about this matter. From personal experience he knows about the wars in the region and the political situstion. Among other things he went as voluntier to the war against Iraq and also survived an iraqian chemical attack. More I do not want to say about a third person in a forum. I trust his judgement (not that I think his opinion is the truth by default). So you have to take my word for it or disregard my info. It is up to you.

I can only say that his is also a refuge and, to make it more explosive, is married with a polish woman! :wink:

Produce the documents which establish the undoubted borders and you’ll be ahead of Iran and Iraq because, as far as I know, they haven’t managed this task for themselves yet.

Along with a few other things that are beyond their abilities as decent and rational nations, before and after Bush et al and his predecessors made their own useless contribution to the region.

:slight_smile: I just wanted to say that I am too tired to do the work for you (at the end you want to check my info, right?), as the first like I got in Google made me smile. That is what I ment:

Extract from the article “Iran-Iraq War” in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press.
Address: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825449.html

Iraqi president Saddam Hussein claimed as the reason for his attack on Iran a territorial dispute over the Shatt al Arab, a waterway that empties into the Persian Gulf and forms the boundary between Iran and Iraq. In 1975, a militarily weaker Iraq had by treaty signed over to Iran partial control of the waterway, but after the fall (1979) of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi and the resultant weakening of Iran’s military, Iraq seized the opportunity to reclaim the Shatt al Arab.

You are welcome to check the complete article if you might think I took it out of the context.

This treaty mentioned (it is called “Algiers Accord” of 1975) is the one I reffered to and the one that should be internationaly recognised.

And there is also a Wiki article on this accord: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Agreement_(1975)

The two High Contracting Parties have decided to (Egorka: only 2 out of 4 points are presented here)
[ol]
[li] Carry out a final delineation of their land boundaries in accordance with the Constantinople Protocol of 1913 and the Proceedings of the Border Delimitation Commission of 1914.[/li]> [li] Demarcate their river boundaries according to the Thalweg line (meaning the median course of the Shatt-El-Arab waterway).[/li]> [/ol]
…
As with most territorial conflicts, this problem was not solved by the Algiers Accord. Five years after the treaty was signed, Iraq and Iran fought their longest war of the 20th century. At the end of the inconclusive war, both sides agreed to respect the terms of the 1975 agreement.

#86

Hi Sandworm,

I was asking without regard to this particular incident. My quaetion was the reaction on your statement which I quote here:

this is you post #19:

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.

In this current situation you are supposed to sit tight and wait for the politicians to sort things out. We dont need the British version of Rambo…lets call him Chappo… running around and starting a war.

And here is you post #42:

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.

You see, I am a pure hearted individual, so when I read this I get it just the way it sounds. That is why I asked: does not this policy of “sabotaging” while being a POW is contradictory to the spirit of the convention.

You may sabotage after the escape from the camp. But do not you loose the POW status then? Probably not. But they can legaly shoot you in this case, right?

#87

Hi Sandworm,

I was asking without regard to this particular incident. My quaetion was the reaction on your statement which I quote here:

this is you post #19:

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.

In this current situation you are supposed to sit tight and wait for the politicians to sort things out. We dont need the British version of Rambo…lets call him Chappo… running around and starting a war.

And here is you post #42:

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.

You see, I am a pure hearted individual, so when I read this I get it just the way it sounds. That is why I asked: does not this policy of “sabotaging” while being a POW is contradictory to the spirit of the convention.

You may sabotage after the escape from the camp. But do not you loose the POW status then? Probably not.
But they can legaly shoot you in case you committed act of sabotage, right?
Does not a POW committing sabotage abondons his POW rights by the fsact of his own action, because by doing it he becomes active soldier again?

#88

Ughhh, this topic is going to far off-topic, seems a military handbook to me.

#89

Gentleman, I am pleased with all the responses to my thread. I have read each statement through and through. Many good points have been made. It has been most enjoyable. Thank you!

#90

Yea Think we might need a new section and a military handbook and a copy of the Geneva conventions.

#91

Yeap our dear Egorka seems fascinated ( may I say obsessed ?) with this matters.

#92

Now that the hostages have been released…I’ll be very interested to hear all the follow up after the debriefs. Thank God it was resolved rather quickly and painless.

#93

Very peculiar! May I ask what is it exactly you think I am obsessed with? Just a friendly question…

#94

Just an “subjetive” impression.:rolleyes:

#95

So what is it? :confused:

#96

The oposite to objetive :rolleyes:

#97

Panzerknacker, I am asking what do you think I am obsessed with?

The issue of being objective… well I opened a thread fo it, if you may know. And there were practically no answers on the question. I guess it is because people, including you, consider them slef very objective. And others not.

#98

Can some one post an update about this issue? What do the British sailors say now?

#99

Gone are the days of the Light Brigade.
When British soldiers used the rifle and blade.
If attacked they always fought.
With bravery and guts - all glory sought
Today it’s surrender, the first thing to do
The new generation, wouldn’t you too?
Now Sir Winston, that lion so brave
Slowly, ever so slowly, turns in his grave
Gone are the days of the Light Brigade.

#100

Uh ? I miss something in here.