I think everyone who is accusing them of being spies are actually spies.
What better way to conceal one’s own cloak-and-dagger activities than to accuse hippyish, barely-employed 30-somethings of being spies? It all makes perfect sense!
I’m hesitant to share this, but while I felt perfectly safe 99% of the time during my Peace Corps service, at the very beginning of my service I was sexually assaulted. While plenty of people get sexually assaulted in the US every day, I can say with certainty that I never would have been in the situation in the first place had I been in the US. While it’s harder to be sure, I doubt it even would have happened had I just been hanging out abroad instead of being a Peace Corps Volunteer. I had just spent three months being told that I needed to make friends with the people in my community, including with people I wouldn’t normally be friends with in the US. The guy who assaulted me was my coworker’s husband, and I was afraid that if I reported it, my working relationship with all of my colleagues would be ruined for the next two years.
To say that Peace Corps isn’t dangerous underestimates the difficulties and vulnerabilities of being alone in a foreign environment where you’re not 100% culturally and linguistically confident, and where you’re limited by being a guest in the country as a representative of another.
It was stupid.
On the flip side, how would you react if we found three Iranian’s who “accidentally” hiked across the Canadian border and were found with camera’s and maps? I doubt the American public would be donating money to give them a nice, business class flight home and some souvenirs.
There is something called “street smarts” - it is something most people learn at an early age: Don’t go into Mr. Johnson’s yard with the 12 pitbulls. Don’t wear a gold Rolex when wandering down skid row at 3:00 AM. Don’t fucking walk into a war zone.
If you want to restrict this strictly to peace corps volunteers who were murdered or kidnapped for political reasons, there was Richard Starr, held hostage from 1977-1980 by FARC rebels in Colombia:
http://knol.google.com/k/hugh-pickens/peace-corps-stories-colombia-pcv/hub5zounu2wt/33#
There was Timothy Swanson, who was kidnapped by Philippine Communists in 1990 and held for two months:
Well, shit, people in America get kidnapped by FARC rebels and Philippine Communists like, every other day!
[Assuming they’re not spies…]
I don’t have much sympathy for them. I see what they did as self-indulgent, unnecessary, ill-advised, and quite predictably causing a heap of trouble for a lot of people who are totally innocent of their shenanigans. While the personal consequences they’ve suffered seem extreme in the narrow scope of going out for a hike, it wasn’t just any old hike. I would hope that their experience knocks some of their sense of entitlement out of them.
Here’s the link to the 2008 Volunteer Safety Report from the Peace Corps. If I’m understanding the statistical measure correctly (rate per 100 volunteer-trainee years), it seems to me that the Peace Corps is statistically more dangerous than New York City.
For example, in 2008 there were 182 robberies in the Peace Corps. There were 7,876 volunteers and trainees as of Septmber 30, 2008, but only 7,407 VT-years because volunteers aren’t always posted and in are in-flux during the year. So, for accurate statistical purposes, in 2008 there were 182 robberies per 7,407 volunteers, an incidence rate they report as 2.4 per 100 VT years.
Now, looking at the data here, we see New York City has a rate of 265.9 per 100,000. To contrast, the Peace Corps rate would translate to 2400 per 100,000.
For aggravated assault, New York has 297.6 per 100,000. Peace Corps extrapolates to 490 per 100,000.
On the plus side, no homicides in 2008 at the Peace Corps. In total, we have 21 homicides in the Peace Corps from 1961 through 2008.
Of course, I don’t know if the categories used by the Peace Corps are exactly the same as the categories used by the FBI in the statistics I quoted. While I don’t think of the Peace Corps as being particularly risky, I think it’s certainly more risky than the life of the average American.
I really don’t think they’re CIA. First off, the CIA wouldn’t send three 20-something dumblefucks off in the wilderness to sneak into Iran. It’s not North Korea. There’s plenty of information flowing out of Iran as we saw during the protests. Sneaking across a remote and desolate border makes absolutely zero strategic sense, especially as it’s not like they had enough supplies to stay any amount of time.
The CIA doesn’t throw away three officers (and millions in training and cover stories) like this. It installs people in the diplomatic corps and they have locals to do the sneaking shit. They also have better cover stories for their employees than “photographer with wanderlust for travel” and “teacher-activist-writer.” These are a bunch of know-nothings and I’m sure the Iranians were well aware of it after about ten minutes of questioning.
Of course it does. She’s not Dio and **Dio **is the only one who experiences the world.
Evidently not.
Whether and to what extent it is wise to intervene on someone’s behalf is largely a different question from whether it’s right that we should feel sympathy.
None at all. Or as Pérez-Reverte put it about some moron whose suit against the whiterafting company on one of whose trips he’d broken an arm had been summarily dismissed, “which part of ‘dangerous’ didn’t you understand?”
Yes, I have less than zero sympathy. They’re on the very short list of people I actively despise. And that should be “enemy” powers, given the CIA’s track record
Yes, I would.
Nope. Maybe some of the OSS people in WWII. But since then? Not a damn one of them.
You’ve never lived in a country on the wrong side of the CIA’s activities. I have. Fuck them all with rusty barbed wire.
Out of curiosity, doesn’t South Africa maintain its own intelligence services? You’ve got a Secret Service with an intelligence mandate, a National Intelligence Agency (with a very creepy logo), and I’m guessing your military probably has something akin to the USA’s Defense Intelligence Agency. Spycraft is part and parcel of statecraft - are you certain it is never a legitimate part?
And I’m against those, too.
Pleading its inseparableness from statecraft is probably not the right tack to take with me, as I’m no lover of nation-states, either.
Fair enough. But how, then, are we to govern ourselves? And protect ourselves from neighboring states and non-states that wish to impose their will upon us? And maintain the infrastructure that modern civilization requires?
Further - what characteristic or characteristics of your proposed system of governance would eliminate the need for intelligence services?
Participatory democracy.
Passive resistance.
Hard work.
The one where the government isn’t evil?
I’m fairly certain that passive resistance to the janjaweed, or Nazis, or genocidaires, or Soviets, would lead only to a death remarkable both for its swiftness and unpleasantness. The same holds true for passive resistance to any number of other tyrants, both contemporary and historical. Some people are monsters, and can only be constrained at muzzle’s end.
I’m not convinced that truly participatory democracy is a viable means to governing a large state, but I’ll skip that for now - while still pointing out that you’re going to need a state for that participatory democracy to govern if you’re going to use “hard work” to maintain the infrastructure. Absent a state, how will you establish which bits of infrastructure are to be maintained, and to what standards? Who will establish and enforce safety rules for the workers? For passengers on public transit? Who’ll collect taxes to pay for all of this?
But so long as other governments remain fairly evil, don’t you need some means to keep an eye on them? Heck, I wouldn’t wish Zimbabwe as a neighbor on anybody - wouldn’t you want to keep an eye on the Mugabe regime?
think of it this way. three people go for a hike near a cliff. They know the cliff is there. They are warned that the edge isn’t marked and easy to not see in the dark. They go hiking at night anyway. They fall off. I don’t see where sympathy is deserved. If they had roped up, waited until daylight, taken sufficient precautions, then I would feel sympathy. But these hikers didn’t take sensible precautions. That is fine with me. They had the adult right to do what they did. But when bad things happen to people who aren’t being sensible, I am not sympathetic. They took a chance and lost. I won’t critisize them for their choice. I wouldn’t critisize the driver for driving through Compton. But failing to protect yourself, for instance not by wandering near a hostile unmarked border or taking an equally quick and safe route home, means that sympathy isn’t justified. It is fine that they did what they did, but they don’t deserve sympathy.