Captain's Quarters -

Time to mine Kharg Island.

The short answer to your question is, No.

They- the MSN, The Democrats and The Rest Of The Left - won't get it until after the next attack on U.S. soil.

"The indictment of British sailors in uniform as spies will violate the GC. Can we expect the same level of outrage over this explicit violation as the supposed violations of the US government?

Captain... really. All civilized peoples know that legal instruments such as the Geneva Conventions are Living Documents. Surely you understand that there are certain... useful interpretations... that can be made when circumstances warrant?

(Oh please.... YES this is sarcasm!)

I would just like to see the level of outrage equal to the outrage over Gonzales and his noncrime.

What Terrye said! ("I would just like to see the level of outrage equal to the outrage over Gonzales and his noncrime.")

When the Iranians took over our embassy back in 1979, that was an act of war, but the pusillanimous James Earl Carter hid in the White House instead of taking military action. Ever since then we have been playing cat-and-mouse with the Iranians, even to the extent of supporting the vile Saddam Hussein against them.

Maybe the British won't be so timid. If the Iranians mistreat their sailors, expect the Brits to take action, and if the Iranians retaliate against our ally, that may be all the excuse we need.

Of course, there are Mr. Carter's comrades-in-fear, now in control of Congress, who will speak forcefully in favor of timidity. But events could drown them out.

Fanciful, perhaps. The iranians probably just want some leverage against more sanctions, and maybe behind the scenes the Brits will give in. But we shall see. . .

We do live in interesting times.

/Mr Lynn

Since the US and Iran are not at war the GC convention does not apply, just like it didn't apply in the case of Francis Gary Powers or any other person "detained" by a nation we are not at war with. Had the Chinese decided to prosecute the crew of the EP-3 that landed on Hainan Island, that wouldn't be a violation of the GC either.

Non Partisan Pundit,

A conflict does not need to be a war. See Preamble, Article 2.

unclesmrgol,

Here is the passage you cite:

"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."

Since a neither Iran nor Great Britain recognize that a state of war exists between the, GC does not apply. Britain and Iran are not at war, the GC does not apply, it's as simple as that.

Sorry, can't type tonight. That should read:

Since a neither Iran nor Great Britain recognize that a state of war exists between them, the GC does not apply. Britain and Iran are not at war, therefore the GC does not apply, it's as simple as that.

On the other hand, while a state of war may not exist at this time, seizing the British sailors and marines is an act of war by Iran, just as their seizing of the American embassy in 1979 was.

The proper response is to chastise the Iranians, preferably with high explosives in places that will affect those in power in that benighted land.

non partisan pundit,

I knew you'd find it -- that's why I didn't link it; it's ubiquitous across the net (as is the entire set of Geneva Conventions).

"even if" means that the treatment under the Convention is guaranteed regardless of whether a state of war is recognized as existing by either party to the conflict. It is there precisely to prevent "weaseling out" by a party to a conflict by claiming that no state of war exists and therefore the Convention does not apply.

If this is not a conflict (in which armed soldiers of one country is captured by a superior force from another country and then imprisoned), then I don't know what is in this modern world in which war is never declared.

I stand by my interpretation, which is based upon the totality of the Geneva Conventions which state specifically that conflict occurs whenever uniformed members of a military force associated with a high contracting party engages in activities opposing uniformed members of another military force also associated with a high contracting party. That is the scenario we have seen here, because both Great Britain and the Islamic Republic of Iran are high contracting parties within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions.

I hope Democrats in the US Congress haven't succeeded in convincing Ahmadinejad that the USA is also a paper tiger. Hard as the Dems try every day, we aren't there yet. The Bedwetter Caucus here is pretty large, but thankfully people around the world understand that they're not the ones in charge--Bush is. But I guess, in Ahmadinejad's mind, the British Parliament have nearly completed the self-castration. We'll see if Ahmadinejad was correct about that.

Fact 1: Tony Blair is committed to reducing British strength in Iraq within months.
Fact 2: Many believe that the Bush administration (not the British) is trying to manufacture provocation in order to justify direct action against Iran.
Fact 3: The Iranians have done more provoking than everyone else put together in the recent past.
Fact 4: The charge of spying against the British sailors is patently ludicrous as spying by anyone's definition means acting in a secretive and covert manner.
Fact 5: Even if the Brits were actually in a contested area, it's nothing that hasn't been going on without serious protest for several years.
Fact 6: The UN has just voted for even stiffer sanctions against Iran.
Fact 7: The Russian facilitators of the Iranian nuclear program have left town in a hurry.
Fact 8: Timing is everything.

Question: Why be more provocative than ever, why play hardball with the Brits instead of the Great Satan? And why be so totally confrontational now - when you'd think that they would be better off backpedalling, for a decent period of time, in order to garner popular support in the nonaligned nations.

At the very least this action has to been seen as a reminder/threat to the Iraqis (and perhaps others as well) that once the Allies get worn out and go home, the country to be reckoned with will be Iran.

They must have a reason for acting in this manner at this time, but I don't see it and if I did, I don't think I'd like it.

The democrats for weeks have been pushing to RUN AWAY from Iraq.

During this same period Iran commits a blatant unprovoked hostile act in international waters.

The US hasn't even left and Iran is already starting to rattle its sabre. Does that sound like a connection?

Is it possible a Republican Congressperson could get a clue and sort of point out this obscure fact countering the Democrats 'runaway from Iraq' resolution?

RBMN:

"I hope Democrats in the US Congress haven't succeeded in convincing Ahmadinejad that the USA is also a paper tiger."

Of course they have. They've convinced the Iranians that the US has no stomach for war with Iran and that we're leaving Iraq in a few months anyway. And Blair convinced the Iranians that Britain is a paper tiger when they unilaterally declared peace against Iran a few months back. And the MSM has helped convince the Iranians that the US is in a quagmire in Iraq, and can't act even if we wanted to.

Do you think that that was the first time Brits have patrolled in Iraqi waters? Do you think it's an accident this happened in coincidence with that execrable House vote this week? That's why they took those servicemen hostage.

So where are the barking moonbats now? Oh that's right, they are camping out in front of Nancy Pelosi's house, burning service personnel in effigy, demanding that our armed forces leave Iraq immediately so Iran can take over...

What a lovely bunch of coconuts.

In an earlier comment Terry wrote:
"They- the MSN, The Democrats and The Rest Of The Left - won't get it until after the next attack on U.S. soil."

No, Terry, even then they won't get it. They refuse to get it. They don't believe that Islamic extremists want them dead. They believe that if they just be nice to them, the Islamic extremists will be nice back. They are applying what they learned on Sesame Street to a large, violent, bloodthirsty group who want to slit their throats. They live in a fantasy world. Even more attacks on U.S. soil won't sway them for long. Maybe for a brief time, but then the moonbats will be back offering forth conspiracy theories, politicizing everything to the point of surrender, etc. to the detriment of the United States and its citizens. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the current crop of liberals to defend this country.

How many, “…60 days to suspend its programme of uranium enrichment or face 'further appropriate measures,'“ periods does it take to build a nuclear bomb? If you don’t know the answer, stay tuned, your about to find out.

Beginning in January of 2006, every 60 to 90 days the Security Council has taken a similar (in)action only to see Iran continue their merry way. One of the two parties, the UNSC or Iran, is dumb as a box of rocks and it’s certainly not looking like it’s the Mullah’s.

Take a good look at the Mullah’s and their actions, sans nukes. Now do just a wee bit of projecting and think how they’ll act with a full nuclear capacity.

Instead of looking at some one-point-whatever billion population of Muslims and acting like the French - urinating in their tights at the thought of upsetting a 10 percent minority - we’d better do some real quick brainstorming and provide an example which counters the role-model Iran is currently providing.

And do it real quick.

Iran’s Hitler is taking full advantage of the UK’s reduction of force and the US congress support of terrorist. When they become a nuclear power there is no doubt they will take out Israel, Western Europe and then the Great Satan.

It is time to give Ahmadinejad what he wants, a couple of nukes, preferably airmail special delivery.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

The indictment of British sailors in uniform as spies will violate the GC. Can we expect the same level of outrage over this explicit violation as the supposed violations of the US government?

ROFLMAO!

But seriously...

I expect that the left will argue that, since we claim that the GC doesn't apply to terrorists who don't wear uniforms, blow up innocent women and children, and shoot our soldiers in the back from mosques, then the GC also don't apply to British sailors caught "spying" by the Iranians. Once again, It's All Bush's Fault(TM): if only he'd extended GC protection to those poor freedom fighters in A-stan and Iraq instead of locking them up in sooper-sekrit CIA torture prisons, this never would have happened. Calling Lindsay Graham! You're wanted on the set of "Face the Nation"!

Say, maybe some of our lefties here can elucidate a related note:

Are British servicemen also dupes of Halliburton? And do Britons join their armed services because they are uneducated, poor minorities who can't get "real" jobs in the Blair economy (worst since the Great Depression)?

liontooth:

Is it possible a Republican Congressperson could get a clue...

The question answers itself.

I fear that Britain is now far enough down the Euro-weenie slope that we should simply expect them to cave on this.

The worst Iran will see from this is strongly worded letters sent through diplomatic channels.

I like the good old days:

From Time magazine, Monday, Nov. 02, 1987
By Michael S. Serrill

"Rashadat, Rashadat. This is the U.S. Navy. We will commence firing on your position at 1400 hours. You have 20 minutes to evacuate the platform." The warning was broadcast from a convoy of four U.S. destroyers steaming 3 1/2 miles southeast of Iran's Rashadat oil-loading platforms in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians did not reply, but within minutes 20 to 30 men were seen scrambling off the facility, situated 75 miles off the Iranian coast, and into a small boat that sped north toward Lavan Island. The warships -- the U.S.S. Hoel, John Young, Leftwich and Kidd -- then poured 1,065 rounds of 5-in. shells onto the two platforms. When the blasting was over, the structures had been reduced to twisted, flaming hulks.

that whacking sound you hear in the background is the "bitch slapping" of blair and bush by a mullah. it will continue until said mullah's hand hurts. you would think that after so many years of this that they all would have callouses and it wouldn't hurt.

we should thank iran for taking the sailors and reminding us how useless our society has become. given the current political conditions here and in the UK there is nothing to be done. old bin continues to be right. spoiled kids with big toys and no spine.

are iran, syria, sudan, hamas and hezzbollah terror organizations led by international terrorists? speak up i can't hear you. yes that's right they are--even the feckless UN agrees for the most part. so if we are in a war on terror and the states that sponsor it why do these states and organizations still exist? unlike old dead bin laden these folks are hiding in plain sight. in fact they party in new york a few times a year.

i'll tell you why they still exist. because way down deep, as a society, we're moral cowards. we are afraid to live with the aftermath of removing these monsters from the planet. we cling to some sort of hopeless pathetic thought that these monsters will become like us and forsake their murderous ways. they won't and tomorrow will only be worse......meanwhile the sailors will be released after the necessary photo ops and iran will get the bomb. on the bright side darfur is close to being resolved--everybody is almost dead.

Blair convenes Cobra team as crisis in Iran escalates

As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.

The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.

In the meantime, Blair made a personal call to European allies, including EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to secure a public denunciation of the Iranians' actions.

EU to seek new Iran nuclear talks

Javier Solana said he would contact Ali Larijani, Iran's senior negotiator, in an effort to schedule new discussions.

Don't you know the Mullah's are really yuking-it-up today?

Bin Laden 'won war against West' he certainly did in 'old' Europe.

unclesmrgol,

That may be your interpretation, but it not the commonly accepted interpretation nor the intent of the GC. There is only a state of war if one country declares it so. Simply taking a few soldiers in disputed waters is not enough. Britain has the right to turn this into a war but so far they have chosen not to, therefore the GC does not apply. And some here may consider it "an act of war" but so far the British do not.

So, until there is an armed conflict where at least one side recognizes it as such, then the GC does not apply.

I have newfound respect for the British military who are able to sneak into a country and spy on it dressed in their uniforms. THAT IS AMAZING SPYING.

Ha ha ha - oldcrow wants the US to nuke Iran and kill tens of thousands of innocent people over this. Typical ridiculous response from far too many Americans.

As smart as the media makes out Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, it seems he dropped the ball on this one. Did he gain anything from capturing British soldiers to further his efforts to obtain a nuclear program by which he can destroy Israel? Certainly not. He made it easy for the UN security council to actually act for a change. This compounds his problems, since Russia has pulled out, at least temporarily, from the building of nuclear facilities in Iran. I think this is probably more due to unpaid bills than anything else, but the problem for Iran remains.

Right now, historically, Ahmadinijad has done his best to be a modern day Philip of Macedonia. He has talked forcefully to some, while using a silk glove to the Europassifists. This action does not fit this mold.

The true addition to the vital equation is how strong will Blair and Bush be in relation to this action. Will they talk about "negotiating" with Iran, or will they move warships in even greater number into the arena, while demanding immediate release of the British soldiers? If I were in Blairs shoes, the choice would be an easy one. Threaten by action (warships) and negotiate silently. They must be aware that the full power of the US military is watching their back, and it is still controlled by President Bush, NOT the feeble US congress.

We shall see....

Any chance the Brits run a commando raid into Iran and arrest some "spies" at an outpost to, um, test the waters?

I doubt it as they are inclined to speaking UNese, but I'd like to see a reciprocal response for starters.

You think Ahmadinejad had some concerns for his safety before his speech to the UN and moments after the Brit ambush/kidnappings that might have made him reschedule due to a suddenly unrealized conflict on his calendar? Now we have the Russians leaving in haste and a new sanctions regime getting approved. We are approaching a tipping point and Ahmadinejad is leaning to improve leverage. Perhaps it's just another test by him to check the resolve of the Great Satan and its worshippers. Perhaps it's the provocation Ahmadinejad needs to court support at home in anticipation of reduced popularity. Or perhaps it's the next step of the remaining few he needs to take to invite his Armageddon and 12th Imam.

Whatever the case, Iran is getting perilously close to war whether the population wants it or not. All we can know is that Iran's government needs toppling and the terror in its midst must be crushed. It is the Grand Central Station of exportable ME terror. Ahmadinejad didn't care about the Geneva Convention in '79 and he cares less about it now. Don't think that the Mullahs running the show aren't of the same cloth.

dave_rywall

Tens of thousands now, or tens of millions later. Choose your poison.

The biggest issue here is that the frigate's CO radioed home for instructions. What a prick. No one would have dared go after him if he went to the aid of his men (Now I wonder if the same thing happened the last time the Brits were abducted by the Iranians).

Boarding parties are a hazardous task at best. What would the CO do if his men were held by a ship they were boarding, wait for instructions.

How may of his men will jump to the task when ordered .

I recall when I was in the military we had a saying, better to do the right thing and get reprimande later than wait for instructions and be told to do the wrong thing.

Crow,

Doesn't matter. According to the Euro-Cannucks like drywall...whether it's tens of thousands now...or tens of millions later, it will still be the "crazy American's" fault...

You lose either way…it’ll be your fault. Better to surrender now.

I would find if funny that lefty-socialist Cannucks like drywall don't consider themselves "Americans"...that is, if I weren’t yawning so loudly.

that whacking sound you hear in the background is the "bitch slapping" of blair and bush by a mullah. it will continue until said mullah's hand hurts. you would think that after so many years of this that they all would have callouses and it wouldn't hurt.

Patrick; damn that's funny.... Thanks.

"Embolden the enemy"; that term is playing out right in front of our eyes, in real time.

While our politicians continue to prove themselves to be she/men, our men/woman in uniform continue to prove themselves to be warriors. The problem with having Congress and the media manage a war, is that only warriors have the spine & courage necessary to "fight & win"... Our founders knew this... Congress can't even get a bill passed, let alone manage a war. When Congress sends American troops into a war, their only job at that point is to make sure our troops have "everything" needed to win the war. Warriors fight wars; politicians provide the funds and equipment. This Congress wants it both ways, which is proof positive that their intent is only to manage an American defeat.

A couple of points, while the Geneva and Hague Conventions may or may not apply in this specific instance, customary international law would seem to prohibit military or naval personnel in uniform from being tried as spies.

On the other hand, let's be clear about this, the Iranian government hasn't exactly covered itself in glory insofar as its strict adherence to international norms of behavior. Saying they "can't" do something is silly. They shouldn't do it, but they follow their own rules, not those of the "civilized" West.

swabjockey -

I never said anything other than a nuclear strike is a really, really stupid overreaction to the current situation. Isn't it?

I'm not going to say you obviously support nuking Iran because that'd be putting words in your mouth, which, clearly is what you like to do.

Try to stick to the subject rather than whine on and on about argument semantics - but THEY'LL say this or THEY'LL say that. Grab a backbone and say what you think about the situation at hand instead of namecallingly crybabying about what your perceived opponents might or might not say or do. Your kind of commenting does nothing to advance dialogue about a serious situation.

Cheers

I wonder if Ahmadinnahjacket is playing some sort of "madman" game a la North Korea (recall that the norkies siezed the USS Pueblo back in '68... and got away with it). Perhaps by fostering his image as a wild man, Ahmadinnahjacket gives himself a tremendous bargaining chip, almost like a spoiled child with overindulgent parents ("Oh, give him the toy so he'll stop throwing a tantrum!"). Plus, he proves to his benighted people that he's willing to stand up to the Great Satan and our British toadies.

Assuming that the British don't do anything beyond a sharply worded protest at the UN in response to this outrage, Ahmadinnahjacket may have done himself a lot of good: the UN can barely find the stones to deal with rational, compliant nations; it has shown itslef utterly ineffective in the face of lunatic defiance.

Did he gain anything from capturing British soldiers to further his efforts to obtain a nuclear program by which he can destroy Israel?

Indirectly, yes, in the form of kicking up trouble between the US and the UK.

Let's say A demands a prisoner swap -- their British prisoners for some or all of the ~300 Iranians the US has arrested (out of uniform, I'll note) in Iraq. There have already been some rumors to that effect. Whatever Blair's views in the matter, the large contingent of quislings on his island is going to lean hard on him to lean on the US to do a deal. President Bush is then put in the uncomfortable position of either telling our ally that those 15 Brits are toast, or caving in and rewarding Iran by releasing genuine spies.

The trial is just political theater to increase public pressure and muddy the waters for the easily-muddled left.

docjim505,

Ahmadinejad knows exactly what he is doing and he has told everyone who’ll listen:

1) He has stated he would sacrifice half the people of Iran to destroy Israel.
2) Ahmadinejad said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. He would welcome Armageddon because it would mean the end of Israel and the evil western powers. Nuclear power is the means to achieve this.

This latest episode is just another push to see how far the west will give.

He believes he’s in contact with the 12th Imam and it’s his holy mission. He is more dangerous than Hitler was and he has the resources of Iran at his disposal. It’s only a matter of time before he accomplishes his goals. History is on his side. The only thing that has ever stopped the spread of jihad has been the use of overwhelming power.

Ahmadinejad may be possessed, but he’s not mad.

oldcrow,

While I absolutely agree that Ahm. is a real problem, I really wonder about his apocalyptic pronouncements. Yes, there ARE "true believers" in the world, but I think that the historical evidence is that they are somewhat rare; more rare, at any rate, than poseurs who like to make people think they are true believers as a bargaining tool. Witness Mao and the Red Chinese during the '50s and '60s: he and his goons routinely rattled their sabers and pronounced that they'd all but welcome nuclear war with us, but when push came to shove (as it did a couple of times over Matsu and Qemoy in the '50s), they backed down. Witness Mookie, who is perfectly content to order his minions to perform suicide bombings but ran like hell for Tehran the moment he thought that the gloves were coming off. How many terrorists have we captured that had previously made all sorts of boasts about how they'd NEVER be taken alive?

My feeling is that we can play Ahm.'s game and see just how full of s*** he really is:

"Oh, you want an apocalypse to bring back the 12th imam or 13th warrior or 4th down or whatever it is? Weellll, we can CERTAINLY help you with that! When do you want us to start bombing?"

Even IF Ahm. is a true believer, I expect that the vast majority of the other ayatollahs aren't and have no desire to see the Wrath of God (or the US Air Force, for that matter) first-hand.

docjim505,

I believe what we are seeing is analogous to what has proceeded other wars. No doubt Ahmadinejad will protect his own ass to carry on the cause, but he will act.

He probably wants to detonate a device high in the atmosphere over the US. This would not cause many immediate deaths, but the effects of the resultant EMP could do enormous damage to our infrastructure. It could turn us into a third world country overnight.

Western logic and ethics don’t apply here. We are secularists in a religious war; we just don’t realize it yet.

Every day, the US is derelict in its duty as a GC high contracting party by not even making the effort to count up the war crimes and report them. Our legal machinery in the military was overwhelmed past the first few weeks with cases.

We're witnessing the fruit of that negligence. Every day of the week we've let war crimes slide in Iraq. What's one more? Why should Ahmadinejad let Al Queda and Sadr have all the war crime fun?

We should demand better from our own military courts and lawyers. At least the briefers should include the statistic and insert an appeal for legal aid to handle the deluge in every high level briefing. Had we been doing this for the past several years, our infowar position would be much improved and Ahmadinejad would be much worse off had he decided to go through with a snatch and grab like this.

Why do British and American ships think they own the Persian Gulf? Wouldn't the ACTUAL countries in this region have some territorial rights? America needs to get their behind out of the 130 countries where we have troops, bases, or advisers. Lets spend some time and money on OUR infrastructure. Iraq was a paper tiger, everyone knew that. Why are we starting the 5th year of occupation? Iran is acting tough because they no were tied down in Iraq. Bush rattles swords with Iran when were not really in a position of strength. Think Maliki would support us in a war with Iran, his fellow Shia? If you do your drinking the kool-aid.The Iraqi invasion was the worst foreign policy blunder in our history. You reep what you sow. We don't have a big enough army to control Iraq AND IRAN. Bush rolled the dice and he lost. We've made a mess in Iraq, why not do the same with Iran? Oh, by the way, Iraqi fisherman reported the Brits were in Iranian waters. Not a smart move. Bush will go down in history as a latter day Nixon. Congress has had enough of this illegal war, there not the rubberstamp congress of the last 6 years. Elections have consequences, Bush hasn't learned this yet, but he will.

“The ship was in Iraqi waters,” said the fisherman

One of us misread that statement.

I agree with Captain, it's an outrage. If Iran wants war with the West, let's reinstitute the draft and prepare for war.

But all the attacks on Democrats are out of place. It's not on the Democrat's watch that this kind of behavior is occurring. When Serbia messed with the US, it was taught a lesson. But that was when the US was in a position of strength.

Bush has put the US in a position of weakness in the Middle East. It was his policies that made Iran the prominent power in the Middle East and gives it the gall to mess with NATO forces now. The Democrats have nothing to do with Bush's mistakes (except for those who voted for the war without demanding a serious debate).

It's not on the Democrat's watch that this kind of behavior is occurring. When Serbia messed with the US, it was taught a lesson.

Too bad that 'lesson' wasn't taught to Somalia.

But that was when the US was in a position of strength.

And BTW the Iranians did it to the UK, and not to the US.

The Democrats have done EVERYTHING possible to undermine Bush at home and abroad. Therefore, it is very difficult to have a position of strength with the "blame America first, and Bush Always" crowd so vocal and SO WRONG!!

"No Partisan Pundit's" personal views are irrelevant. The Conventions are clearly interpretted as in effect in "Any armed conflict" and there is no doubt that seizure of troops by armed troops is armed conflict. NPP might have a point if the British were merely asked nicely to turn themselves in, and did.

It's an unfortunate thing that grabbing some Iranians as bargaining chips will not work. These sorts of nations exploit the fact that Western nations place great value on their people and will go to great ends to recover them, while Muslim nations regard theirs as livestock. Hence the massively unequal prisoner swaps between Israel and Arab nations, demonstrating Arab agreement to the Israeli position that one Israeli really is worth hundreds of Arabs. The Iranians know full well that each Brit sailor or Marine is valued at many, many times as much as an Iranian. Britain would have to offer thousands as an equal exchange.

Ben

Interesting report saying Iran abducted the British sailors as retaliation for costly Quds Brigade defections in Iraq. The defections devestated the Quds network in Iraq and the report says that would explain the recent drop in the deadly shaped-charge attacks (EFPs) against U.S. forces over the last month.

Your Geneva Conventions Article is found in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, not the original.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=470&ps=S

They are not a signatory to it, so can't really be breaking it. Neither are we, for better or for worse. Though I do believe holding a foreign nation's soldiers is enough for a declaration of war. Unless you kidnap Israel's, then it's ok.

Time to hoist flags "1" and "6".