Smith, WeeklyStandard: Early last Wednesday, Iran released the ten American sailors it had detained to coincide with President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night. The administration understood clearly that the Iranians were both trying to ruin Obama’s victory lap and sending a message—on the eve of implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—that Tehran will be calling the shots. So Obama made no mention of Iran’s capturing 10 Americans during his speech: No way were the Iranians going to get a rise out of him on his day.
The administration would prefer to forget the incident entirely—along with a series of other hostile acts by Iran since the nuclear deal was signed in July. In addition to its customary “Death to America” rallies, in the last few months the Islamic Republic has sentenced, in secret, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian; imprisoned U.S. citizen Siamak Namazi; tested ballistic missiles, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions; fired rockets near a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Straits of Hormuz; and attacked two diplomatic missions belonging to longtime American ally Saudi Arabia. Detaining American sailors comports perfectly with this pattern.
Some American lawmakers aren’t willing to let it slide. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) released a statement saying “we now must fully investigate Iran for possible violations of the Geneva Convention and ensure these sailors were treated properly.”
Pompeo is on solid ground. When the Iranians detained British sailors in 2007 and paraded them on television, Prime Minister Tony Blair rightly described it as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. Article 13 stipulates that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” The first piece of evidence that the Iranians violated Geneva are the photographs and videos of the American sailors, especially those of them kneeling with their hands behind their heads, which were shown repeatedly in the Iranian media; further evidence is the coerced apology from the commanding officer.
It’s worth noting that Iran’s latest hostile action has given us a clearer picture of how the regime actually functions. As the event unfolded, CNN and other American media spoke of the “two Irans,” meaning the hardliners and the moderates. This has been the administration’s working theory, which holds that the former comprises the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The “moderates” in this view are figures like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. In this scenario, it was the “hardliners” who were responsible for detaining the 10 Americans, and it was thanks to the diplomatic channel that John Kerry opened with Zarif while negotiating the nuclear deal that the sailors were freed without much delay. This theory posits that the hardliners kidnapped the Americans in an effort to embarrass the moderates, who want warmer relations with the White House. Therefore, the fact that the moderates prevailed signals a great victory for moderation and American diplomacy—for “principled diplomacy,” to use Obama’s phrase.
This scenario may be possible, but it isn’t likely. If there really is a split in the regime, why would the hardliners put themselves in a position to lose an intra-regime battle against the moderates? It would show the world that they’re not only weaker than the moderates, they’re also weaker than the moderates’ new partners, John Kerry and Barack Obama. Indeed, if it was the moderates who liberated the sailors from the grip of the extremists, it means the supreme leader himself required them to free the Great Satan’s seamen. Which would mean that the supreme leader has sided with the moderates and the Americans against the extremists.
That’s a stretch, to say the least. What is far more likely is that there is no such split between moderates and hardliners. The two camps—if there are indeed two camps—work in tandem. The hardliners take prisoners and the moderates negotiate the price of their release. Iran’s moderates are a ministry of bagmen sent out to collect on behalf of the hard men.
In short, the regime with which the White House has negotiated the future of American national security is still a regime that takes Americans hostage. Unless you believe that hijacking a U.S. Navy boat, humiliating its crew, photographing them with their hands above their heads, and broadcasting their apologies on state television is a demonstration of peaceful, moderate intentions.
Obama Cool with Iran’s Aggressions
Posted in #StopIran, al Qaida al Nusra Boko Haram, Citizens Duty, Cyber War, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway, Failed foreign policy, government fraud spending collusion, Hamas Fatah Gaza West Bank, Iran Israel, ISIS ISIL Islamic State Caliphate, Libya Benghazi Muslim Brotherhood murder, Middle East, Military, Terror, The Denise Simon Experience, Treasury, U.S. Constitution, UN United Nations Fraud Corruption, Whistleblower.
From Breitbart.com:
Obama Admin Defends Iran: No Geneva Convention Violation
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/01/US-Sailors-Iranian-Video-ABC-News-640×480.jpg
by Joel B. Pollak
14 Jan 2016
The Obama administration announced on Thursday that Iran had not violated the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war when it published photographs of captured U.S. Navy sailors, forced them to appear on television and make an apology for the circumstances of their capture, and compelled a female sailor to wear a hijab (head covering).
Under Article 13 of the Geneva Convention, prisoners must not be subjected to “insults and public curiosity.” Under Article 14, they must be treated with honor, and female prisoners must not suffer worse treatment.
On Wednesday, the State Department would not say if Iran had violated the Convention, but on Thursday, spokesperson John Kirby said definitively that it had not.
“…[T]he Geneva Convention applies for wartime,” Kirby said. “We’re not at war with Iran, so it’s a moot question….I’m not a lawyer, but it’s very clear, if you read the conventions, they are for wartime, and we’re not at war with Iran.”
Kirby is wrong, as the text of the Geneva Convention makes clear.
Article 1 says: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” The phrase “all circumstances” applies to peacetime as well as war, as noted by Article 2.
Article 2 states clearly: “In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”
Article 5 notes: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
So the Geneva Convention–to which Iran and the U.S. are both parties–applies, at least partly, to peacetime, and to conflicts that fall short of declared war. Furthermore, it applies even in the presence of doubts as to whether prisoners qualify for its protections, until the status of those prisoners can be determined by a court.
Clearly, the U.S Navy sailors that Iran captured–and abused–came under the protections of the Geneva Convention. Kirby, and Obama, are wrong.
Ironically, President Obama made adherence to the Geneva Convention a cornerstone of his foreign policy. In a speech in 2007, candidate Obama promised: “As President, I will…adhere to the Geneva Conventions.” In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, President Obama declared: “…I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.”
What Obama meant, however, was that he would uphold the Geneva Convention for terrorists, who are illegal combatants and are explicitly not covered by the convention.
On the very same day that his administration told Americans that the Geneva Convention did not apply to sailors captured by Iran, Obama freed ten dangerous Guantánamo Bay terror detainees to Oman.
Americans, in Obama’s view, do not deserve the same rights as terrorists.
www dot breitbart dot com/big-government/2016/01/14/geneva-convention-obama-no-violation/
________________________
Now, having said that, there is no excuse, except in an act of war, for even a foundering ship without power or rudder to be in enemy waters. Any nearby U.S. (or allied?) vessel has the responsibility to tow it out of harm’s way and back into international waters.
We are not at war with Iran. But despite the protestations of Mr. Kerry and the U.S. State Department, Iran has continued to be at war with the U.S., ever since the Is1amic Republic declared war on the U.S. in 1979. The U.S. can expect no less of a warlike response to one of our U.S. Navy ships being present in Iran’s territorial waters than to a formation of F-16’s doing a starburst over Tehran.
We don’t think of this event as a provocation to war, because we are not at war with Iran. But the Is1amic Republic is very much at war with the U.S., and the moolahs perceive any U.S. incursion, even by civilian hikers lost in the mountains, as a hostile incident.
U.S. Naval officers at sea are very much aware of the aftermath of the U.S.S. Pueblo incident in North Korean waters. Foreign incursion into territorial waters is A BIG NO-NO.