or face reductions in rank?
2007-04-07 09:24:45 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Of course they should. What Iran did was by any standard illegal and we should fully support what the navy sailors have to say. The sailors were coerced into their confessions why should they be held responsible. If they did not confess to Iranians it would have made the entire situation much worse, no rational westerner believed what they said anyways (the first time).
2007-04-07 09:30:17 · answer #1 · answered by gordongecko 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should be excused. The actions of Iran should prove that duress was used. I'm sure there was a gunman behind the camera, and a script of sorts had been written, just like those "letters" were probably written by the Iranians. If the Iranians were following the rules of the convention, they should have never broadcast any so called "confessions" nor should they have broadcast video of the detainees period. This was all a ploy to try and coerce Brittain into admitting wrong doing, and it should in no way affect the rank or credibility of those sailors/marines.
2007-04-07 16:38:08 · answer #2 · answered by ALFimzadi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Their orders were to go along to get along if they were captured. The UK and Iran are not at war, so they weren't bound by the duties of POWs. They were on a legitimate mission on behalf of the United Nations when they were abducted by a criminal regime. It was the same Iranian CG vessels that they gave a friendly wave to on any other day that ambused them. After all; Iran is supposedly cooperating with limiting smuggling between Iran and Iraq so why should have the RN patrols considered Iranian CG patrols potentially hostile? Weren't they both doing the same job? Therefore they don't even need to be "excused"-they did exactly what they were supposed to do under the circumstances. BTW-they are sailors, not soldiers.
2007-04-07 16:51:58 · answer #3 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO excuse can be accepted when you play the game of you ennemy.
They should be kicked out of the armed forces.
When you are a soldier, you accept the risks of being made prisonner and die.
When you are prisonner, you shut up, you don't make public statements for the all world to hear.
If you are not ready for that, there is no point in parcipating in any armed conflicts.
2007-04-08 00:03:15 · answer #4 · answered by paul a 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is against the Geneva convention to coerce confessions out of enemy combatants, I believe those rules are still in effect for this kind of situation. Anything said under duress by the British soldiers in no way should count against them.
2007-04-07 16:32:51 · answer #5 · answered by Scott B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not the confessions I have an issue with. People do what they need to do for survival. I have questions about why they felt the need to kiss Ahmadinejad's ring at the end. Survival is one thing; boot-licking is another.
2007-04-07 16:40:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It used to be that we were to give name, rank, serial number and date of birth only. During the Vietnam war that changed to, say what it takes to stay alive and live to fight another day. I still have my Geneva convention card from 1966.
2007-04-07 16:53:40 · answer #7 · answered by supressdesires 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's nothing to excuse, they were playing the game (as zerosum0 put it) and it worked. They didn't expect anyone to be ignorant enough to believe that those 'confessions' were real.
2007-04-07 16:31:10 · answer #8 · answered by M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can't excuse them. They confessed too quickly and too convincingly. The only course they should have followed was name, rank, serial number. No explanations required if you do that.
Wait a month and start discharging them...
2007-04-07 16:44:14 · answer #9 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes they should be excused. The statements they made were probably made under gun point, just out of view of the camera.
2007-04-07 16:30:14 · answer #10 · answered by chief_eagle_wing 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋