Those captured British sailors

Over at Democrats.com, Heather Wokusch has a terrific overview of the UK/Iran stand-off. A highlight:

Headlines about the captured sailors have conveniently buried reports on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in a domestic political scandal, which had him threatening to resign as recently as last week...

The UK’s Sunday Telegraph reported on March 26th: "Detectives have spent a year looking into allegations that Labour promised peerages in return for £14 million in secret loans to fight the 2005 general election ... Police officers investigating the cash-for-honours scandal wanted to interview Tony Blair under caution but backed off after being warned that it could lead to his resignation."

"Under caution" means that Blair would have been "treated as a suspect, rather than simply as a witness."

I'm sure you've already seen the instantly-famous article by Patrick Cockburn, claiming that the seizure functions, in part, as retaliation for a botched attempt by the United States to capture Mohammed Jafari (deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council) and General Minojahar Frouzanda, head of Iranian military intelligence.

Robert Parry makes this noteworthy observation:

So, in December and January, when Bush ordered raids against Iranian government offices inside Iraq and had five Iranian military officials detained indefinitely, there was barely a peep in the Western news media about violations of international law. Though the Iranians weren’t formally charged, their plight elicited little sympathy.

There were expectations that the Iranians might be released on March 21, the start of the Iranian new year. After that date passed, some observers believe Iran may have opted for a tit-for-tat response in seizing the 15 British sailors.

Of course, it isn't a violation of international law when Bush does it.