Your analogy isn’t a very good one-- suffering the consequences of doing something really stupid is going to be tied to the act itslef, not some other, hypothetical act. I don’t think Sarah Palin should be detain by Iran because she said Paul Revere was warning the British. The consequence she suffers for being stupid is that people laugh at her. Had she said this while hiking on or near the Iranian border, then perhaps detention by Iran might be a consequence.
Suffering legal action for doing something that skirts or violates the law is another matter. If you act stupid in or near a country known to be hostile to the US, and known to have a joke of legal system, then you risk the consequences of being subject to that legal system.
As noted above, these people were warned by the locals not to go where they went. They weren’t some naive group of eco-tourist, but clearly aware of the geopolitical tightrope they were walking without a safety net.
I sincerely hope that they are released, as I doubt they are spies. I deplore the way they have been treated by Iran. But I don’t sanction the stupidity that put them where they are.
Exactly: Going around asking for where the nature trails were ISN’T something a spy would do to prepare a cover???
etc…
Also, we seem to be giving Iran short shrift on the justice aspect. How they deal with spies is their own affair-time was, a spy could expect to die.
Also, why would Iran go to Kurdish Iraq and grab some people, then call them spies?
I can see these captives being either extremely stupid, or spies.
Best wishes,
hh
I am not sure that Iran has declared taking a walk to be a crime.
Your post is like saying somebody that shot somebody in the back was arrested for moving his/her finger.
You’re making a false argument here. Waldo has made the specific argument that a country should treat anyone who illegally crosses its borders as spies. I have responded with hypothetical situations from the Cold War and etc and suggested that such a stance is irrational. I was not making the claim, and never have made the claim, that Waldo said “the United States should do the same thing.” What I have instead argued is that the position itself is irrational, and to show how irrational it is, I juxtaposed Iran’s behavior with hypothetical situations in which the US or USSR behaved the same way. Note that in response to these hypothetical situations Waldo definitely seemed to think the US and USSR should respond the same way. Did you really miss that entire exchange of posts?
Essentially you have made a distinction without a difference, it’s entirely fair play for me to take someone who says “Iran should treat all illegal border crossers as spies” and then demonstrate many other countries even in times of great international strife did not do so, and in presenting such Waldo continued to argue a more universalist stance on the issue.
I will say this, I don’t oppose the general concept that a country like Iran in Iran’s shoes should give great scrutiny to anyone who crosses its borders illegally. However I find the argument that “hey, hikers with no equipment or means to conduct serious espionage and with no viable cover story is the best cover story ever. Because they would never expect it!” to be facetious. The Iranians for all their faults are probably decent enough at counterintelligence, because they probably have been spied on heavily since the Revolution. They know where their sensitive areas are and probably have pretty good ideas about the movements of some sleeper agents in Iran that they are keeping tabs on. If there was a serious chance these people were spies I think the situation would have played out much differently than it did.
I actually do not believe Iran thinks these people are spies at all.
If that was true I would have expected him to clarify that when I brought up examples from the Cold War. Instead he clearly claimed the US or USSR did or should have done the same as Iran.
I will only briefly respond to anything to do with Guantanamo because it is idiotic emotionalism and has nothing to do with this situation. Iran has no citizens being detained there. (cite)
I don’t know why you continue to ignore his explicit statement to the contrary, which I already quoted above.
I don’t think Iran believes they are spies either. They are unfortunate pawns in the geopolitical gamesmanship Iran plays against the US and the West in general.
I never said an Iranians were being held in Guantanamo. However, we detain people there indefinitely without charges. People who are overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Muslim. Which feeds into Iran’s position of this being a clash between Muslims and Christians. We do not set a good international example.
Of course not. The US government has a huge bureaucracy to make maps of every goddamn thing on earth, not the mention that the US has had troops in Iraq for the better part of a decade.
Of course we give Iran short shrift. They torture people and run kangaroo courts. What’s next, “accusing” us of giving short shrift to Al Qaeda? Pirates? Slave traders? Fascists?
And anyone who has thought about this for two seconds knows why Iran is holding those two guys: because they are Americans. Obvious reasons are obvious.
"The two American hikers detained for nearly two years in Iran on charges of espionage and trespassing have allegedly experienced physical abuse at the hands of prison guards and their former companion is worried they remain victims of mistreatment. . . . "
My Dad was in Iraqi Kurdistan as a tourist a year or so ago. He reports that the border with Iran is very clear, and he and the other tourists were repeatedly warned about it.
Just to chime in of course the three hikers aren’t spies. That hypothesis makes no sense. I think they were just idiot youths who didn’t think that dictatorships really are that bad.
For someone who’s such a stickler for keeping one’s assumptions rational, you seem to jump to a lot of mindless conclusions. For example, in one of your very first posts to this thread, you write,
Where’s the evidence that the hikers are anti-American? Did you just make that bit up out of whole cloth, or is that some intentional mischaracterization which you apply to everyone whose social views you disagree with?
Yeah, that sounds like a guard pushed someone and then slammed them into a wall.
I know that everything is torture these days, but is it not possible that is just “custodial mistreatment”, I mean is it torture when someone gets assaulted in the U.S. by a prison guard? I don’t doubt Iran has committed various acts of explicit torture (I’ve heard of far worse horror stories to people detained after the protests there when Ahmadinejad was reelected.) However that does not suggest to me they are really being “tortured” but instead suggests to me they may have been mistreated occasionally by guards.
The UN says:
I would argue that it doesn’t appear he was roughed up to obtain a confession or as punishment. I don’t know that it was based on discrimination and there also is no evidence it was done with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.
They are capable of spycraft.
With only a small amount of modesty, I can say that I fit the first characteristic extremely well. The Iranian government would never suspect me, since I can’t speak their language, don’t know any Iranians and live thousands of miles away. It’s only the 2nd qualification that I lack.
I think Iran is anti-US/Iraq war. The blurb quoted by me said that the three were “pro palestinian”, another subject I presume Iran would find some common ground on.
In my experience “anti-war activists” do not limit themselves to protesting one particular war. If these hikers are against war in general, as the passage leads one to believe, then their interests in this matter do not coincide with those of the Iranian government.
There are people on this board who have been and have lived (or are living), by choice, in a variety of unsavory places. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a significantly worse country than Iran, freedom-wise. Did you ever attack Paul in Saudia for choosing to live there?