The British "confessions" are false

I have read with dismay on these boards, people believing the Iranian statement that the British Sailors held by them had all "confessed" to trespassing into Iranian waters.
I am 100% certain that these "confessions" are false, I will give my reasons for this assertation at the end of this post..
A very short while ago I was serving onboard a type 42 warship in the Arabian gulf region and was a member of a boarding party that regularly boarded Vessels entering and leaving Iraqi waters.
A typical boarding would go like this:
A vessel would either be picked up on RADAR or orders would come from an external source that a ship was to be boarded.
Whilst the warship closed on the vessel the ship would go to boarding stations. Any boarding party that were off watch would be woken and the helicopter and sea boats would be prepared.
The officer and the senior rating in charge of the boarding would be briefed by the command on the boarding procedure. At this time they would be told the position of the vessel. They would then brief the boarding parties on the procedure for boarding. At no time during this brief would the vessels lat and long be mentioned. Only the details that are required by the boarding party would be imparted to them. These are the size of the vessel, expected number of crew, expected cargo and method of boarding.
A typical boarding would take place by either Rapid rope descent onto the deck of the vessel from a helicopter; or if the vessel is compliant then a bording by sea boat would take place. This would involve a transit to the vessel to be boarded by boat follwed by an ascent onto the vessel up a rope ladder lowered by the vessels crew. The boarding party would normally be split into three sticks of five men although dependant on the size of the vessel not all fifteen men may be used.
Once onboard the vessel the Officer in charge, accompanied by two guards would go to the vessels bridge. other boarders would split into groups of two (one searcher, one guard) whilst the senior rating would move between search groups acompanied by one guard. the vessels crew would usually be put onto the bridge where a watch could be kept on them.
Each searcher would carry a pistol to allow ease of access into small compartments whilst his guard would carry a 5.56 rifle.

It was reported that the British sailors were detained whilst returning to their ship by sea boat. this means that the detainees consisted of four boat crew (two in each boat) one officer with two guards, one senior rating with a guard three searchers and three guards with one medic or first aidsman.

The only member of the boarding party that would have known the exact position of the ship and if they were in Iranian waters was the officer in charge. This is because it is his job to study the charts and navigation track of the vessel.
It is possible that the officers guards could have seen a lat and long position of the vessel on a GPS machine on the bridge. It is doubtful however that they would have known the demarkation line between Iraqi and Iranian waters.
The other members of the boarding party would have been below decks and so had no way of knowing their position.

The coxswain and Bowman of the seaboat would not have known their position. the only navigation that they were required to carry out was visually between the boarded vessel and the mothership. There is no requirement for the seaboat crew to carry navigation charts as they would have been in visuall and radio contact with the warship at all times.

Keeping all of this in mind it is safe to say that either the Iranians are lying when they say that all 15 Sailors have confessed to trespassing into their waters or they have tortured false confessions out of them.

What a brilliant post. Thank you for your recent service and thank you again for the service you have provided here. While the steady Anti-western dribble you've noted seems to have pressed some of the more thoughtful posters among us to the edge, your post is simple and logical. A perfect recipe to difuse a recently inflammed subject.

Originally posted by avriel
Keeping all of this in mind it is safe to say that either the Iranians are lying when they say that all 15 Sailors have confessed to trespassing into their waters or they have tortured false confessions out of them.

Not to try and derail this thread but I have to ask. Do you believe that the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being the mastermind "from a to z" of 9/11 is true?

Remember that he was in a secret prison for awhile and is now at Gitmo I believe. BTW, the US has been proven to be using torture.

Thanks a lot Avriel, it's really useful to have access to first hand experience of these procedures.

Do you have a view on why there would have been no intervention from the Frigate or helicopter to assist the boarding party once the patrol boats were identified?

[edit on 26-3-2007 by timeless test]

Gotta say it, Griff - you are derailing the thread and one thing doesn't really have to do with another. I understand where you're coming from, but it sounds like you're just trying to start an argument rather than discuss the topic at hand.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by timeless test
Thanks a lot Avriel, it's really useful to have access to first hand experience of these procedures.

Do you have a view on why there would have been no intervention from the Frigate or helicopter to assist the boarding party once the patrol boats were identified?

[edit on 26-3-2007 by timeless test]

I'm afraid it all comes down to rules of engagement. The Ship would have been at boarding stations which means that the helicopter would have been ready to fly and the ships 20mm and 4.5 inch guns would have been manned. However they would not have been allowed to engage the Iranians without permission from a higher authority. At present HMs Cornwall has her.CTF158 Based onboard and I am guessing that maybe even they did not have the authority to engage the Iranians and so had to wait for further orders. Maybe time just ran out. Or maybe they did have the authority to order an engagement but decided to wait and see how the situation played out.

Not trying to start an arguement. I was just curious as to the OPers stance on the other subject. As far as the OP. I would agree that they were probably tortured. But, torture isn't the method of only one side here.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by avriel
Keeping all of this in mind it is safe to say that either the Iranians are lying when they say that all 15 Sailors have confessed to trespassing into their waters or they have tortured false confessions out of them.

Not to try and derail this thread but I have to ask. Do you believe that the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being the mastermind "from a to z" of 9/11 is true?

Remember that he was in a secret prison for awhile and is now at Gitmo I believe. BTW, the US has been proven to be using torture.

Ok I will humour you for a second or two. I believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a big man down at al qaeda central. however I don't think that he was as important as he says he was. His confessions were all hot air, made in an effort to get people to believe that he was as important as he believed himself to be.
Maybe he was tortured and decided to big himself up (if your gonna confess may as well do it in a big way), maybe he volunteered the information in order to make himself sound bigger than he was (he was going to go down anyway so he may as well make people think he was important), who knows ?
I do know that he wasn't onboard HMS Cornwall when it boarded the merchant ship in the gulf.
Now back to the subject

[edit on 26-3-2007 by avriel]

Thanks Avriel - I guess it takes an awful lot of bottle to open up on Iranian forces in that area knowing the possible consequences.

Originally posted by avriel
Ok I will humour you for a second or two. I believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a big man down at al qaeda central. however I don't think that he was as important as he says he was. His confessions were all hot air, made in an effort to get people to believe that he was as important as he believed himself to be.
Maybe he was tortured and decided to big himself up (if your gonna confess may as well do it in a big way), maybe he volunteered the information in order to make himself sound bigger than he was (he was going to go down anyway so he may as well make people think he was important), who knows ?
I do know that he wasn't onboard HMS Cornwall when it boarded the merchant ship in the gulf.
Now back to the subject

[edit on 26-3-2007 by avriel]

I agree with you. I just wanted to see what you thought about our forces using turtoring as oppossed to the "enemy" using torture to obtain what they desire. Any difference....maybe. But, claiming torture really has no bearing anymore because the US uses it and the UK uses it. Who's in the bad...I don't know. But the point was, don't call torture when you know full well that we use it also.

Of course they're false.

Indeed, there's one big contradiction in Iranian claims. Just a day or so after kidnapping the British personnel, they claimed to have confessed to knowingly entering Iranian waters. And then, today, we see this:

Iran has said it is questioning the British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was "intentional or unintentional" before deciding what to do with them — the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.

Source

So... why question them if they've 'confessed'? Because Iran needs a way out of this one. Suggesting that the confession was either made up or given under coercion.

Originally posted by Griff

I agree with you. I just wanted to see what you thought about our forces using turtoring as oppossed to the "enemy" using torture to obtain what they desire. Any difference....maybe. But, claiming torture really has no bearing anymore because the US uses it and the UK uses it. Who's in the bad...I don't know. But the point was, don't call torture when you know full well that we use it also.

It matters not which side uses torture, what is important is that it is highlighted as torture. The moment that people stop "calling torture" just because both sides use it, it becomes an accepted method of interegation and that is a very dangerous road to walk down.

If you saw Rosie odonell on the view you wouldn't be saying this.

I believe both sides think they are correct... why? Because I've seen enough horribly planned charts in my time to believe that the Iranian charts claim waters to be theres, and the British have charts that claim otherwise.

Seriously, borders and markers on charts get messed up ALL the time.
Last time I sailed down the eastern coast of the US, one of the other vessels in our group ran aground... in water that was supposively 22 meters deep. His keel only dragged 1.5 meters. Thats a 20.5 meter mistake that cost alot of money, and yes, those were the most recent charts.

I've also seen the US/Canadian border on the lake Ontario charts placed WAY off. Had to explain why I didnt have my passport on me to the coast guard.

Now, if charts can get so horribly screwed up along the very coast and border of the country who made them, I can guarantee you there will be discrepancies between the borders on the British charts, and the Iranian charts.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by johnsky]