What a disgrace

[JackC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world ... in.html?hp

So the British soldiers who were taken hostage are, unlike other soldiers in Britain, to be allowed to profit by selling their stories.

OK, they all say that they were clearly in Iraqi waters and only surrendered because they didn't want to cause an "international incident" by fighting back, and they also had no chance to win. I don't buy the self-serving "international incident" line, that happened anyway. But I don't expect soldiers to die for no purpose if they really couldn't effectively resist.

But their conduct after being captured was pathetic. These weren't innocent civilian bystanders, they were trained soldiers on dangerous duty. Yet within a few short days of being told that if they confessed they would be set free but if they didnit they would go to prison for seven years, they all decided that they woud lie and confess to what they believed was not true, that they were taken in Iranian waters. One of them wrote several letters home about how great the Iranian government was and, they were all photographed smiling etc with the nutty president of Iran who granted them "mercy".

They embarrassed their country, and provided Iran a propoganda victory. They should go home and be embarrassed, not rewarded while other troops who do their job with honor are not permitted the same ability to profit. It's shameful.

[jbuck919]

But their conduct after being captured was pathetic.

Wrong. We've been the nine yards on this site already on other threads.

[JackC]

But their conduct after being captured was pathetic.

Wrong. We've been the nine yards on this site already on other threads.

Well, I guess if you think that proper conduct for caputured soldiers should be to "confess" as quickly as you can so you can get home, then they did a good job. Truely heroes of the British Navy!!

I don't share that view. In fail to see a single thing that they did that was even a little courageous or dignified. I'm not suggesting that they should have endured extended torture, beatings etc, but that didn't happen to them. Some soldiers have a higher tolerance than others, and some view it as more important not to "confess" than others.


I'm not saying that we should expect captured soldiers to be heroes. But when they do act heroically, we should honor that. While we should be happy about the safe return of captured soldiers, we should not honor conduct that was not deserving.

If they had stood their ground, refused to confess and say whatever your captors want you to, they would have been released just as quickly (that decision never depended on anything that they did) and they would at least have had some thing to be proud about. Fine, they are alive, and everyone is happy about that. But what do they have to be proud about?? Nothing.



The woman who wrote the letters home criticising the policies of her government and the US is the worst. She caved instantly and did everything Iran asked. OK, we should be understanding and happy she is returned alive. But there is no reason to find anything of courage, credit or valor in what she or the others did. The idea that she or the others did anything to make their country proud of them is wrongheaded in my view. When the test came, they failed.

[jbuck919]

[I don't share that view. In fail to see a single thing that they did that was even a little courageous or dignified.

The whole point is that it was not a situation that called for anything resembling courage or dignity. If you were falsely arrested by a dumb cop (and this happens every day), would you think about "courage and dignity," or would you jump through every laughable hoop that you found humiliating to get out of there as fast as possible?

[JackC]

[I don't share that view. In fail to see a single thing that they did that was even a little courageous or dignified.

The whole point is that it was not a situation that called for anything resembling courage or dignity. If you were falsely arrested by a dumb cop (and this happens every day), would you think about "courage and dignity," or would you jump through every laughable hoop that you found humiliating to get out of there as fast as possible?

Oh really? Is there anything that they are "called for" or expected to withhold?? I guess the old days when "name, rank and serial number" was the rule are long gone, a least for some.

You "dumb cop" analogy is silly. These are not innocent civilians taken off the street, There are trained soldiers in a highly dangerous area of the world and on a dangerous duty.

Whatever the circumstances, it certainly didn't bring forth any conduct resembling courage or dignity. So why honor them?

[jbuck919]

[I don't share that view. In fail to see a single thing that they did that was even a little courageous or dignified.

The whole point is that it was not a situation that called for anything resembling courage or dignity. If you were falsely arrested by a dumb cop (and this happens every day), would you think about "courage and dignity," or would you jump through every laughable hoop that you found humiliating to get out of there as fast as possible?

Oh really? Is there anything that they are "called for" or expected to withhold?? I guess the old days when "name, rank and serial number" was the rule are long gone, a least for some.

You "dumb cop" analogy is silly. These are not innocent civilians taken off the street, There are trained soldiers in a highly dangerous area of the world and on a dangerous duty.

Whatever the circumstances, it certainly didn't bring forth any conduct resembling courage or dignity. So why honor them?

Unlike the sailors on the Pueblo, these people had no knowledge that might have been useful to their captors. "Name, rank, serial number and date of birth" never came into the picture.

Everybody is assuming that this incident was some devious Iranian plot. I may be wrong about this, but I imagine it was a simple mistake that Iran could not reverse within 24 hours because it took longer than that to figure out how to minimize the loss of face (which in the end was impossible anyway).

I am quite tired of hearing how unheroic those unfortunate captives were, but I'm sure not as tired of it as they are.

[Werner]

I am not sure I have much sympathy for criticism like this. How do you know, Jack,how you'd react in similar situations? Have you been there?

[keaggy220]

Jack, basically I think it comes to this - most on the left don't think Iran is that bad (not nearly as bad as the current American admin. is) and this situation with the Brits was more of a comedy between two nations than an evil (am I allowed to say that word?) government trying to undermine our mission in Iraq.

[Werner]

"The voice of experience" speaking, eh?

Talk is cheap, isn't it?

[keaggy220]

"The voice of experience" speaking, eh?

Talk is cheap, isn't it?

Hey, you are absolutely right... I'd like to think I would act in a manner that would show my distinction than what was demonstrated by the Brits, but I may have been just as disgraceful.

[Werner]

Hats off to you, Keaggy, for an honest answer.

[JackC]

I am not sure I have much sympathy for criticism like this. How do you know, Jack,how you'd react in similar situations? Have you been there?

No I have never been a soldier, let alone captured. Nor have I ever been in combat. If I were in their position, I very well might have folded, and done whatever I was asked. I might have behaved like a total coward.

But what does the fact that I might be a coward and/or might have folded just as quickly as the British soldiers did have to do with whether these soldiers acted with any courage or dignity?? They didn't, and the fact that I might not have done better doesn't change that.

[jbuck919]

I am not sure I have much sympathy for criticism like this. How do you know, Jack,how you'd react in similar situations? Have you been there?

No I have never been a soldier, let alone captured. Nor have I ever been in combat. If I were in their position, I very well might have folded, and done whatever I was asked. I might have behaved like a total coward.

But what does the fact that I might be a coward and/or might have folded just as quickly as the British soldiers did have to do with whether these soldiers acted with any courage or dignity?? They didn't, and the fact that I might not have done better doesn't change that.

Let's get this straight. I don't know them, I've never interviewed them, but I am absolutely certain that those young people would have died before they would have allowed themselves to be disgraced in a way that would have demeaned their uniform. Get over it, everybody. Keeping it up as a matter of conversation can only be hurtful to them, and to their families.

[JackC]

Let's get this straight. I don't know them, I've never interviewed them, but I am absolutely certain that those young people would have died before they would have allowed themselves to be disgraced in a way that would have demeaned their uniform. Get over it, everybody.

Yeah, this bunch was really ready to die, NOT! Get over it.


Here the woman who wrote the letters condeming British and US policy said that she felt like a traitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6538075.stm

Obviously she at least FELT that she was doing something that "allowed [her] to be disgraced in a way that would have demeaned [her] uniform."

I'm not calling her a traitor or a coward, but there was no courageous admirable conduct here and it would be silly to suggest, as you do (with "absolute certainty"), that she was prepared to die for ANYTHING. She obviously wasn't.

[Sapphire]

No I have never been a soldier, let alone captured. Nor have I ever been in combat. If I were in their position, I very well might have folded, and done whatever I was asked. I might have behaved like a total coward.

But what does the fact that I might be a coward and/or might have folded just as quickly as the British soldiers did have to do with whether these soldiers acted with any courage or dignity?? They didn't, and the fact that I might not have done better doesn't change that.

How do you know the sailors didn't follow standard procedure in the circumstances of their capture?

What is wrong in chatting all day long with one's captors if it doesn't involve betraying any secrets?

What is wrong with allowing the sailers to tell their own story. This might have far more credence than some sanitised official version?

................

Clearly, this whole thing has been a disaster for the Navy. I blame the goons in overall charge of the operation, whoever they were. My disposition would be to sack the whole lot of them without mercy. However, I don't think the crew did anything wrong, and nor do I think HMG played it badly in handling the foul up afterwards. It was a damage-limitation exercise, or doesn't that concept appear in USA thinking on warfare? Some humiliation was inevitable. So what? We have done far more to help the USA in this whole area than anyone.



Saphire

[JackC]

No I have never been a soldier, let alone captured. Nor have I ever been in combat. If I were in their position, I very well might have folded, and done whatever I was asked. I might have behaved like a total coward.

But what does the fact that I might be a coward and/or might have folded just as quickly as the British soldiers did have to do with whether these soldiers acted with any courage or dignity?? They didn't, and the fact that I might not have done better doesn't change that.

How do you know the sailors didn't follow standard procedure in the circumstances of their capture?

What is wrong in chatting all day long with one's captors if it doesn't involve betraying any secrets?

What is wrong with allowing the sailers to tell their own story. This might have far more credence than some sanitised official version?

................

Clearly, this whole thing has been a disaster for the Navy. I blame the goons in overall charge of the operation, whoever they were. My disposition would be to sack the whole lot of them without mercy. However, I don't think the crew did anything wrong, and nor do I think HMG played it badly in handling the foul up afterwards. It was a damage-limitation exercise, or doesn't that concept appear in USA thinking on warfare? Some humiliation was inevitable. So what? We have done far more to help the USA in this whole area than anyone.



Saphire

My intent was not to blame the the British Navy for anything, or to be ungrateful. My comments went only to the conduct of the soldiers who issued confessions and allowed themselves to become propoganda weapons against their country.


As to your questions:

"How do you know the sailors didn't follow standard procedure in the circumstances of their capture?"

Is it really standard operating procedure to confess that you violated another country's territorial waters when you believe that you did not. Is it standard operating procedure to write letters condeming your own governments foreign policy? Is it SOP to do whatever your captors ask by way of confessons and providing propaganda?

I was assuming that it was not. If it really is SOP to do this, then someone from the British Navy should probably say that it is. They might also consider changing SOP.



"What is wrong in chatting all day long with one's captors if it doesn't involve betraying any secrets?"

I would think it would be obvious what is "wrong" in talking to your captors if "talking" involves confessing to wrongs you didn't commit and then allowing yourself to be used a a propoganda weapon by denouncing your own country.


"What is wrong with allowing the sailers to tell their own story. This might have far more credence than some sanitised official version?"

Well there is, from what I understand, a policy against allowing soldiers to sell there stories, and an exception was made in this case. I don't see that they did anything that justifies their making a profit on this as opposed to other soldiers who cannot profit. There is a difference between selling their stories and telling their stories. Why can't they just tell the stories without profiting?


And the Iranians hjave released more film of the soldiers relaxing in captivity.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070409/1/47phh.html

I'm not suggesting that the soldiers aren't telling the truth when they say that they felt under enormous pressure. But this was hardly a case of soldiers giving in after beatings or torture, or even after extended psychological abuse. They just were captive that long before they started "confessing."

[Werner]

Jack, you've been honest enough, not only to say you've never served or been in combat, but that you might have folded and behaved like a total coward if captured.

So who are you, really, to pass judgment on people who have been in that situation? I repeat, talk is cheap, isn't it?

[JackC]

Jack, you've been honest enough, not only to say you've never served or been in combat, but that you might haave folded and behaved like a total coward if captured.

So who are you, really, to pass judgment on people who have been in that situation? I repeat, talk is cheap, isn't it?

Sure talk is cheap, and it is especially cheap on an internet BB. But what does the fact that I might well behave like a coward in any given situation have to do with passing judgment on the conduct of soldiers?

I would hope if the situation called for it, that I would not behave like a coward. But if I did, I guess I would have to be prepared to endure the judgments that others might want to pass on me. I fail to see how the question of how I might behave in the situation is relevant to the questions of passing judgment of the conduct of the soldiers in this case.


I can say that a person who deserted his post at the Battle of the Bulge acted cowardly and dishonorably, even though I can't ever imagine myself being capable of doing what the 101 Airborne did at Bastogne.

But I believe that we never really know what we will do until faced with the circumstances. I woud hope that if I were there I would have done my duty. Most people in WWII did.

The stakes in the present case are considerably lower than at Bastogne, almost nil in comparison. Perhaps the perceiced lack of importance of the incident explains why the British soldiers were so quick to succumb.

[Barry]

Jack, you've been honest enough, not only to say you've never served or been in combat, but that you might have folded and behaved like a total coward if captured.

So who are you, really, to pass judgment on people who have been in that situation? I repeat, talk is cheap, isn't it?

There is a man who is currently running for president who we know wouldn't have folded and behaved like a total coward. And that's one of the reasons why I'd be happy to see him elected. His kind of courage doesn't grow on trees.

[jbuck919]

Jack, you've been honest enough, not only to say you've never served or been in combat, but that you might have folded and behaved like a total coward if captured.

So who are you, really, to pass judgment on people who have been in that situation? I repeat, talk is cheap, isn't it?

There is a man who is currently running for president who we know wouldn't have folded and behaved like a total coward. And that's one of the reasons why I'd be happy to see him elected. His kind of courage doesn't grow on trees.

Barry, er, have you forgotten? George W. Bush can only serve two terms.

[Werner]

I agree, Barry, that McCain's reputation as a hero will stay with him, howver he may fare in future elections.

And I'll always think more of him than those who may have had "other priorities" when they were eligible to serve, and who have no compunctions about passing judgment on others.

And, John, while George W. Bush is not a part of this discussion, his father was a genuine war hero, as was John Kerry, Swift Boat mudslinging notwithstanding.

[jbuck919]

And, John, while George W. Bush is not a part of this discussion, his father was a genuine war hero, as was John Kerry, Swift Boat mudslinging notwithstanding.

I know that of course, and I know that you know that I know that, but it does not change the fact that George W. is a de facto deserter who simply got away with it because of his silver spoon status. I couldn't resist getting in a dig.

[Sapphire]

My intent was not to blame the the British Navy for anything, or to be ungrateful. My comments went only to the conduct of the soldiers who issued confessions and allowed themselves to become propoganda weapons against their country.

(i) Can you state what each of these 15 crew actually said or did that you consider they should not have said or done.

(ii) Can you prescribe what they should have said or done in the same circumstances.

(iii) Can you indicate what possible re-consideration of their position the sailors should have been allowed to concede if any time they felt that non-compliance would have led to their brains being blown out by some mad Iranian prison guard.

(iv) Can you indicate what instructions - relating to possible capture by the Iranians - are issued to USA military personnel serving in the Gulf area. Is it "name number and rank" only, or are they allowed discretion to negotiate their way out provided no military secrets are divulged? And how far is it permissible to go in accommodating the Iranians' wishes with regard to the latter in the event of heavy pressure? Is there chapter and verse you can quote please?



Saphire

[JackC]

My intent was not to blame the the British Navy for anything, or to be ungrateful. My comments went only to the conduct of the soldiers who issued confessions and allowed themselves to become propoganda weapons against their country.

(i) Can you state what each of these 15 crew actually said or did that you consider they should not have said or done.

(ii) Can you prescribe what they should have said or done in the same circumstances.

(iii) Can you indicate what possible re-consideration of their position the sailors should have been allowed to concede if any time they felt that non-compliance would have led to their brains being blown out by some mad Iranian prison guard.

(iv) Can you indicate what instructions - relating to possible capture by the Iranians - are issued to USA military personnel serving in the Gulf area. Is it "name number and rank" only, or are they allowed discretion to negotiate their way out provided no military secrets are divulged? And how far is it permissible to go in accommodating the Iranians' wishes with regard to the latter in the event of heavy pressure? Is there chapter and verse you can quote please?



Saphire

Of course, I can't "state what each of what the 15 said" -- though their confessions and the womans' letter were very public.

I say theye shouldn't have confessed and then condemed their own country's policies, at least not without some serious resistence, which ethere does not appear to have been here.

No I don't know what US military SOP is on this point.

Now, I weary of jumping through your hoops.

[Sapphire]

Of course, I can't "state what each of what the 15 said" -- though their confessions and the womans' letter were very public.

I say theye shouldn't have confessed and then condemed their own country's policies, at least not without some serious resistence, which ethere does not appear to have been here.

No I don't know what US military SOP is on this point.

Now, I weary of jumping through your hoops.

You didn't respond to my question (iii), namely fallback position, either. But never mind. I do not wish to pursue any of it

I hope it will be seen this whole area is fraught with major difficulties, and is not amenable to simplistic analysis. There is a big review under way here, and if it throws up errors (which I'm sure it will) hopefully they won't be repeated.



Saphire

[jbuck919]

Of course, I can't "state what each of what the 15 said" -- though their confessions and the womans' letter were very public.

I say theye shouldn't have confessed and then condemed their own country's policies, at least not without some serious resistence, which ethere does not appear to have been here.

No I don't know what US military SOP is on this point.

Now, I weary of jumping through your hoops.

You didn't respond to my question (iii), namely fallback position, either. But never mind. I do not wish to pursue any of it

I hope it will be seen this whole area is fraught with major difficulties, and is not amenable to simplistic analysis. There is a big review under way here, and if it throws up errors (which I'm sure it will) hopefully they won't be repeated.



Saphire

Would you do me a favor? Would you thank me for supporting your position and stop dumping on Jack, who is as yet an extremely junior poster here? I suppose that in any context it is easier to be negative than positive. While you're at it, you might explain why you do not spell your user name with two of the letter "p," which has been bugging (or should I say "buging"?) me for weeks.

[Sapphire]

Would you do me a favor? Would you thank me for supporting your position and stop dumping on Jack, who is as yet an extremely junior poster here? I suppose that in any context it is easier to be negative than positive. While you're at it, you might explain why you do not spell your user name with two of the letter "p," which has been bugging (or should I say "buging"?) me for weeks.

Yes, indeed, thanks one and all.

I can't "spel".



Saphire

[Ted]

John Wrote:

and stop dumping on Jack, who is as yet an extremely junior poster here?

Buck
Pray-tell who died and left you boss and who are you to designate Jack as “Extremely Junior” What does that make you or me?
Please look up the word “Pedantic” and report back to me

[living_stradivarius]

What does that make you or me?

Grumpy Old Men?

[jbuck919]

What does that make you or me?

Grumpy Old Men?

If the shoe fits.... I was sick of her finding only negative posts to complain about when someone was being more Brit than a Brit. Makes me wonder whether I should not have also called those sailors turds just for the sake of conformity.

[Ted]

I stand somewhat amused

[Werner]

Amused or bemused?

[RebLem]

First of all, let me acknowledge that I have never served.

I have a feeling, first of all, that the Brits were not in unambiguously international waters. The boundary is in dispute. Iran claims more than the Brits and most of the world recognize. I have a feeling they were probably in that disputed territory. So, perhaps the initial seizure itself was not completely unjustified.

After that, however, the Iranians obviously violated a number of international norms as to how prisoners are to be treated. The prisoners were not allowed to see anyone from their embassy or the International Red Cross, and were told they would have to confess to be released. And, finally, at the end, as they were about to be released, they were expected to make nice with Ahmadinejad.

I personally feel they should have resisted. I tend to believe that they would have been released anyway, but I find the arrogant certainty of others in this thread on that point offensive and obnoxious. So, what they did was "confess." Given the wooden, glassy eyed stares as they made their statements, no one except True Dead End Believers in the invariable rectitude of the Iranian regime (and how many of those are there, even among jihadists?) will believe it.

I feel constrained to point out, especially since no one else has, that there is a difference between confessing to something you didn't do and revealing military secrets that could help an enemy, or endanger others of your people in the field. There is no evidence that they did the latter.

But what do I know? I'm just

RebLem, the Ape of Albuquerque

[pizza]

I feel constrained to point out, especially since no one else has, that there is a difference between confessing to something you didn't do and revealing military secrets that could help an enemy, or endanger others of your people in the field. There is no evidence that they did the latter.

But what do I know? I'm just

RebLem, the Ape of Albuquerque

Not much, it seems. They revealed to the press that they were gathering intelligence at the time. Regardless of whether it may have been suspected anyway, that information was nobody's business but their own and their public confirmation of such activity could seriously compromise the efforts of similar missions.

[Sapphire]

As the mere "baby" among you, I hope I don't become as sarcastic as you folk as I "grow up". I'm playing a straight "bat" here, and trust you will agree that I only very rarely depart from my usual dulcet repartee.


Saphire

[RebLem]

As the mere "baby" among you, I hope I don't become as sarcastic as you folk as I "grow up". I'm playing a straight "bat" here, and trust you will agree that I only very rarely depart from my usual dulcet repartee.
Saphire

[RebLem]

I feel constrained to point out, especially since no one else has, that there is a difference between confessing to something you didn't do and revealing military secrets that could help an enemy, or endanger others of your people in the field. There is no evidence that they did the latter.

But what do I know? I'm just

RebLem, the Ape of Albuquerque

Not much, it seems. They revealed to the press that they were gathering intelligence at the time. Regardless of whether it may have been suspected anyway, that information was nobody's business but their own and their public confirmation of such activity could seriously compromise the efforts of similar missions.

Oh, now, that's a real shocker. Governments gather intelligence on one another? Well, the Brits certainly owe an apology for that. After all, nobody else gathers intelligence. Perhaps that's why they do such dumb things.

What ELSE would they be doing? Is there any other plausible explanation for their being in the Gulf at all? They weren't transporting troops or military equipment from one place to another. They weren't guarding providing protection for civilian shipping. You mean that before they revealed they were gathering intelligence, there was a reasonable possibility that they were on an Easter egg hunt?

[Sapphire]

I feel constrained to point out, especially since no one else has, that there is a difference between confessing to something you didn't do and revealing military secrets that could help an enemy, or endanger others of your people in the field. There is no evidence that they did the latter.

But what do I know? I'm just

RebLem, the Ape of Albuquerque

Not much, it seems. They revealed to the press that they were gathering intelligence at the time. Regardless of whether it may have been suspected anyway, that information was nobody's business but their own and their public confirmation of such activity could seriously compromise the efforts of similar missions.

Here we go again. I am afraid this is yet another example of folk getting the wrong end of the stick, and possibly wanting to believe the worse against the Brits.

This one is actually very funny indeed, and easy to take apart. Is there an Emmy award for joke comment of the year on Internet BBs? If so, this ought to win it outright.

Let us take a closer look at this gem of a comment.

(i) “at the time” (first line above)

This interview reportedly took place some 5 days before the capture on 23 March.

(ii) “gathering intelligence (first line)

The background is that, in response to a question, and in the context of UK Navy patrol in Iraqi waters, Captain Chris Air said:

• “This is what's called an IPAT - an Interaction patrol whereby we come alongside or even board the fishing Dhows and basically interact with the crew.
  "It's partly a hearts-and-minds type patrol, whereby we'll come along and speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems and just sort of introduce ourselves, let them know we're here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area.
  "Secondly it's to gather int (Intelligence). If they do have any information because they're here for days at a time, they can share it with us whether it's about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area because obviously we're right by the buffer zone with Iran
  "This Dhow had been robbed by some Iranian soldiers about 3 days ago, they had some money taken off them and apparently it's happened quite a lot of times in the past so it's good to gather int on the Iranians."

Thus, from the interview, it is very clear that:

• - the Navy patrol was doing this work in Iraqi waters, and not in Iranian waters.
  
  - It is also perfectly clear that all they were doing in gathering “int” was asking a few simple questions of Dhal skippers in a generally friendly context.
  
  - There was no suggestion of the use of covert listening devices, or watching Iranian shipping, or anything else of a sinister nature. On the contrary, they were merely asking the vessels ships they stopped, under UN mandate, if they had any information that would be of interest about smugglers, Iranian actions, other boats, etc.

Clearly, if some naval jerk had given an interview saying that there are frequent intrusions into disputed Iranian waters, using sophisticated tracking devices etc, then the idiot should be shot, but clearly nothing like that happened.

(iii) “seriously compromise the efforts of similar mission” (last line)

Although I think I have said enough above to show what complete nonsense this is, for good measure, how about a couple of quotes from last year’s UN Resolution 1737 dealing with sanctions against IRAN, which the UK Navy was doing its bit to enforce in perhaps the most dangerous part of “their territories”.

• Extracts from UN Resolution 1737 (examples only)
  
  10. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance regarding the entry into or
  transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated
  with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for
  the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and decides in this regard that
  all States shall notify the Committee of the entry into or transit through their
  territories
  
  17. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized
  teaching or training of Iranian nationals, within their territories or by their nationals,
  of disciplines which would contribute to Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear
  activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;

Note the words "vigilance". That's what we were doing, i.e. applying vigilance whilst checking for smuggling. What's wrong with saying that? It's downright obvious, isn't it? Given this UN remit, what are we supposed to? We don’t run a “Popeye” Navy. The UK's Navy obviously carries out “int” during their normal duties. Doesn't the USA Navy?


Saphire

[pizza]

None of which disproves a word I wrote. Too bad it never occurred to Captain Airhead that the Iranians can put counter-intelligence agents aboard the fishing Dhows and give interviews filled with disinformation. They can also obtain intelligence from the questions themselves. Whatever the Brit crew said concerning any intelligence activites it conducts, whether in Iraqi waters, in the Thames River, or in their bathtubs interviewing their rubber duckies is none of the world's business and they should have kept their mouths shut. Disclosing that information to the media was incredibly stupid. Popeye would have busted them in the chops.

The US Navy doesn't give interviews concerning its intelligence activities. The "need to know" rule is the cardinal rule concerning sharing of information gathered through intelligence, and it goes without saying that it applies to methods of obtaining it as well. The US Navy doesn't share intelligence information within its own units unless it's cleared by proper authority, much less with the press.