The White House involvement in the hostages’ release has been confirmed. When the crisis broke, the US and Iraqi governments offered to help. Several initiatives were under way before the release, allowing officials to say that developments were coincidental.

First came the release last Tuesday of Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat missing in Iraq since February. A US administration source said he had been in a joint Iraqi and American facility, though this was denied by a British source.

On Wednesday the Red Cross was granted access to five Iranians who were detained by US forces in January in Iraq. Iran’s President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad announced the same day that the British captives could go home.

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said yesterday that he was pressing the Americans to release the five Iranian detainees, or at least to transfer them to Iraqi custody.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1626726.ece

Must-read: formerhostage explains how US Marines dealt with being Iranian hostages in 1979

Co-operate with the Iranians and you get out in two weeks. Fail to do so and it takes 444 days.

Co-operation means you wear what they tell you to, say you were treated well, and apologize to the Iranian people while shaking Ahmadinejad's hand for the cameras.

Not co-operating means Iran doesn't get a photo-op, happy PR, and the ability to threaten to take more hostages later.

The British servicemen chose to co-operate.

Here is the choice made by the US Marines.

Personally, I would co-operate. But I'm not a Marine. They are better men than I.

It was respectable until this.

Iran plays extremely dirty but to refer them as monkeys is uncalled for and immature.

There is a vast difference between catching someone fighting for the enemy.....and merely suspecting them. Just because America suffered a devastating attack, does not mean they should be able to detain people for years at a time, with no evidence, merely because they happened to be in the vicinity. If they were enemy combatants, they should be treated as such. If they are not enemy combatants they should be dealt with in the judicial system, and able to form a defense against what may just be a false charge.

You do the time. If you're going to play the empathy game, put yourself in the Marines' boots for a minute. They didn't create the mess in Iran.

That's very true. I cannot imagine I could go through something like that and walk away with no anger at all.

Hello duck duck, welcome to the cellar.

You've packed quite a lot into your short post there, which I edited for emphasis, because I want to talk about that middle part, but I didn't want to quote you without context.

Detain? Ok, I guess. But I have some questions for you. Sure, we Americans have "best interests", but *how* those interests are served is open to debate and the differences are CRUCIAL. Let me ask you to clarify some of those points.

You say "detain anybody". Anybody? How do you propose to decide who should be detained? Please fill in this big blank.

You also say "detained", as though the word is detached from its real world effect. All the attackers you alluded to earlier were present in the United States, so I ask you, what do you mean by "detain"? Arrest? Imprison? Abduct? Hold without charge? What is your position on extraordinary rendition?

You also say "might be involved with such terror groups", a comfortably broad and noble sounding phrase (if you're on the "good guys" side), but one that is begging for a little more precise definition for those of us who consider our nation's strength is based on our longstanding respect for and tradition of the rule of law.

I'll temporarily hold back my questions on your comments regarding torture.

I look forward to your reply.

extraordinary rendition

http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/faculty/w...ners_s2006.pdf

So in other words it means they move prisoners from one nation to another nation that has no laws against torture?

Your age and your "biography" speak volumes about the basis of your posts in this thread. Specifically, you come across as young and naive. You, at least, have these as reasonable excuses for your gross oversimplification of the circumstances under discussion. Sadly, many who feel as you do have no such excuse.

So you are talking about the rules of engagement in a combat zone. That is *not* my area of expertise. But I'll tell you this: if you get painted into the corner of responding the way you describe, you will empty the country. You may as well put a barbed wire fence on the borders complete with guard towers, because the suspicions are **HIGH** in those situations. Everybody's a suspect, and it is not possible to respond the way you describe. Shoot, if you don't have some level of suspiciousness of the people on the street, you're probably not paying enough attention.

As a domestic issue, an American issue, such actions are neither legal, nor effective, nor helpful. We outgrew those days (more than once, to our credit, witch trials and lynchings come to mind), and I pray we'll outgrow our current reactionary fears once more.

Gawd. "the war against terrorists"? Please, everybody, just stop drinking the kool-aid, m'kay? I'm sick sick sick of hearing about the GWOT or the TWAT or the TIAP etc etc. We do agree on this, however unlikely that accident may be, that the additional goals of the "war" should be that our ideology be chosen over any that promote death and destruction. It is absolutely tragic that such a distinction is now difficult to discern by so many. We agree on the end, but not the means.

Your means is doomed to failure. Your suggestion that we bludgeon our enemies into not hating us will not succeed. Can not succeed. Here's a news flash for you. The central theater of the GWOT is exactly where people were locked up, no trial, no lawyers, no questions. It is THE current <strike>fig leaf</strike> reason we're still there; "It'll be chaos if we leave!!" It's why we went; "Sadaam is a despot!" Your suggestions would have us become what we sought to destroy. No thank you.

Now you're just being stupid. We'd had more than 200 years of the rule of law before your dad ever met your mom. Pay attention. If you're just gonna call names, we'll soon tire of each other. That'll be fine too, but if you want a dialog, at least check your facts before you open your mouth.

I'm confused--how is our complete disregard for our own laws manifesting itself as concern for not offending somebody? What?! As to wiping out radical terror--sure, I'll get right on that. Utterly Sisyphean (look it up yourself). Like trying to wipe out stupidity.

haha I knew this would degenerate to you or somebody else insulting me which is why I deleted my post. And where have I called you names?
Where was your wonderful tradition of the rule of law when you rounded up 120,000 japanese american civilians during world war 2 because you thought they were going to sabotage installations on the west coast?
If you were just interested in calling me stupid and insulting me then you should have done that on my first post because then I wouldn't have bothered replying to you.

Are you seriously suggesting that America does not have a longstanding respect for the rule of law? If you are, then you are stupid. If you are not, then you're calling names. You pick.

Explain to me the difference, between America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks are terrorists and America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks will commit acts of sabotage?

As far as I can see both are unfair.

Are you capable of having a discussion without insulting people and accusing them of name calling when they didn't? If not then why do you bother?

There is no difference. In both cases they ignored their long standing respect for the rule of law and did what they thought was in their best interest fair or not.