Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Forces Free 7 Iranians Detained in Raid on Baghdad Hotel
FOX News/AP ^ | August 29, 2007

Posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:10 AM PDT by nuconvert

U.S. Forces Free 7 Iranians Detained in Raid on Baghdad Hotel

August 29, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops released seven Iranians early Wednesday, hours after detaining them at a central Baghdad hotel, an Iranian embassy official said.

An Iranian diplomat, who refused to give his name, told The Associated Press that one of those released contacted the embassy Wednesday morning to say that they have been handed over to Iraqi authorities.

American troops raided Baghdad's Sheraton Ishtar hotel and took away a group of about 10 people late Tuesday. The diplomat said the seven Iranians included an embassy staffer and six members of a delegation from Iran's Electricity Ministry.

"At 7 a.m. today, a member of the delegation called the embassy and said they are now at the prime minister's office," the diplomat said. "The Americans released them. They held them until seven this morning."

The U.S. military confirmed that it had taken "some individuals ... identified as being Iranian citizens with Iranian passports" into custody on Tuesday, but said they were apprehended at a checkpoint nearby the Sheraton hotel during a routine stop.

The others involved were "Iraqi escorts who identified themselves with Iraqi Ministry of Electricity badges," the military said.

Several of the men were observed to have weapons in their cars, none of them had the appropriate permits, so all were detained, the military said.

There was no immediate comment from the military on their possible release.

The arrest of Iranians officials could add to tensions between Washington and Tehran already strained by the detention of each other's citizens as well as U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's violence and alleged Iranian efforts to develop nuclear bombs.

Videotape shot Tuesday night by Associated Press Television News showed U.S. troops leading about 10 blindfolded

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: hotel; iran; iraq; ishtar; seebreakingnews; sheraton; sheratonishtar

1 posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:15 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

And the question that needs to be asked is why?


2 posted on 08/29/2007 5:13:57 AM PDT by Long Island Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Island Pete

Maybe because they really were invited by the Iraqi gov’t and maybe after looking at their laptop we didn’t have enough to hold them on.


3 posted on 08/29/2007 5:21:44 AM PDT by nuconvert ("Terrorism is not the enemy. It is a means to the ends of militant Islamism." MZJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Long Island Pete

Put them in a car and let them drive back to Iran. A SHAPE charge similar to what our guys get should take care of the matter along the highway.


4 posted on 08/29/2007 5:31:51 AM PDT by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Maybe the Iranians were smuggling in drugs and US Attorney gave them immunity to testify against soldiers? Then the soldiers could be thrown in jail like our border agents.


5 posted on 08/29/2007 5:38:53 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

ahh...an attempted hijacking


6 posted on 08/29/2007 5:40:01 AM PDT by nuconvert ("Terrorism is not the enemy. It is a means to the ends of militant Islamism." MZJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

“Maybe because they really were invited by the Iraqi gov’t and maybe after looking at their laptop we didn’t have enough to hold them on.”

Come on, don’t spoil the fun. You’re supposed to say that we should have blown them to pieces simply because they’re Iranians. /s


7 posted on 08/29/2007 5:43:02 AM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad
We should have blown them to pieces simply because they’re Iranians Agents of the Islamic Regime. /no sarcasm
8 posted on 08/29/2007 5:53:53 AM PDT by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
We should have made them apologize on tv about how they were illegally providing aid to insurgents, and broadcasted it on every network.
9 posted on 08/29/2007 6:22:59 AM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Give them a shot of a sterile saline solution, then inform them that we’ve implanted a microscopic tracking chip, and if they ever set foot in Iraq, we will know immediately. Their superiors will probably vivisect them looking for something that was never there to begin with.


10 posted on 08/29/2007 6:29:56 AM PDT by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

Lol. Now that’s a good one!


11 posted on 08/29/2007 6:35:16 AM PDT by nuconvert ("Terrorism is not the enemy. It is a means to the ends of militant Islamism." MZJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

We snagged them from the hotel, let them go, then claim a ficticious roadblock, even as the video makes the rounds.

We’re lying to Iran, in such a way that they know it, and we know they know it, which is the usual diplomatic way of saying “F.O.”

A message is being sent.

I can’t tell what the message is, because I don’t have the full context. Same goes for the message’s intended recipient.

I suspect the recipient gets the message, it’d would have to be clear and easy to follow, or else it’s not worth the trouble to send, especially in this case.

That’s about as far as I can take it. Message sent, tone clear.


12 posted on 08/29/2007 8:03:48 AM PDT by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Island Pete

Agreed. We should kill them and then tell Iran, that every time they break Iraq’s border sovereignty, they will be killed. Every time.


13 posted on 08/29/2007 11:53:57 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

zat vud ‘ave been againzt ze Geneva Convention.


14 posted on 08/29/2007 2:47:06 PM PDT by Rikstir (apologies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

Also againzt ze Geneva Convention...


15 posted on 08/29/2007 2:48:15 PM PDT by Rikstir (apologies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rikstir

Let’s invade Geneva! The Conventions don’t stop the jihadists from beheading. I say, take along with the troops, some ACLU and the Humane Assoce. as we run into the Islamos. Allow the two orgs. to interrogate and cry over them. Then kill ‘em and threaten the two orgs. with a deal in which we trade them to Iran for some nice rugs.


16 posted on 08/30/2007 11:22:09 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

True, but the conventions keep the civilised world from doing the things that the baddies do, for if we did, then we would be no better than the enemy we are trying to destroy. Its like trying to defeat Nazi Germany with Stalins Russia, no good comes from it.

Also, as much as the Coalition would enjoy being able to dictate who and what comes in and out of Iraq, we can’t. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and we are there at the request of Iraq and the UN. Thats why they can avoid calling it an occupation.


17 posted on 08/30/2007 2:30:51 PM PDT by Rikstir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jeffers
What you said.

The Iranians know that we now have everything on the confiscated lap-top.

18 posted on 08/30/2007 2:36:18 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

Two, really bad things, happen when you violate the Geneva Convention.

1. Your own soldiers know they stand little chance of avoiding torture if captured. It makes them extremely hesitant to enter certain combat situations, and much more likely to break ranks and run when holding on just a few more minutes coiuld have secured victory for your side.

The longer a given battle goes on, the more likely it is to reach a point where both sides are evenly matched and playing “chicken”. Uneven contests quickly turn into a rout for one side or the other. When both sides are suffering heavy losses, oit can be a matter of almost random chance as to which one loses nerve and breaks first. You can’t give away the edge of the moral high ground, and at least the hope that captured prisoners will be treated humanely if you want to win the close ones.

2. When you order your men to break the Conventions, they know you are acting against orders and doctrine, in effect, putting your own priorities higher than the war’s original objectives. In so doing, you give them every excuse they need to act exactl;y the same way, except then they put THIER personal interests first, not yours, not the country’s, they lose all sight of the bigger picture that is critical when asking men to lay down their lives, knowing the risks going in.

When you order your men to commit atrocities, they can either obey or disobey, no other choices are possible. If they disobey, you have lost control of them, and you have lost the ability to fight with them before battle is even joined.

If they obey you, they disgust themselves, they blame you for it, and again, you have given away what was an effective fighting force before you crossed the line.

Honing a group of men to a keen fighting edge, and yet preventing them from crossing the line on their own is a delicate balance. It takes everything you have, and even then you may find yourself in a position where your men have been pushed beyond their limits, given into extreme temptation by extreme provocation, and broken the rules.

Of you want to keep your army in terms of it remaining an effective fighting force, respect, honor and obedience demand that you make examples of those who cross the line, in the hope it will prevent others from giving in when there is reason to do so.

Of the two reasons listed above, practicality and self interest far outweight the fears of men who will probably be mistreated if captured anyway.

The primary reason to respect the Geneva Conventions is because it’s the only way to maintain your own army in the medium and long term views. You could even argue that its a matter of practicality over honor, but I believe that the two merge into one and the same.


19 posted on 08/30/2007 4:57:54 PM PDT by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jeffers

Thank you for your good explanation. I knew this too but frankly am just sick and tired of playing war with PC rules of engagement. Some of my students will often just look amazed when I explain the Rules of War, a Just War, et al and they cannot understand how the US military could have gotten a tie in Korea and a loss in Nam. I do and it makes me even more frustrated and sick of liberalism. Sick of PC anything. One wonders what will happen when the jihadists strike again and kill hundreds or thousands more. The Dems will want them arrested and give them legal help from the Justice Dept. Gadfrey Daniel!


20 posted on 08/30/2007 7:48:51 PM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

That way you never burn your own fingers.


21 posted on 08/31/2007 12:10:19 PM PDT by jeffers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson