Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Morning News


Iran says they are going to release the Brits to the British embassy today. Gee, it is amazing that talking to your enemies gets results. I definately want to watch Bill O'Liar spin that tonight...

Posted by Andrew | April 4, 2007 7:55 AM

Sarcastic dancing is safer and more fun.

Posted by Sean | April 4, 2007 8:00 AM

I love the fact that Zamboni driving is so stressful the driver needed a couple of valium first.

Posted by Dave Coffman | April 4, 2007 8:44 AM

I note with frustration that the gun used to kill Rebecca Greigo was stolen from a Seattle resident who was under the stupid impression he was "protecting himself".

I also note with exasperation the scene where local pinhead business associate of this Rowan creep sat with a sobbing Greigo three weeks ago and told her "I don't think you have to be that scared".

I think you DID have to be that scared, Rebecca, and any of you other women -- or men -- who find yourself associating with doped-up swindling drunk abusers: it's better to be lonely than dead. Raise your standards. Stay away from losers like this.

Posted by Fnarf | April 4, 2007 8:51 AM

I find the cowerdice of the British soldiers to be somewhat repugnant. In the US military if you are captured by the enemy you are allowed to give them the following information: Name, Rank, Social Security Number, Date of Birth. And if I remember a british documentary I watched, it is the same for the them. The fact that these soldiers were making statements that Iran wanted, and making videos of remorse is pretty undignified.

There are rules of combat, and rules for when you are captured. They have just shit on all honor and dignity.

I am not saying that I am for the war (I am not), or against Iran (I am not), but there are simple rules of being a soldier. Its just a shame for all of Britain on how these soldiers acted.

Posted by Monique | April 4, 2007 9:04 AM

maybe i am just an anti-gun canadian leftist, but maybe some kind of criminal penalty for failing to secure your deadly gun is in order for people who have their unlocked-up guns taken which are then used to kill someone....
or am i way off base here??

Posted by war pigs | April 4, 2007 9:15 AM

What about this article in the NYT:

Looks like Brendan has a kindred spirit.

Posted by Aislinn | April 4, 2007 9:42 AM

Monique, you are so completely wrong and ignorant. I am appalled.

I spent 8 years in the military. The whole "name, rank, and social security number" is a movie myth with no basis in reality.

In the military, if you have a security clearance, and are likely to be in a combat zone, they send you to a special school to teach you what to do if you are captured. There, you are mock tortured (like fake waterboarding, etc). They teach you that eventually everyone gives up info or dies. If possible you try to give as little info as you can, as slowly as you can, muddled with false info if you can. You have to at all costs protect sensitive secret info that could get others killed if divulged. But otherwise you can pretty much use your own judgement and say whatever you have to. You are absolutely under no obligation to stick to "name, rank, and social security number".

"Admitting" that they were in Iranian waters was what the Iranian government wanted. It was merely a matter of time before the "confessions" were forthcoming. Nobody outside of Iran believes these "confessions" were given freely, nor that they are true. Probably most Iranians don't even buy it. But the "confessions" did not result in the release of any classified information, and no other British servicemembers were harmed as a result their "confession". They are going home now. No war was started over the incident. They held out long enough that nobody believe the confessions to be sincere. I'd say they did a perfect job.

Had they taken your advice, and stubbornly refused to say anything, they would all be dead within a couple weeks, or they would have remained in captivity for years and repeatedly tortured (kind of like Guantanamo). Unless Britain (and the US) went to war over it.

Is your movie heroism worth that?

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 4, 2007 10:18 AM

In the UCMJ, service members can be prosecuted by military tribunal over giving more information than what I stated above, even prosecuted with treason. Its not from movie heroics, it is part of military law. And yes, sometimes giving false information can be useful under conditions where they might have been tortured, but the point is that they were not being tortured to give those "admissions", and instead immediately made those comments out of fear, not out of necessity. The whole point behind those guidelines is to return with honor, which those servicemen/woman did not.

If you go the BBC website, you will see that plenty of people in Britain think they are a disgrace with how they conducted themselves (smoking on camera, laughing, joking, admitting fault etc). And if you think that Iran would not have given them back unless they made those silly "admissions" then you are sorely mistaken. Iran wanted attetion, and to humiliate the West. Which is what they got.

Posted by Monique | April 4, 2007 11:04 AM

No Monique. Several former hostages from the 444 days in Iran captivity and from Lebanon during 80's have made the rounds on the news recently and they all say the same thing. Just what SDA in SEA outlined. If you were that one of their parents, you'd be so glad they acquiesced to say or do whatever to stay in one piece.

And no, the West is not humiliated. Everybody knows it's just yet another crisis to endure from that evil regime.

Posted by raindrop | April 4, 2007 11:26 AM

Can't we just be happy that this UK/Iran situation ended before Bush/Cheney/Rove had the chance to start another war over it?

Rove in particular thought this would get him out of testifying this month.

(Yes I know they are cooking up more excuses and Iran will probably commit more stupid provocations)

Posted by anna | April 4, 2007 11:31 AM

Monique, Oh, please.

The keyboard kommandos on the BBC are upset? Call the Wahmbulance. I always laugh at these guys (British or American versions). I'll bet none of them has ever been near a combat zone, nor faced a waterboarding.

I can guarantee you that I (and a couple of assistants) could get[i] you[/i] to confess to invading Iranian waters in less than 15 minutes. Without leaving a mark.

It also seems highly likely that these "confessions" were done with the tacit approval of the British government, as part of a deal brokered to secure their release without going to war over it.

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 4, 2007 12:15 PM

It certainly is brave of you, Monique, to sit in your comfortable chair in front of Fox News and chastise these soldiers for not comporting themselves up to your impeccably high standards. We've all seen and admired how skilfully you've deployed your acronyms, like "UCMJ". But maybe you could provide an actual citation there? Or didn't O'Really give you one?

We all know the surging feeling of pride and power one gets from contemplating military glory, don't we? Why, just there, I used the word "deploy", which makes me feel strong and beautifu. I wouldn't ever give in to those filthy terrorists, no matter how bad they tortured me, because I know that pretty soon Bruce Willis would burst in and rescue me.

Give me a break. You found some annoyed Brits? Let me guess, at the Daily Mail, or the Telegraph, where the pensioners and WWI vets still complain about "bloody Persia"? You know nothing about those soldiers and what they did or did not endure, other that the staged performances we all saw.

Posted by Fnarf | April 4, 2007 12:30 PM

They didn't really admit anything wrong.
The sailor said I repeat
" we were in your waters by the standards of ...Your maps."
By saying this he saying that it is there maps not Britians that say they were in Iranians water. It was clever
and yet so obvious.
and that should not matter. Its a small matter that was reacted to no different than what we do on our borders.
And being that these personnel were military it cvan be seen why this was
an international incident. Its ok now. There going to be no fight, and everyone can go home now. Iran just needs to update their maps.ha

Posted by Beatnik | April 4, 2007 1:00 PM

Oh Fnarf....You dissapoint me.

My husband was actually IN the military (I believe that SDA in SEA served in the military?, but prolly not you fnarf?) and actually SERVED time in Iraq (15 months, but whose counting?) and ALL of my other military friends (in the Army, who have served 1-3 tours in Iraq, but whose counting?) were like:

"Are you kidding me? Less than a few days being captured with NO TORTURE, NO KILLINGS, etc and they fucking cave the Iranians. What a bunch of pussies"

Now, I am sure that being in that situation I would definately cave. I would definately cry and moan and do anything I could to get out of it. That is why I am not a soldier. So don't try to cheapen real bravery, especially when there were US soldiers in the Army who were captured and beheaded in Iraq. Those soldiers, who were obviously beaten and tortured did not "admit guilt" on camera, they asked to be rescued, but did not give in. Their circumstances were much more dire, yet they didn't make stupid comments on camera to get themselves out of it.

And I think that the British Goverment did a great job in getting those soliders out without letting it get out of hand. I also hate this damn war, and I hate Faux Noise. If I had access to the UCMJ commericals that I was subjected to, I could give you the actual code in it. Anyone else who had to watch 4 years of AFN broadcasting knows what I am talking about. Don't know what AFN is? Here you can google: Armed Forces Network.

Posted by Monique | April 4, 2007 1:19 PM

Troll, or idiot? Sometimes it really is too hard to tell.

Posted by hangman | April 4, 2007 3:21 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).