NationStates Jolt Archive

British forces have rescued two UK servicemen who were arrested by Iraqi police in the southern city of Basra.

Official Iraqi sources say British tanks stormed the city's jail, but the Ministry of Defence says the men's release was negotiated.

Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said it was a "barbaric act of aggression".

The arrests sparked clashes in which UK tanks came under attack. Two civilians were reportedly killed and three UK soldiers were injured.

MoD officials insist they have been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men - who were reported to be working undercover.

But they do acknowledge a wall was demolished as UK forces tried to "collect" the men Iraqi police accused of firing on them.

However, sources in the Iraqi Interior Ministry say six tanks were used to smash down the wall in a daring rescue operation.

Witnesses told the Associated Press around 150 prisoners escaped during the operation but Iraqi officials later denied any prisoners had escaped.

Earlier, two British tanks, sent to the police station where the soldiers were being held, were set alight in clashes.

Crowds of angry protesters hurled petrol bombs and stones injuring three servicemen and several civilians.

TV pictures showed soldiers in combat gear, clambering from one of the flaming tanks and making their escape.

In a statement, Defence Secretary John Reid said the soldiers who fled from the tanks were being treated for minor injuries.

Mr Reid added that he was not certain what had caused the disturbances.

"We remain committed to helping the Iraqi government for as long as they judge that a coalition presence is necessary to provide security," the statement said.

Law and order

Tensions have been running high in the city since the arrest of a senior figure in the Shia Mehdi Army by UK troops.

But Colonel Tim Collins, the former commander of British troops in Iraq, described the Basra unrest as like a "busy night in Belfast".

Col Collins said it did not represent a breakdown of law and order in Basra, which was still a safer city than Baghdad.


What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?


I like the quote from Tim Collins (he's the guy who made the famous speech before the war, he also went to my school, and then spoke at my senior prize giving a few months after his speech), he knows the situation - it can't be that bad.

What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?


I like the quote from Tim Collins (he's the guy who made the famous speech before the war, he also went to my school, and then spoke at my senior prize giving a few months after his speech), he knows the situation - it can't be that bad.

It's hard to tell whether or not they were right from the article. What were the soldiers being held for? More importantly, what type of agreements in respect of extra-territorial status do british troops have in Iraq.

It may well be that the action was completely justified, or it might be completely illegal. Without knowing more it is impossible to tell.

(Though I am glad that the british army still looks after its own).

So we invaded Iraq to set-up a weak, ineffective government we can bully around?

Americans have enough money and influence so that probably would not have occured in baghdad. Apparently UK forces think they're at a futbol game in Belfast.

What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?
I heard that the two guys were accused of shooting an Iraqi Policeman. In which case it is perfectly valid for them to get them and put them on trial.

So interfering in the justice system of a country, especially one who's credibility you try to improve, is certainly not the right, nor a particularly smart thing to do.

Hmmm, I would like to see more information on this, but given the fact that the army claimed the soldiers to be undercover operatives, it does not seem likely that we will see very much released surrounding the details of their charges and arrest.

make of this what you will. (http://upload.localnetsys.com/upload/september05/Basra.jpg)

A soldier jumps from his Warrior IFV after a moltov cocktail is thrown onto the tank.

As he was burning, other locals pelted him with rocks.

at that point, i don't care who started it. forget the canon and coax. rev the engine and start crushing squishies.

make of this what you will. (http://upload.localnetsys.com/upload/september05/Basra.jpg)

A soldier jumps from his Warrior IFV after a moltov cocktail is thrown onto the tank.

at that point, i don't care who started it. forget the canon and coax. rev the engine and start crushing squishies.

While the tank is on fire? You crazy fool you ;)

Edit: Do they still make the armor of the Bradleys out of aluminium? Burns easily I heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.main/

In a statement released in London, Reid did not say why the two had been taken into custody. But the Iraqi official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, said their arrests stemmed from an incident earlier in the day.

The official said two unknown gunmen in full Arabic dress began firing on civilians in central Basra, wounding several, including a traffic police officer. There were no fatalities, the official said.

The two gunmen fled the scene but were captured and taken in for questioning, admitting they were British marines carrying out a "special security task," the official said.

British troops launched the rescue about three hours after Iraqi authorities informed British commanders the men were being held at the police department's major crime unit, the official said.

While the tank is on fire? You crazy fool you ;)

You really think that was the only one there?

You really think that was the only one there?

Of course not, but you didn't say anything about the other tanks. Besides, I imagine doing a repeat of the Tianemen Massacre would go down much worse than what has already happened.

What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?


I like the quote from Tim Collins (he's the guy who made the famous speech before the war, he also went to my school, and then spoke at my senior prize giving a few months after his speech), he knows the situation - it can't be that bad.
Considering that I have no clue why the men were arrested to begin with... Anyway, I doubt storming the prison was a clever way to make friends, especially when a release was being negotiated.

The army stormed the prison because they had been informed that the british men had been handed over to the local militia and no longer held by the police. Which turned out to be true. The police were no longer holding them but had given to people that may well have killed them. So I think the action was justified. If the police had held onto them then no it would not have been.

The army stormed the prison because they had been informed that the british men had been handed over to the local militia and no longer held by the police. Which turned out to be true. The police were no longer holding them but had given to people that may well have killed them. So I think the action was justified. If the police had held onto them then no it would not have been.

Source?

The army stormed the prison because they had been informed that the british men had been handed over to the local militia and no longer held by the police. Which turned out to be true. The police were no longer holding them but had given to people that may well have killed them. So I think the action was justified. If the police had held onto them then no it would not have been.

So let me get this straight: the fact that the army KNEW THE GUYS WEREN'T IN THE POLICE STATION justifies demolishing it and releasing 150 criminals? :headbang: How so? It seems that it should have been the other way round - if they were actually being held by the police then storming the prison (NOT demolishing it, which is as the Governor of Basra called it 'a barbaric act of aggression') would have been justified.

...and releasing 150 criminals?

As far as I know, this part is still speculation.

Source?

Radio four interview with the forign office minister this morning

So let me get this straight: the fact that the army KNEW THE GUYS WEREN'T IN THE POLICE STATION justifies demolishing it and releasing 150 criminals? :headbang: How so? It seems that it should have been the other way round - if they were actually being held by the police then storming the prison (NOT demolishing it, which is as the Governor of Basra called it 'a barbaric act of aggression') would have been justified.

Have heard nothing about this could be true might not be true have to wait and see................

They stormed the station so that they could find out who had the british guys, so it was an intelligence gathering execise that worked. I agree if they demolished the station then they went to far but like I said I have not heard anything about that yet.

Have heard nothing about this could be true might not be true have to wait and see................

Mmm, usually it is better not to fully take in the first official claim at full face value. They tend to be skewed somewhat.


They stormed the station so that they could find out who had the british guys, so it was an intelligence gathering execise that worked. I agree if they demolished the station then they went to far but like I said I have not heard anything about that yet.

Didn't it say that they drove a tank through the wall? It might not completely demolish the jail, but I do think that doing so has most likely resulted in a breech of prison security to the point where a man with a satchel charge would be hard pressed to do better.

Which is quite a poor bit of judgement on their part. Would it not have been simpler to simply move some troops into the area and then talk with the police in charge of the prison to extract said troops? Although one wonders if they should be allowed to move out in the first place. After all, they are suspects in a case of cop killing.

Nevertheless, the use of tanks to break through and forcibly remove the suspects can only be said to be extreme to the point of insensibility. If the time factor was of an issue, the fact that they had tanks and troops there already means that they could simply watch the exits for any attempts to smuggle their own out while sending in a squad to talk with the police chief no?

As far as I understand it, and I could be wrong, having read the news stories the british troops had been removed from the jail and handed over to the local militia, then they hit the jail wall witha tank. Seems that negitiations failed once the two guys had been handed to the militia, an illegal act if it occurered. But I will wait and see what comes out of the news before making up my mind.

As far as I understand it, and I could be wrong, having read the news stories the british troops had been removed from the jail and handed over to the local militia, then they hit the jail wall witha tank. Seems that negitiations failed once the two guys had been handed to the militia, an illegal act if it occurered. But I will wait and see what comes out of the news before making up my mind.

Question. Was it the police or the militia in control of the prison at the time of the jail break? Because if it was under police jurisdiction, they still haven't officially handed control of the prisoners to the militia.

The soldiers had been handed over and were not in the prison they were in a seperate house in the city, the forces raided the prison to get the location that the militia were holding the soldiers. That is the official line at least, what actualy happened will come out in time.

This is the interview I was talking about earlier:

bbc report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4262976.stm)

This is hilarious. Like a tragicomic Keystone Cops, but with absurd and hilarious political implications.

These Brits sure know how to build a nation! :D :D :D :D

This is hilarious. Like a tragicomic Keystone Cops, but with absurd and hilarious political implications.

These Brits sure know how to build a nation! :D :D :D :D


You'll notice, if you read the article, that tanks didn't fire a round. And the soldiers didn't use any rifles, just wooden batons. Now, funnily enough, if the American army was in the same situation do you think the death toll would be the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#UK_fighting_against_Iraqi_police

if you don't already know this is why they were arrested, apperantly planting bombs in civi clothes.

The army stormed the prison because they had been informed that the british men had been handed over to the local militia and no longer held by the police. Which turned out to be true. The police were no longer holding them but had given to people that may well have killed them. So I think the action was justified. If the police had held onto them then no it would not have been.


So what you are saying is that two people operating outside the normal bounds of the Geneva Conventions (operating while disguised wearing local dress) who opened fire in a public place at local police forces require retrieval to the detriment to the further security of the region by simultaneously breaking out any criminals or insurgents held alongside them and severely damaging the military-civillian relationship in one of the few areas of Iraq that has been fairly peaceful up to this point?


Because the job they knew could get them killed might in fact have been about to do so?

Oh yes, the cost benefit analysis sure stacks up nicely on THAT scenario doesn't it?


Or do you think that maybe the Brits really, really, really just didn't want these guys handed over to someone who might be able to get them to talk? That would be my guess, which given what they had been accused of makes you wonder what else is going on that no-one wants on the evening news.

Care to imagine the conspiracy theories flying aroiund Iraq this morning after that move?

Here, let me start one:

They didn't want the guys to talk because the Brits have been behind a few of those political assassinations of local and religious leaders over the past year - removing people they didn't like.



True? Dunno. Possible? Of course!

Fact is that a greater fucking propganda gift to your enemies would have been harder to think up if I really put my mind to it. It destroyed the credibility of the idea that the Coalition forces have any respect for Iraqi authority, respect for the new government, respect for the security services that you are ostensibly trying to get to take over the job, and the respect for the locals by freeing a shitload of dangerous people back into their midst.



Bravo!

What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?


.

To free an Englishman from the wogs? Of course it was right!

bbc news 24 just reported that the two captive soldiers were in the sas.

It destroyed the credibility of the idea that the Coalition forces have any respect for Iraqi authority, respect for the new government, respect for the security services that you are ostensibly trying to get to take over the job, and the respect for the locals by freeing a shitload of dangerous people back into their midst.

Hmm. So, the fact that Iraq is now supposed to be sovereign but yet it can't ask for the foreign military forces to leave hasn't destroyed our belief that the Coalition respect the Iraqi government? Let's face it, the only thing the British have done here is destroyed their own credibility in the south as the Americans in the north haven't had credibility since they arrived.

Of course they were right to storm the prison, the British arranged quite a while ago that any British folk that get arrested by the Iraqi police force are to be turned over to the British Army ASAP.

Sky News is saying that after the Iraqi Interior Ministry told the prison to hand over the troops, the prison still refused.

edit: Therefore, the British "storming" the prison was perfectly legal, and in light of the two men being handed over to the local militia - a very good idea.

This is hilarious. Like a tragicomic Keystone Cops, but with absurd and hilarious political implications.

These Brits sure know how to build a nation! :D :D :D :D

Oh we could not possibly compare to the American administration efforts to re-build a nation after invasion and destroying it's infrastructure and lives.

*laughs up sleeve*

Of course they were right to storm the prison, the British arranged quite a while ago that any British folk that get arrested by the Iraqi police force are to be turned over to the British Army ASAP.

Sky News is saying that after the Iraqi Interior Ministry told the prison to hand over the troops, the prison still refused.

edit: Therefore, the British "storming" the prison was perfectly legal, and in light of the two men being handed over to the local militia - a very good idea.

I'm going to take this with a large grain of salt. So far, the undercover troops, which if memory serves, are not covered by the Geneva Convention and thus subject to the laws of the country that holds them (no rules of war here), have at the very least, are charged with opening fire on police officers while not in uniform. Additionally, there is also an accusation that they were caught attempting to plant bombs (the wikipaedia link earlier).

Whether this is true or not, the standard Iraqi who lives outside the hotspots but constantly hears about IEDs is NOT going to take this news well. The occupation troops are supposed to provide stability, and here we have two suspects on the grounds of not only assaulting police officers with apparent lethal intent, but ALSO planting explosives.

The local Iraqis would go ballistic if they even heard a whiff of this. Why would they even bother being friendly to an army which supposedly has units performing what can only be called attempted terrorism? The resulting disturbance later and attack with molotov cocktails was the end result of that it seems.

Besides, even if they didn't know all this and were kept in the dark (rather impossible), what are they going to think when a prison is suddenly being broken into by a number of tanks, possibly releasing a large number of prisoners? It would not take a lot of smarts to figure out that there is a very big stink going on right here and now. And the party in the perceived wrong was the British Army.

So were they right in doing so? Perhaps in the strictest of legal sense. In any other light, be it practical or moral, it is rather ludricous to think it right save for the possibility that the British Army did not wish for it's members to be interrogated for their actions.

So we invaded Iraq to set-up a weak, ineffective government we can bully around?

Actually the interior minister asked for the Briton's release.

What do you think? Were they right to 'storm the prison'?

.


yes!

It's hard to tell whether or not they were right from the article. What were the soldiers being held for? More importantly, what type of agreements in respect of extra-territorial status do british troops have in Iraq.

It may well be that the action was completely justified, or it might be completely illegal. Without knowing more it is impossible to tell.

(Though I am glad that the british army still looks after its own).

probably the undercover brits had made themselves to look like/blend in with Sunni insurgents... so Iraqi police thought they WERE insurgents and threw them in jail.

If they were held by a militia, they'd have every right to free their soldiers by force. However, this is the Iraqi police, controlled by a legal entity in charge of Iraq, and under international law, is completely sovereign. In short, this was an act of war. The police are probably a bunch of militia thugs and hitmen, but they are legally controlled by the central government. Any action against the police by any of the occupying powers must be authorized by Baghdad.

The army stormed the prison because they had been informed that the british men had been handed over to the local militia and no longer held by the police. Which turned out to be true. The police were no longer holding them but had given to people that may well have killed them. So I think the action was justified. If the police had held onto them then no it would not have been.

Sounds like the Brits are taking a page out of the Army Rangers notebook. Leave no man behind... :cool:

Hawkintom']Sounds like the Brits are taking a page out of the Army Rangers notebook. Leave no man behind... :cool:

Even if said man was acting in a way that made him look like he belonged to the other side and was busted for it?