But see, the cases of Humberto Álvarez Machaín and Javier Vasquez Velasco; both kidnapped in Mexico by bounty hunters and delivered to the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States. Both were suspects involved in various murders in Mexico, most prominently that of Enrique “Kiki” Camarena Salazar, a DEA agent. While Machain would try to sue the US for his kidnapping and unlawful detention, and he did get the District Court and 9th Circuit to agree with him, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled he was not entitled to any recovery. Even though he was found not guilty via a JMOL at the close of the U.S.'s case. Weird situation, and probably not a precedent a bounty hunter should be relying upon.
I would think, regardless of any host nation laws being violated by hiring mercenaries to operate within their country, that laws like “ITAR” might also trip up any Americans seeking to relive the last reel of The Dogs Of War or The Wild Geese.
You’re surely insinuating something that you haven’t provided evidence for, but I would also point out the timeline.
The Soviet Union was the first country to recognize the Islamic Republic in 1979. The incident I believe you’re referring to happened in 1980. The general trend of Soviet-Iranian relations during that and the years that immediately followed was in the general trend of, “It’s in both our interests not to screw with each other too much.” This common-sense political conclusion I contend is based more on the shared border and that a war would cost many, many lives on both sides; as opposed to the conspiracy theories often touted that the Soviets mailed appendages of its own hostages to the captors of the Soviet citizens; and the Islamic whackos, who are apparently brave enough to carry out suicide bombings but horribly frightened by the sight of blood from said appendage, are instantly struck with terror and offer their total capitulation.
Yeah. Threats of violence. That’s the reason that the Iranians were deterred.
I mean, think of the brutality of the Iran-Iraq War. Human wave attacks, nerve gas, massacres… surely the Iranians would have have been deterred if Iraq had threatened to do not-nice things to them, eh?
This idea that intimidation tactics kept Russians safe from terrorism is macho nonsense revisionist history, nothing more.
Yes, who knows what the Soviets and Iranians discussed? But knowing “we can bomb you into the stone age” and the realization that the Soviets did not have the same restraints as the wussie Americans and their worries about innocent civilians - probably played a role. The need to stay on the good side of someone who had a road and border crossing into their country also may have been a factor. Plus, other than “godless commie” and imperialism, the Iranians had a lot less beef with the Soviets (except, Afghanistan) and their major beef was with the shah’s backer, USA. Why look for more trouble…
I too really don’t believe the “mailing parts of hostages” bit. Most fanatics would not be intimidated by that, it would just strengthen their resolve. The Soviets may not have been on the cutting edge of psychological analysis and profiling but they were not stupid.