12 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76How many normal people go hiking along the Iraquee border?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html
Bail. LOL.
They know she'll never be back to "stand trial" as much as they know the "charges of espionage" are total BS.
Then again, an American setting foot in Iran is so stupid that she half deserves what happened to her.
That being said. God damn, just let her go. I mean it's not as if she's gonna have been infiltrating any high positions, is it?
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNo. If it were really "bail" they wouldn't let her leave the country at all. As it is, they know perfectly well:
Isn't that why the bail is so large?
1) She's innocent
2) Her family/ the US government will pay their demanded ransom
3) The whole incident will have little or no diplomatic blowback
4) They cam embarrass the US a bit with this innocent
So, they do this. This is extortion; plain and simple... not bail.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFWhy would a spy be hiking in the mountains near the Iran-Iraq border?
You mean the CIA hasn't confirmed publicly that she's a spy?
In any case, the fact that the Iranians are apparently willing to release her forever for $500 grand is powerful confirmation that they have no evidence of her being a spy.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76How many Americans are in Iran currently?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html
Bail. LOL.
They know she'll never be back to "stand trial" as much as they know the "charges of espionage" are total BS.
Then again, an American setting foot in Iran is so stupid that she half deserves what happened to her.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFTo be fair, Iran is notorious for these cases so I think it's likely that they are innocent.
Contacting people who live there?
If you wanted to contact, say, Papuan separatists in the Indonesian forests along the border with PNG, how would you do it?
That said, I can understand how Iran might not want to seem lenient with anyone walking across that border. They also probably want to signal future hikers to stay the hell away. Keeping them for a while and releasing them later for a hefty amount is a way of doing just that. If they released them shortly after then how much of a deterrent is that? It makes perfect sense from a pragmatic perspective, although not in a due process one.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaQuite so. I assume she's innocent too. But I grew up in a Britain where apparently NONE of the Britisj spies expelled from behind the iron curtain were in fact spies or indeed guilty of anything, and ALL the Soviet spies expelled from Britain were spies and guilty of something. That's the background to my question to sh76.
To be fair, Iran is notorious for these cases so I think it's likely that they are innocent.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFI think we're on the same page here.
Quite so. I assume she's innocent too. But I grew up in a Britain where apparently NONE of the Britisj spies expelled from behind the iron curtain were in fact spies or indeed guilty of anything, and ALL the Soviet spies expelled from Britain were spies and guilty of something. That's the background to my question to sh76.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd those British sailors who were almost certainly in international waters when abducted? Was that also deterrence?
To be fair, Iran is notorious for these cases so I think it's likely that they are innocent.
That said, I can understand how Iran might not want to seem lenient with anyone walking across that border. They also probably want to signal future hikers to stay the hell away. Keeping them for a while and releasing them later for a hefty amount is a way of doi ...[text shortened]... s that? It makes perfect sense from a pragmatic perspective, although not in a due process one.
Both cases were examples of Iran using bogus charges to flex political muscle. This time they extorted money, last time they didn't.