Iran Arrests US Reporter, Obama Wags Finger
-
US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi poses for a photograph in Tehran in this April 10, 2004 file photo. An Iranian-American journalist detained in Iran since late January 2009 and accused of espionage went on trial this week and a verdict is expected soon, the Iranian judiciary said on April 14, 2009.
I’ve been following the case of Iranian-American US reporter Roxana Saberi for a few months now, and her fate isn’t looking to be too good. Ahmadinejad figures he’s doing this woman a service by allowing her a ‘full defense’ for a fabricated crime. Saberi faces 8 years in an Iranian prison on charges of espionage.
Oh please, Mahmoud.
Some backstory: Ms. Saberi is 1997 Miss North Dakota, born in Fargo. As she is part Iranian, Saberi traveled to Iran in 2003 to work as a freelance reporter for news organizations such as National Public Radio and the BBC (given her situation, let’s cut Saberi some slack for that). According to her father, Saberi has been working on a book about Iranian culture.
Saberi was arrested back in January shortly after she purchased a bottle of wine. It’s only gotten worse since then:
Iran has released few details about the charges against the [Saberi]. Saberi was arrested in January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But earlier this month, an Iranian judge leveled a more serious allegation that she was passing classified information to U.S. intelligence services.
[…]
Her parents… traveled to Iran to seek her release. Her father, Reza Saberi, has said his daughter wasn’t allowed a proper defense during her one-day trial behind closed doors a week ago. He said no evidence has been made public, and his daughter was tricked into making incriminating statements by officials who told her they would free her if she did.
He told CNN on Sunday that her trial lasted only 15 minutes. “It was a mock trial,” he said.
One Iranian analyst said Ahmadinejad’s letter was politically motivated and suggested Iran could be using Saberi’s case to gain leverage with the U.S.
“Iran can use Saberi’s case as a bargaining card in possible negotiations with the U.S.,” said analyst Saeed Leilaz.
Aside from the fact that Ahmadinejad is a world-class a*****e, it’s very plausible that he’s using this woman as fodder for future political engagement with the US. As you can see, it’s clear that the number of charges they pulled out of thin air, moving from a lack of credentials to espionage, has no basis at all. What would Miss North Dakota 1997 be doing spying for the US in Iran?
And as you can expect, our Head of State has done everything short of demanding Saberi’s return:
President Barack Obama said Sunday he was “gravely concerned” about Saberi’s safety and well-being and was confident she wasn’t involved in espionage. The U.S. has called the charges baseless and said Iran would gain U.S. goodwill if it “responded in a positive way” to the case.
Any other country in the world would be outraged at the baseless arrest of one of its citizens overseas. But not Obama. He’s the bigger man, a man of maturity. Hell, he’s so mature his spine has gone and vaporized into dust.
Sorry for rambling there but I felt that I had to show how perceptions can be misleading at times, if you see what I mean.
In general though I am afraid that at some point, possibly quite soon, there is going to be a civil conflict that may well cause a backlash right across the globe, in certain areas in the uk, you can virtually taste the tension in the air, time will tell how it ends up. One thing I do know is that if it does all go mad over here, I am prepared for it in my own way, whoever is foolish enough to try to get at my family in my home is going to be very unfortunate, be they muslim, christian, satan worshipper, whatever.
P.S. I know that sounds like bravado and bluster, etc, but as the saying goes, “the proof is in the pudding”. =)
I understand your frustration, I have felt that way myself with the uk government. It pisses me off at times too, but then I have to remember that they have an entire nation to worry about, so unless the person or people in question are in some way of great importance then their welfare comes far down the list of things to do.
It’s also true to say that he is representing America, but to be fair this guy didn’t come from a long line of politicos, for that matter until the polls started going his way, his own party did virtually nothing for him so it’s hardly surprising that he is behind the curve, especially when as i’ve said he’s got to be ultra carefull for the sake of any future black americans who want the presidency. He could have come out looking stronger, but something to bear in mind is just what his publicity team are advising him, a lot of presidents have suffered from the “good advice” of others, i’ll even go so far as to suggest that at least some of his problems lie with the “long term” staffers in the white house who just plain don’t want him there(and there are a few who have made that clear to one degree or another).
Anyway, I would say call this a f**k up and see how he goes on, if he gets the country back on track(financially) whilst making America looking a bit soft for a few years(bearing in mind you can always vote him out), it’s better than the alternative, which is to look tough as f**k, while the country goes down the drain and straight in the poor house. It’s easier to gain respect than it is to come back from the brink of financial ruin.
My question is this, whilst everyone is saying what a wimp, etc, what exactly do they think he should do? If he threatens them, he increases tension, etc and also increases anti western sentiment, it’s bad enough as it is, we really don’t need any more people pissed off at us, just think every time the west makes a threat, etc, that puts more ammunition into the hands of the extremists and terrorists because all they have to do is say, “look at what the west is doing, look who are threatening our lives, etc, etc”.
The first rule of government is as you say to defend the people, and the way you start is by diplomacy, etc, then depending on the underlying cause for the problem you can then take it further, not threats, then diplomacy.
I know I wouldn’t like it if I were the prisoner(whatever), but realistically I wouldn’t expect my country to throw down the gauntlet over one person, anyone in government who is honest(only triggerhappy nuts like threatening other countries) will tell you that they’re not going to waste much time over one person when they have a nation full of them to worry about.
Here’s another way of looking at it, do you A, want your leader to sort out the economy so that people are not losing their homes, etc and get america back to being a strong economy, or B, go to war and waste billions that the country hasn’t got and/or whip up yet more hatred by threatening another country over one person(who to be honest, knew the risks going in, if she didn’t then she was a moron).
I wouldn’t like losing a member of my country under these circumstances, but i’d understand my leaders priorities as well.
The choice is simple when you remove emotion from the equation, and don’t forget if he does end up being a really bad president he can be voted outat the next election(and he can also be removed from office if he turns out to be incompetant, though he’d have to go past a few expresidents to get that far). =)
Just thought of another option, if he’s really that bad, you can always pull a Lee Harvey on him.
Concerned, you’re right, Obama is probably pussyfooting around because everyone’s judging him as the first Black President. Regardless, it’s his job as the leader of his nation to protect his people. I’m actually outraged at his unwillingness- and I don’t care about his reasons- to condemn someone for wrongfully imprisoning one of his own citizens. If Obama’s plan is to use this spineless, yellow-bellied response every time somebody wrongs the US, then he shouldn’t have run for President in the first place. The duties of the President remain the same, regardless of race or extenuating circumstances.
If this were a situation between, say, Russia and France, and Russia was unwilling to condemn France for this act, I’d mark the Russian leader as a coward with no spine. And I’d expect every Russian citizen to do the same.
The forefather refernce was to do with foreigners, which you brought up you dick
You talk about being held in a foreign land, etc, try looking up about those who did the same and in fact some who are still being held wehter by government or by terrorists
You want him to do what virtually no other has done, you essential problem is that because you’ve had 2 trigger happy bushes you think thats how everything should be done, in essence “do what we say because we’re american, or else”
I don’t need to look at previous presidents to know the one we have now is a pussy. How much do you have to pay Obama to think for you? bet you Wouldn’t be singing Pretty about Obama if you were being held in a foreign country on false charges.
now go back and read the article so you will know that this about the present not the past you fucking idiot!
Like I said, try looking aty previous presidents.
“Or how about the fact that he is using tax payer money to bailout large corporations that failed to do their job, while American citizens are losing their lively hoods”
Again, look at previous presidents
“you would know that those other countries you mentioned didn’t give us America, we took it from them. You half wit our forefathers fought for this country to call home.”
Umm, I hate to tell you this but your forefathers came from other countries you idiot, if you bother to actually read a history you will find that america was colonised by other countries and after a number of generations had passed those that had been born there fought against the original countries thus in essence as it says in your history books brother fought against brother, this meaning that america wanted to be a country in it’s own right rather than just a series of colonies, and as a result fought against the very countries that their “forefathers” had come from, fucking hell you are stupid.
The bottom line is, another country jailed a US citizen- almost certainly on false charges- and all Obama could do was express his “grave concern” because he’s so hellbent on pleasing everyone and so deathly afraid of contradicting anyone. What’s that saying?
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Replace “fool” with “please” and you have the problem with Obama’s tactics.
you should change your name to conned……by Obama!
About giving the country away, look under clinton for one and then be quiet.
Good thing you have guns, you joke, over 70% of privately owned guns, are owned by people who couldn’t hit a barn door at 2 paces.
Another point, you talk about foreigners, yet forget that the situation that you ascribe to todays foreigner is the one that describes your history in that america wasn’t spain, france, england, germany, etc’s to give away either.
My God, imagine how pitiful and pathetic we must look to the world when our own leader is too weak and afraid of getting on nation’s bad sides to protect his own people. He’d sell us out if it meant achieving “peace” with a genocidal maniac like Ahmadinejad.