Iran is not following the Geneva Convention rules

[Regis Philbin]

Not only were the Brits seized illegally, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to show POWs in the media...

Where's the liberal bleeding hearts on this? Amnesty International? Hello? *chirp* *chirp*

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070328-115320-7232r.htm

Iran parades hostages on TV

By Nasser Karimi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 29, 2007

TEHRAN - Iranian state TV showed video yesterday of 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive in a white tunic and a black head scarf who said the British boats had "trespassed" in Iranian waters.

Britain called the broadcast "completely unacceptable" and said it was concerned that the statements from sailor Leading Seaman Faye Turney were coerced. The British government earlier released what it called proof the boats' crews were seized in Iraqi waters, and said it was freezing all "official bilateral business" with Iran except negotiations to release them.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that Seaman Turney would be released, and he suggested that the British vessels' purported entry into Iranian waters may have been a mistake.

"This is a violation that just happened. It could be natural. They did not resist," he told the AP.

"Today or tomorrow, the lady will be released," Mr. Mottaki said yesterday on the sidelines of an Arab summit in the Saudi capital.

Later yesterday, Mr. Mottaki backed off his prediction on the female sailor.

Retreating from his statement that she would be freed by today, the foreign minister said Iran will look into releasing her "as soon as possible."

[DoubleEdgeSword]

, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to show POWs in the media...



Where was your indignation and outcry when Saddam's photos were plastered all over the American press after his capture?

[lallybrooky]

Britain and Iran have not declared war on each other, so the Geneva Convention does not apply ;)

However:
If Iran crossed into Iraqi waters to seize the British troops -- as Britain insists and the Iranians deny -- that trespass and capture might represent a de facto act of war, automatically activating the conventions. And some legal experts said Britain can and should make that case.

...

Other legal experts questioned the presumption that any unfriendly encounter between different nations' troops constitutes an act of war -- a standard that the international community might be unwilling to support, given the frequency with which unintentional confrontations occur.

"In modern international law, that's a pretty low threshold. We would all be at war all the time," Crane said. "If we lower that threshold, it would be a pretty testy world indeed."

Even if Iran has not violated the Geneva Conventions, however, it has violated other international norms and treaties, said Allen Weiner, an international law expert at Stanford University who represented the United States in litigation before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, which was created in 1979 to try to resolve the Iran hostage crisis.

"There is a general duty, for foreign nationals in your country, to treat them with a minimum standard of justice," he said. "Any time you detain a foreign national, you at least have an obligation to notify their consulate. The one thing the Iranians have done that is clearly illegal is not let the British consulate see these guys."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/01/MNGMROVNMC1.DTL

[db44]

I still don't see where Gitmo is legal under Geneva...

[db44]

Lally, is it legal if Britain isn't necessarily part of Iraqi culture if they are abducted in Iraq? If, when all is said and done, Iraq doesn't welcome the West, what would that mean for the situation if the Brits were conceivably trespassing as well?

[lallybrooky]

Lally, is it legal if Britain isn't necessarily part of Iraqi culture if they are abducted in Iraq? If, when all is said and done, Iraq doesn't welcome the West, what would that mean for the situation if the Brits were conceivably trespassing as well?

From an international legal perspective, Britain has a UN mandate to be there (in Iraqi waters). If they were escorted from Iraqi waters into Iranian waters, the Iranians would be the ones trespassing.

If the Iraqi government decided that it didn't want the coalition there anymore, it would be a different argument.