(a) Be a little more covert than walking around on hiking trails in what is more or less a nature area;
(b) Be a little more prepared than to bumble around town asking Kurds about where the hiking trails are (as has been reported in the press);
(c) Probably would have been carrying some indications of being spies (laptops, radios, something) that Iran would have used as propaganda – like when the British sailors were kidnapped, Iran used their GPS devices as evidence of incursions into Iranian territory;
(d) I don’t think CIA spies generally come from hippie-crunchy backgrounds that the three have, such as working for the left-wing Pacifica Radio Network.
(e) But most of all, if they were spies, they couldn’t have chosen worse covers. They were, in essence, all social activists. Repressive countries tend to arrest, harass, or at least pay attention to political activists, especially if they are foreigners. It would seem to be common sense that spies would use covers that would make them LESS likely to arouse suspicion of police services, not highlight them as potential rabble-rousers.
Wow – twice in the last two hours I have written exactly what I mean, only to have others say, “So you really mean [insert something not even in the same ballpark as what I said]?”
Is there some kind of new virus on this board that is compelling people to make bizarre strawman arguments?
Others have already asked, but why? You can’t work up any sympathy for some hikers who wandered by accident into Iranian territory? The border up there is unmarked after all. It’s not like they have sign posts and guard towers and a big fence with barbed wire and such defining the border. I’m curious why you think they shouldn’t have been hiking there…the Iraqi side of the border was (at the time) pretty quiet and supposedly fairly picturesque from what I’ve read. Obviously, if these folks had a clue AND a crystal ball they would have been more careful as far as where they went, but what’s happened is a pretty high price to pay for being naive, don’t you think?
I agree with Ravenman…these folks weren’t spies. The CIA would recruit IRANIANS if they wanted spies in Iran. They don’t need 3 hippy activists to check things out on the border…they have freaking satellites and UAVs to do stuff like that. The only reason they would want human spies is to gather information…some hikers wandering about on the border aren’t going to be able to tell them anything they couldn’t get by a hundred other means…and certainly not anything worth getting.
These folks were just some naive activists who wandered into a situation they didn’t understand and have now paid a price far beyond what was called for.
Four of the five points you made explain why the possible cover in question would make you presume they weren’t spies. I’m merely asking whether – had the fifth point been more like the other four – the possible cover in question would have neatly gone five-for-five on making you presume they weren’t spies.
Sort of a catch 22 then, isn’t it? If they look like spies and have spy equipment with them, well, they are obviously spies. If they don’t look like spies and instead look like a bunch of young kids without a clue out for a hike then, well, they must be spies, since that’s incredibly good cover. No matter what they look like, they must be spies…Q.E.D.
Right? Except that this stuff only happens in the movies. The CIA doesn’t need a couple of kids stomping along on the border covered as some dippy hikers. What possible information could they get doing stuff like that? You figure that they were secretly meeting some Iranians, or maybe picking up a dead drop in an old stump with microfiche in it? Maybe they were taking some vital pictures of the border region…possibly some hidden bunkers or camouflaged air to air missile sites in the woods? Possibly meeting up (in the middle of nowhere on the border) with insurgents prepared to overthrow the Iranian government and bring about radical democratic change? Possibly these three kids were carrying in large shipments of money, drugs, porn and weapons?
You’re close: no matter what they look like, they could be spies. And so, if you catch 'em making an unauthorized border crossing, you treat 'em as potential spies no matter what they look like.
Again, that’s the beauty of the catch-all approach: you don’t play a brisk game of But He Knows That I Know That He Knows That I Know That, which maybe you’ll win (if he’s a spy and you realize it) and maybe you’ll lose (if he is and you don’t). Instead, you simply treat any Americans caught making an unauthorized border crossing as possible spies – in which case it doesn’t matter how good the cover is, since you catch anyone who fakes incredible stupidity by also catching anyone who comes by it genuinely.
I got lost in this huge train wreck, but what are you actually arguing here? Are you saying you think that is rational behavior by Iran? Even the United States and the Soviet Union did not behave that way during the Cold War because it would have mostly been plain stupid.
As for the hikers, I don’t mind laughing a little bit at the fact that these anti-American shits have their families boo-hooing and crying wanting the State department to help them get home and all kinds of other bullshit.
The way I see it, if a Roman merchant was killed by a barbarian tribe while traveling on established roads in the Empire, then that deserves response. Borders have been violated, integrity has been violated. If a Roman merchant was 400 miles east of the Rhine doing god knows what and ends up getting killed in some crazed pagan blood ritual, well, that’s his fucking problem.
The equivalency thus is that Iran is our 2011 equivalent of absolute barbarians, and you should treat them accordingly. I have trouble feeling great sympathy or any sympathy at all for people who do not recognize that.
However in this particular case the hikers are even worse than naive, they were just plain stupid. The “general” area is a popular place for hikers, hiking there actually isn’t as crazy or insane as it might seem. But they were told by locals about specific areas where Iran was known to make incursions and harass hikers and they went exactly to that area.
By the way I’m not incapable of feeling sympathy to people who do stupid things and then have bad things done to them. But certain levels of egregious stupidity, I feel something and it isn’t sympathy.
For example there are only a few places in the whole world where you can find an active “lava lake” (and at least one is in Antarctica.) In the Democratic Republic of Congo Nyiragongo is one such place volcano where there is an active lava lake. People sometimes go to view the lava lake. A woman from Hong Kong was there visiting the lava lake, and wanted a close up picture. Her guide told her “hey, don’t get too close to the lake, stay away from the ledge you could fall in and die.” She heard him and came back. Then a few minutes later she went and got on the ledge again intentionally, fell into lava and died.
I feel sorry for her family, but sympathy for her? No, I don’t know that I can feel sympathy for that level of egregious stupidity.
And yet, if this is how the United States dealt with illegal immigration, you’d probably freak. But what better cover for Mexican covert operatives than poor lettuce pickers? Nobody would suspect them of being dangerous agents!
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
what are you actually arguing here? Are you saying you think that is rational behavior by Iran? Even the United States and the Soviet Union did not behave that way during the Cold War because it would have mostly been plain stupid.
[/QUOTE]
During the Cold War, I certainly hope that any citizens of the Soviet Union caught making an unauthorized crossing over our border would’ve been treated as potential spies. And, for that matter, vice versa.
You’re probably right – but if you do indeed think that people sneaking across borders should be presumed to be spies, then there’s a whole other debate on paranoia that we could have.
Well that wasn’t actually the case. The Soviets weren’t typically totally stupid, and reading situations is pretty easy. They probably looked into everything, but the default wasn’t “hold people for 2+ years or indefinitely because they might be spies.”
Keep in mind that even during the Cold War there were various ways Americans could enter the Soviet Union as visitors. The USSR’s relationship to the US was not like our relationship with North Korea or Iran today. We had more communication and interactions. The U.S. does not have any official diplomatic relationship with Iran or North Korea. We had an embassy in Moscow throughout the Soviet era. I don’t remember if it was the 70s or early 80s, but by that time it was even possible to just go to the USSR as a tourist.
As for Soviets entering the U.S., that was fairly typical for defectors. Obviously a defector would be looked at briefly to make sure they weren’t a spy. But certainly not held for 2+ years.
Maybe they were taking some vital pictures of the border region…possibly some hidden bunkers or camouflaged air to air missile sites in the woods? Possibly meeting up (in the middle of nowhere on the border) with insurgents prepared to overthrow the Iranian government and bring about radical democratic change? Possibly these three kids were carrying in large shipments of money, drugs, porn and weapons?