How the British prisoners were treated via Washington Post:

The 26-year-old Royal Navy lieutenant said that when the 15 were brought to the Iranian shore, they were subjected to repeated interrogations. “The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that,” he said.

But after they were moved to a prison in Tehran the next day, “the atmosphere changed completely,” Carman said.

“We were blindfolded, our hands were bound, we were forced up against a wall,” he said. “Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.”

He said they were later stripped and given pajamas. “The next few nights were spent in stone cells approximately eight feet by six, sleeping on piles of blankets,” he said.

“All of us were kept in isolation,” Carman said. “We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options. If we admitted that we’d strayed, we’d be back on a plane to the U.K. pretty soon. If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison. We all, at one time or another, made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of nonoperational information.”

[…]

Air said in response to a question that the worst moment for the group was probably the incident when they were lined up against a wall at the prison in Tehran. But he said it was not an actual mock execution.

“I think some of us feared the worst when we were in that situation, hearing weapons being cocked and not having any awareness, being blindfolded and our hands bound,” the 25-year-old Royal Marine captain said.

After reading this, I don’t think Iran has really done anything wrong. Let’s take the incident the soldier calls the “worst moment.” They were lined up against the wall, blindfolded, and the Iranians cocked their weapons. But this was only a threat. The Iranians only induced panic — and that’s all it was, there was no actual physical harm done.

Having shown that the worst moment isn’t that bad, it’s easy to debunk the notion that the British soldiers were tortured in any way. The Post notes that they faced “constant psychological pressure.” So the Iranians played some mind games. It’s not like they pulled out anyone’s fingernails.

Even though the handling was rough, I’m pretty sure Iran is still on solid legal ground. They did not engage in outright torture. Coercive interrogation was only used to get information. Torture is a pretty reliable way of getting information, judging from how well the War on Terror is going (no attacks in 5 years). Thus, I think although the British have recanted their stories, they are actually lying now. Their confessions were right and they were illegally in Iranian waters.

Besides, even if they were subjected to worse treatment, it’s not like Iran and Britain were at war. The British were not prisoners of war and hence are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. They were only detainees.

So I really don’t understand why the Washington Post is giving space to quotes from a bunch of dhimmis who simply surrendered. Nothing wrong went on here. And even if they did, the Iranians were justified in using more coercive techniques in order to get the proper information. It just goes to show that you can’t avoid liberal bias.

[Alright, time to shift from satire mode.]

Quote worthy of remembering:

Roper: “So now you’d give the devil the benefit of law?”

More: “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?”

Roper: “I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”

More: “Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man’s laws not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

“Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”

Neoconservatives, the devil has turned on you. Where are you going to hide?