Mullahs in Space!

Iran announces that it intends to put a man in orbit within ten years.

First the Chinese and now this. What is it about repressive tyrannies that makes them want to spend incredible amounts of money with no hope of return for the honour of retreading ground covered by the superpowers half a century ago?

Next up: Zimbabwe pledges to discover the New World.

1957 All Over Again

According to the Guardian, Iran's "peaceful" space programme is keeping pace with its "peaceful" nuclear programme. No doubt to be followed by a "peaceful" targeting programme and "peaceful" MIRV programme.

It's amazing how the Guardian's correspondent could spill so much ink on Tehran's ambitions to put a satellite into orbit without noting that the difference between an orbital booster and an ICBM is simply a matter of intent.

Iran Provokes

Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats made a probing action against U. S. Navy ships by buzzing to within firing range while radioing,

I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes.

Waiting to be told by the press that they were just trying to deliver goodwill fruit baskets in 5... 4... 3...

Iran to Build 19 Atomic Reactors

Iran declares that not only will it never stop its uranium enrichment programme, but it plans to build 19 nuclear reactors.

Who are you going to believe; the NIE or your lying eyes?

Axis? What Axis?

The Telegraph reports that Iranian military engineers were injured during an attempt to mount a chemical warhead on a missile in Syria. This comes within a week of an Israeli strike against what may have been a secret North Korean nuclear cache being looked after by Boy Assad and company.

Move along, please. Nothing to see here.

If You Want Peace, Prepare for War

From the Telegraph:

The world should "prepare for war" with Iran, the French foreign minister has said, significantly escalating tensions over the country's nuclear programme.

Bernard Kouchner said that while "we must negotiate right to the end" with Iran, if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon it would represent "a real danger for the whole world".

The world should "prepare for the worst... which is war", he said.

At last we know where David Cameron shipped all those Conservative party spines.

Hard Choices Now or Impossible Choices Tomorrow

A rundown of the last few days:

• The IAEA, the nuclear inspection agency with a learning curve as flat as Kansas, declared on Thursday that Iran is "cooperating" to "resolve outstanding issues."
• Today, Iran demonstrated that its idea of "cooperation" is to bring another 3000 centrifuges on line.
• Meanwhile, the Pentagon shows more realism and draws up plans for a three-day blitz that will take out Iran's entire military infrastructure in case the Mullah's get too close to lighting the blue touch-paper.

Every day I feel more like I'm living through a repeat of the late '30s with the IAEA playing the part of the umbrella. The words "Rhineland 1936" in two-foot letters should be tacked up on the wall of every Western leader.

Swedish Cartoon Wars

I haven't commented on the Swedish cartoon war that's brewing over a local paper's publication of cartoons of Mohammad to protest self-censorship by art galleries in the name of abject brown-trouser cowardice cultural sensitivity-- largely because the Muslim permanent outrage brigade was, predictably, outraged and Iran made demands that merely confirmed that they shouldn't be left in charge of a firecracker, much less nuclear weapons. In other word, same old story.

Far more important is how the civilised world reacts to such blather. Whether the Jihadists are greeted with the contempt they deserve or if we cave in to their calls for dhimmitude is the real point of contention. It's refreshing, therefore, to report that the Swedes have at last developed a spine, as shown from this statement from the Swedish Prime Minister in regard for Iran's demand that Sweden impose Sharia-style censorship on the press (translation via Little Green Footballs):

I think it is important to say two things. The first is that we have been very keen on a Sweden that will be a country where muslims and Christians, those that believe in God and those who don’t, can live side by side in mutual respect. We think that we have come very far. I have a responsibility for this to continue and to take initiative to deepen this reciprocity and respect.

At the same time we are very focused on standing up for freedom of expression which is a basic right in the law and which comes natural to us and which ensures that we do not make political decisions about what is published in newspapers. I want to keep it this way.

In diplomatese, this is a polite way of saying "naff off."

Calling a Terrorist a Terrorist

The United States is about to officially declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation. This announcement came on the same day Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Iran's embassy in Afghanistan (emphasis added),

There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind.

"Overreaction" by the US bows to "about time" on this one.

Secret Squirrel, Call Your Service

Proof that the Mullahs have finally lost it:

According to IRNA, the official Islamic Republic news agency, the national Police chief has implicitly verified the news about the confiscation of a number of squirrels, equipped with eavesdropping devices, on the Iranian borders. He has declined to give any more details, but, reportedly, when asked about the confiscation of 14 spy squirrels, he stated, “I have heard about it, but I do not have precise information”. IRNA adds, “These squirrels were equipped by foreign intelligence services, but were captured two weeks ago by the Police”.

I think the Iranians should go have a little lie down somewhere.

I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

From the BBC:

The EU's foreign policy chief has described as "constructive" talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator.

That's "constructive" as in "we've given Iran all the time it needs to build a bomb and haven't made them pay any price for such insanity whatsoever."

Talking to Death

Iran now has enough nuclear material (that we know of) to construct two fission bombs.

Looks like all that talking did the job-- for the Mullahs.

The Gulf

Apparently the Royal Navy isn't the only service that the Iranians have attacked. In 2004, the mullahacracy tried to capture an Australian boarding party, but that one never made the headlines. Why?

Answer: They fought back and won.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald,

Quoting a "military source", BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner reported Iranian forces made a concerted attempt to seize a boarding party from the Royal Australian Navy and that the Australians "were having none of it".

"The BBC has been told the Australians re-boarded the vessel they had just searched," Gardner reports, "aimed their machine guns at the approaching Iranians, and warned them to back off, using what was said to be 'highly colourful language'.

Our sources inform us that the Royal Navy has requested a shipment of spines from the RAN.

The Great Game

I've noticed over the past week that there's been a lot of dismay in the blogosphere over the Americans holding bilateral talks with the Iranians. It rankles me as well (personally, I think cruise missiles would get the mullahs' attention quicker), but I'm not surprised.

Cynicism? Not quite. When I was at university, I was fortunate enough to have a diplomatic history professor who was a high Mandarin in the US State Department (Henry Kissinger substituted for him one day when he caught a cold) and he taught me one thing that keeps me from tearing my hair out whenever I read the papers: Never, ever, be surprised by anything that happens in diplomacy, because there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than you'll ever know.

One example he had was the Cuban missile crisis and how it relates to Nixon's visit to China. The orthodox view is that the standoff over Soviet IRBMs in Cuba was an episode of a deadly stare-down finally resolved with the Soviets pulling their missiles out and the Americans doing a face-saving quid pro quo with their missiles in Turkey. What has this got to do with China? And why was Nixon's visit such a sensation in diplomatic circles? Everything.

It turns out that the deal that Kennedy struck with Kruschev was a bit more devious than the public was aware of at the time. What Kennedy actually gave the Soviets in return for disarming Cuba was a promise to allow the USSR a free hand should they go to war with China. Attack Peking, and the USA will sit this one out.

That's where Nixon comes in. His visit to China was more than just the raising of the bamboo curtain that isolated the People's Republic from the rest of the world; it was an open declaration to Moscow that the Kennedy deal was off.

So are the talks with Iran a spineless volte face by the Americans with an implacable enemy who would be better served with blockade? Maybe. But before I decide, I want to look at the rest of the men on the chess board.

Axis of Evil? What Axis?

North Korea tested its new 3000-mile range Musudan missile-- in Iran.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Quote of the Day

From the Telegraph:

If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours.

John Bolton on Iran's nuclear weapons power programme.

Hornblower & the Ice-Cream Navy

William S. Lind over at d-n-i.net weighs in on the Royal Navy debacle:

For Britain, and especially for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the incident ended in utter disgrace. The initial surrender of the British boarding party to what appears to have been a much larger Iranian force is the only defensible British action in the whole sorry business. Even in Horatio Hornblower's Royal Navy, a British frigate captain was not disgraced if he struck to a French or Spanish ship of the line. Force majeure remains a valid excuse.

But everything else that was said or done would have given Hornblower or Jack Aubrey an apoplexy. The failure of HMS Cornwall to foresee such an event and be in a position to protect her people; the cowardice—there is no other word for it—of the boarding party (including two officers) once captured; their kissing the Iranian's backsides in return for their release; and perhaps most un-British, their selling their disgraceful stories to the British press for money on their return -- all this departs from Royal Navy traditions in ways that would have appalled the tars who fought at Trafalgar.

Yet that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is the reaction of the Navy's higher-ups. According to a story in the April 7 Washington Times, the Royal Navy's top commander, Admiral Jonathon Band, leapt to the boarding party's defense with virtually Jerry Springeresque words:

He told the British Broadcasting Corp. he believed the crew behaved with "considerable dignity and a lot of courage" during their 13 days in Iranian captivity.

He also said the so-called confessions made by some of them and their broadcast on Iranian state television appear to have been made under "a certain amount of psychological pressure."…

"I would not agree at all that it was not our finest hour. I think our people have reacted extremely well in some very difficult circumstances," he said.

Had the captives been 10-year old girls from Miss Marples' Finishing School, Admiral Band's words might make some sense. But these were supposed to be fighting men from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines! Yes, I meant men. What Politically Correct imbecile detailed a woman to a boarding party?

I've reserved my opinion on who is culpable in this mess on the grounds that it is unfair to judge a man in a tight spot, but after the appalling way that both the former hostages (I almost hesitate to acknowledge them as Royal Navy) and the government has acted in the aftermath, it is clear that this is an episode that the Navy and Her Majesty's Government can only look back upon with shame. I'm willing to give all the benefit of the doubt to someone who falls into the hands of a load of murdering Jihadists and is forced to make propaganda against his will, but there are limits. Compare these images of RAF pilots John Peters & John Nichols that were broadcast on Iraqi television during the first Gulf War:

To this one of the fifteen hostages in Iran:

They didn't even have enough pride (or sense) to leave those blasted "goody bags" behind. Talk about selling your birthright for a mess of pottage! It's one thing to cooperate with the enemy to the absolute minimum under extreme pressure. It is quite another to do so with such enthusiasm after what we now know was so little persuasion-- unless fear of missing a daughter's birthday or being called "Mr. Bean" now counts as duress vile (And no, I have not forgotten the mock executions. On that point I refer back to Private Moyes).

As Mr. Lind points out, far more blame can be placed on the commander of HMS Cornwall, who sent his men into harm's way without adequate protection-- indeed, we now learn no protection at all. No RN officer should be in a position where he can't say this (courtesy of C. S. Forester):

Capt. Horatio Hornblower, R.N: If I am not back aboard the Lydia within one hour, she'll train her guns upon your fort and reduce it to rubble.
El Supremo: With you in it, Captain?
Capt. Horatio Hornblower, R.N: That is my order.

Near enough blame can also be placed with the boarding party officers who did not order their men to give the enemy as little as possible and a great deal more blame can go to Faye Turney and Arthur Batchelor, who sold their stories to the press regardless of whatever Whitehall fathead said that it was okay to do so. At the very least, I hope that a fistful of official reprimands are being shoved into service records.

But the real villian in the piece (aside from the Iranians, but that's irrelevant, as they should have come out of this with nothing but a few shot up patrol boats and a stern warning to never try it again) is the Blair government, who from the first were more worried about spin than giving the armed forces the support they need and deserve and it's going to take a damn sight more than Des Browne falling on his sword to put things right. According to Michael Smith and Maurice Chittenden in the Sunday Times,

The origins of the shambles lie in the navy’s concern over cuts. At the height of its power in the mid-19th century, it could muster more forces than the seven next biggest navies combined.

Now it is the Cinderella of the three services and has been largely sidelined during the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Royal Marine commandos and the SBS, still both part of the navy, have fought with distinction in both operations, but the main contribution from the navy proper was to fire off a few token cruise missiles on the opening days of each war. Even then the United States snaffled all of the best targets.

During the attack on Afghanistan, said one senior intelligence source, the Royal Navy’s expensive cruise missiles had done “little more than rearrange the rubble” at a couple of disused Al-Qaeda training camps. Her Majesty’s ships have not seen any serious action since the Falklands and are struggling to attract the right calibre of recruits.

Even the royal family now give the “senior service” a miss. It used to be standard practice for royals to serve in the navy, a tradition followed by George V, Edward VII, George VI, Edward VIII, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh. But Princes William and Harry have both preferred the army, although William is scheduled for a short spell in the navy next year.

Fearing further decline, navy chiefs ordered a publicity drive centred around HMS Cornwall, a frigate sent to take over last month as flagship of Task Force 158, the allied flotilla protecting the Iraqi oil installations and territorial waters.

Television crews from Sky and the BBC were flown on board the ship to film the crew at work monitoring the northern Gulf; Cornwall was to be the front-page story in Navy News, the navy’s in-house journal. But from the start the publicity drive went awry.

Cornwall, known as “the ice-cream frigate” because of its designation F99, travelled to the Gulf via Barcelona, Malta and Croatia. Along the way the crew engaged in a series of sporting events with local teams; they lost every match.

From the wooden wall to ice-cream frigate in two centuries. Ye gods, if the shades of Cochrane, Fisher and Churchill aren't howling and clanking through the corridors of Westminster and affording Mr. Blair et al not a moment's peace, then they are seriously wasting their afterlife.

I remember during the Falklands War that I remarked that the conflict in the South Atlantic marked a crisis in British history. This was a moment when afterwards Great Britain would have the choice of either becoming once again a world-class power or joining her Continental brethren in slinking off to historical obscurity.

It looks as though Horatio Hornblower has been forsaken for Mr. Bean.

UN Slides Into Irrelevance

Sweet spirits of nitre, you can't make this stuff up! The UN has shown that is is utterly useless with this interesting little development (emphasis added):

On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations believe-it-or-not moment extraordinaire. At the same time that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the U.N. reelected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.

Next up, Tony Soprano is put in charge of stamping out the Mafia.

Priorities II

Meanwhile, Iran demonstrates that it can focus on more than just humiliating the Royal Navy as it announces that it has brought 3,000 uranium gas enrichment centrifuges on line at the Natanz plant and can now enrich nuclear fuel on a weapons "industrial" scale.

Something tells me that if we don't do something soon, we're going to be getting a lot more from Tehran than goody bags.

Pure Gall

After Iran committed piracy and God knows how many violations of the Geneva conventions (up to and including mock executions) against a Royal Navy patrol operating under a UN mandate in Iraqi waters, Tehran's ambassador to London, Rasoul Movahedian had the bare-faced nerve to demand a reward for his country's perfidy:

We played our part and we showed our good will... now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way.

I don't know how much oil Iran has, but one thing it will never run short of is brass.

Home Safe

The fifteen Royal Navy sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran have arrived safe and are being debriefed at Royal Marines Barracks Chivenor, Devon.

Welcome home, lads.

Britons To Be Freed

Iran claims that it is releasing the fifteen Royal Navy sailors and marines that it kidnapped.

I'm holding off any celebrations until the men and woman are home safe-- and we find out exactly why they were let go.

The Kowtow

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.

Winston Churchill on the Munich Agreement, 1938

John Derbyshire looks at the easily-wrought "confessions" of the kidnapped Royal Navy sailors and marines and compares them to Private John Moyse.

Who? Unless you're up on your history of the Anglo-French expedition to Peking in 1860 you may need this reminder:

How on earth can Britons behave like that? A previous generation would not have done so. I knew the women of my mother’s generation pretty well (Mum was born in 1912), and I am certain that any one of them, given that headscarf and told to put it on, would have said: “You can hang me with it if you like, but I’ll be damned if I’ll wear the filthy thing.” The men likewise. What on earth has happened to the British? Where is John Moyse?

Well, he is of course on Wikipedia. Who isn’t? To spare you the trouble of reading all through, Moyse was a British soldier of the East Kent Regiment, nick-named “The Buffs” on account of their 17th-century uniforms, which prominently featured that color. Moyse was captured by the Chinese during the Second Opium War of the late 1850s. Taken before a Mandarin, he was ordered to kowtow, but refused. He was thereupon clubbed to death and decapitated, and his body thrown on a dung-heap. Sir Francis Doyle wrote a poem to celebrate Moyse’s defiance of the enemy. You can read the poem here.

Sir Harry Flashman had his own take on it based on his "eye witness" account:

That was how it happened-- The stories that he laughed in defiance, or made a speech about not bowing his head to any heathen, or recited a prayer, or even that he died drunk-- they're false. I'd say he was taken flat aback at the mere notion of kow-towing, and when it sank in, he wasn't having it, not if it cost him his life. You may ask, was he a hero or just a fool, and I'll not answer-- For I know this much, that each man has his price, and his was higher than yours or mine. That's all. I know one other thing-- whenever I hear someone say Proud as Lucifer, I think, no, proud as Private Moyes.

Derbyshire is a bit harsh on the captives; they are, after all, operating under standing orders and it's a bit much to judge another man in a tight situation when you aren't in his shoes, but the fact that a group of modern Britons acquiesced so quickly to the Iranian equivalent of the kowtow when their grandparents would have said "f*** you" and damn the consequences is painfully telling-- not so much on the seamen, but on a time where such humiliation is accepted by Britons and their government without so much as a shrug. However, such indifference in the face of tyranny cannot go for long without a heavy price.

Today, the white feather carries no stigma; no able-bodied man squirms with shame at the knowledge that he stays safe at home while a woman goes to war and risks captivity, death or worse in his place; and the words Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς are meaningless in more than their Greek, but that will have to change in the years to come unless we want to end up paraphrasing Churchill to our cost.

1979 Redux

Iranian "students" attacked the British embassy in Tehran. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Like it or not, Mr. Blair, you may have a real honest-to-God war on your hands.

Update: It looks as though Mr. Blair is about to go into full Jimmy Carter mode. From the Sunday Telegraph:

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt of plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Tehran, as a special envoy of the Government, to deliver a public assurance that officials hope will end the diplomatic standoff.

The move, which was discussed at a meeting of Whitehall's Cobra crisis committee yesterday, came as Downing Street officials explicitly cautioned against hopes of a speedy outcome and said that families of the hostages should prepare for the "long haul".

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months.

Good old gambler's logic: It didn't work the last time, so it's bound to this time.

Update: The Captain's Quarters on how EU membership has prevented Britain from even imposing trade sanctions on the Mullahs.

Pleae, Sir, May I Have Another?

Mark Steyn on the Iranian crisis"

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

On Sept. 11, a New York skyscraper was brought down by the Egyptian leader of a German cell of an Afghan terror group led by a Saudi. Islamism is only the first of many globalized ideological viruses that will seep undetected across national frontiers in the years ahead. Meanwhile, we put our faith in meetings of foreign ministers.

"It is better to be making the news than taking it," wrote Winston Churchill in 1898. But his successors have gotten used to taking it, and the men who make the news well understand that.

As the kids say, read the whole thing

Raving Mad

Comment by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt:

It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people.

It isn't often that one sees priorities being so insanely skewed.

Tale of Two Maggies

I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it - we want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Britain's response to Iran's kidnapping of fifteen Royal Navy sailors and marines.

Our diplomacy is backed by strength, and we have the resolve to use that strength if necessary.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on Britain's response to Argentina's 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Guess which one will be the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century.

Turtle Bay Farce

The UN has issued a statement of "grave concern" over Iran's kidnapping of 15 Royal Navy sailors and marines. The British government is disappointed because it wanted the UN to "deplore" the kidnapping.

The only thing to deplore here is the gaping hole where Britain's spine used to be. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Quote of the Day

(C)learly very much like a cock-up and not a conspiracy.

Margaret Beckett on the kidnapping of fifteen Royal Navy sailors and marines.

Someone please take the post of Foreign Secretary away from this insane woman.

Quote of the Day

We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place'.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman on Britain's response to Iran's kidnapping fifteen Royal Navy sailors and marines.

That sound you hear is the Mullahs laughing their guts out.

Geneva Conventions? What Geneva Conventions

The argument keeps being put forward that we should scrupulously follow the Geneva Conventions so that our enemies will be compelled to do likewise. Question is, when is this reciprocity supposed to kick in, if ever? So far the Iranians have committed the following violations of the Conventions:

• Threats to try the kidnapped fifteen Royal Navy sailors and Marines for espionage.
• Interrogating them.
• Parading them before cameras
  

I won't even go into how the Iranians have exploited Leading Seaman Faye Turney by making her wear a hijab, having her write "personal" letters to her family, making her "confess" on camera to invading Iranian territory, and dangling promises of her release. Some bloggers have been rather unkind to her about her co-operation with the Iranians, but this seems unfair, as in this situation she operates under the standing orders given to her and she must be judged accordingly. The true responsibility lies with the lunatics who knowingly put a woman (and a mother!) into harm's way for the sake of some wretched political orthodoxy that would have made Cromwell blanch.

Meanwhile, the British government is responding by cutting off bilateral relations with Tehran.

The Mullahs must be quaking in their sandals by now.

Hit 'Em With Your Handbag, Tony

Taking a cue from how well the nuclear negotiations have gone, the Blairites have said that they are trying to free the fifteen British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran by engaging the Iranians in "discreet talks." If these do not work, then the British government will be "more explicit," but have made it clear that they "expect the immediate release of our personnel."

"Immediate" in this case being defined as some indeterminate point sometime in the future after which a stern letter will be sent followed by months of crawling to the United Nations for a raft of sanctions that will be as weak as a month-old teabag.

If this had happened in the days of Thatcher, the RAF would be fully briefed on targets and a Royal Navy task force would be passing Gibraltar by now. Come back, Maggie. All is forgiven.

A Step Closer

A new development in the Britain/Iran crisis from the Times:

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

As the Captain's Quarter's points out, if this is true, it's a clear violation of the Geneva conventions. You cannot charge a man with espionage when he is operating in uniform.

Memo to White Hall: This is no time to be playing "Softly, softly catchee monkey." Start getting in touch with your inner Thatcher.

Update: The Belmont Club predicts that the "human rights" crowd is going to be strangely quiet about this episode because,

As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes -- all while wearing mufti or even women's clothing -- these are all considered "freedom fighters" of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit -- or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of "what Geneva Convention?" We don't need no steenkin' Geneva Convention to try these guys as spies. That's the way the Human Rights racket works.