Iran has found yet another way to polarize world opinion and engage in self-aggrandizement. In one of the more transparent tissues of spin I can recall, the government of Iran has "pardoned" the 15 British sailors and marines and promised to return them to the British Embassy safely as a "gift to the British people." Happy Persian New Year, Your Majesty!Why, one wonders, did need a pardon? They didn't intrude on Iranian waters. They were operating under a U.N. mandate for military action. They did nothing wrong and were arrested and held hostage for two weeks. Although the announcement has been made that they would be released "quickly," CNN is currently reporting that their release is "planned" for sometime tomorrow.
In the meantime, the Iranian kid who led the arrest is getting a medal for bravery and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is acting as though this "gift" is a magnanimous gesture of Iranian desire for peace and international cooperation. The presence of three U.S. aircraft carrier groups off of his shores had nothing to do with Iran's decision to back down, oh no!
You parents out there, tell me what you would think of this statement: "Daddy, Daddy! I took all of Mommy's jewelry out of her dresser and put it in the kitchen sink, but you should give me a cookie because I put it all back later." You don't reward wrongful conduct with praise and adulation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it looks like war will be averted. But once the sailors are safely home, I sincerely hope that the sailors tell everyone all about the coercion that was really going on, and that Prime Minister Tony Blair extends an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to kiss the Queen's wrinkly royal ass.
Posts
6 comments:
"Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that it looks like war will be averted. But once the sailors are safely home, I sincerely hope that the sailors tell everyone all about the coercion that was really going on, and that Prime Minister Tony Blair extends an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to kiss the Queen's wrinkly royal ass."
Speaking of coercion, isn't it possible that coercion or worse is going on at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba? As a lawyer, you should know. Today, CNN ran a clip called "Master of Manipulation" about Ahmadinejad. Couldn't the same be said about Bush and Cheney? No wonder the US fears other countries. We are conditioned every day by the mainstream media, especially Fox "News".
Let's get it fair and balanced. Iran was wrong to hold the sailors as long as they did, but the US and Britain are no saints when it comes to international affairs.
"They didn't intrude on Iranian waters." But Britain and Russia did intrude on Iranian territory during WWII without Iran's permission, and Iraq killed thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons (WMDs) during the 1980s while the US and the UN looked the other way. Really, is it so difficult to figure out why Iran doesn't trust the West?
"As a lawyer," I have no idea what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. Attorneys don't get special briefings by the government because of our bar cards.
I do know that my buddy was activated into his Guard unit and served as an interrogator at Guantanamo Bay for eighteen months and only recently has returned to civilian life. He tells me, and I trust him implicitly, that the most effective device to get information from a prisoner there was a Big Mac. I realize that even if my buddy used the "Big Mac bribe" technique that doesn't mean that other interrogators weren't using more forceful methods, but on the other hand even if you divorce morality from the issue there is still the matter of utility -- what gets the job done best?
As for the misdeeds, alleged and real, of the US, the UK, and their leaders, none of that in any way excuses Iran's conduct. Nor should our moral reaction to improper conduct by our own leaders be the same as acts of war committed upon our troops and our allies.
A better question than "Why doesn't Iran trust the West" is "How can Iran and the West come to trust one another more in the future?" Trust is a two-way street, and right now it's Iran, not the West, who's refusing to do anything constructive to repair the broken bridge of relations between Iran and its Western adversaries.
"I have no idea what's going on at Guantanamo Bay." My point exactly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration and Congress have tried to deny the detainees their rights under international law. The US Supreme Court ruled that Bush had "overstepped his authority in ordering Military Commissions trails, and maintained that the proposed commissions violated US law and Geneva conventions." The mere fact that Bush wanted to keep Gitmo out of the reaches of Geneva should tell us something. Even some members of the British government said that Gitmo was a "shocking affront to democracy." Wasn't Abu Ghraib shocking, too?
Yet, if another country detains US prisoners of war, civilians, etc, the US is the first to demand treatment under the Geneva conventions (and we are correct in doing so). The Bush administration is using semantics to blur the picture when it comes to prisoners of war, soldiers, enemy combatants, etc.
And Bush's rhetoric doesn't help, "Remember, these are – the ones in Guantánamo Bay are killers. They don’t share the same values we share." Sure, some of them are killers, but they should be innocent until proven guilty, and they should have every protection under law. To give the prisoners any less would be to lower ourselves to the level of terrorists.
We are naive to believe that the "Big Mac Bribe" is the technique of choice. I'm afraid much worse is going on (as you suggested). The US should fully disclose. Utility vs. Morality. Morality should prevail. Otherwise we lower ourselves to the level of terrorists. It's a slippery slope. Utility is exactly what the terrorists were using on 9/11. For the terrorist, terror gets the job done best. There is no morality in terror.
"As for the misdeeds, alleged and real, of the US, the UK, and their leaders, none of that in any way excuses Iran's conduct." I do not condone Iran's conduct, but I'm making a genuine effort to understand their conduct, something our government has failed to do historically (same goes for Iran understanding the US).
Yes, trust is a two-way street. I couldn't agree more. The US and Britain were wrong to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran in the 1950s. The US was wrong to support the Shah of Iran against the will of the people. The Ayatollah Khomeini was wrong to hold hostages for 444 days. The US was wrong to allow the CIA to perform covert operations inside Iran. The US was wrong to supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and support during the bloody war with Iran. Bush was wrong to call Iran, North Korea, and Iraq the "Axis of Evil." Iran was wrong to detain British sailors for more than 72 hours, etc, etc, etc.
It's an endless cycle, and the US and Iran are determined to take the low road. I thought the US was a step above the rest, a model country. Reagan once stated, "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." Somewhere along the way we have lost this.
"...right now it's Iran, not the West, who's refusing to do anything constructive to repair the broken bridge of relations between Iran and its Western adversaries." Why must the responsibility be on Iran? In fact, our government has said we can't trust them, so why should we trust them to repair the broken trust? Iran released the sailors. Now the ball is in our court. What are we going to do?
The US should open direct talks with Iran and apologize for past mistakes. Yes, we should show some humility. To date, all the US and Iran have shown is aggression and stubbornness. It's time for a new strategy.
Transplanted Lawyer, I have nothing against your personally, but I get so frustrated when I sense that people think the US government is above reproach. The US government has committed terrible atrocities in the past, but we appear to be outside UN jurisdiction because of our powerful political influence. I can't even have civil conversations with people of my own family when I bring this point up. I'm not saying the US is evil, but that is how it is often interpreted. My major gripe with the current administration and some republicans is their implication that dissenters might somehow be unpatriotic. This is very scary. As a nation, the majority have been conditioned NOT to question the government. This is even scarier.
My point is this, I believe we have been conditioned to believe certain countries are evil enemies to the extent that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I sense this in the way people speak about Iran. We are so quick to remember the hostage crisis in exclusion of everything else. Selective memory can be extremely dangerous. Remembering our past mistakes allows us to proceed with caution, and I don't see much of that going around today.
I'm sorry for rambling on, but I am very passionate about this, and I don't want to see the US make serious mistakes in the future. Thank you for being kind enough to discuss this situation civilly. It's refreshing and healthy.
Respectfully,
Tom
PS future comments will be shorter
Comment as much as you like, Tom.
I won't suggest that the US government is above reproach, especially taking a long historical view of things. I do suggest, though, that it's not always as bad as people fear. Certainly we've done things in the past that are significant problems, including Iran in the 1950's.
I agree that trying to understand why Iran did what it did, and why it distrusts the West and the U.S. in particular is a useful exercise. But there seems to be no similar introspective process going on over there. Iran has never apologized for taking U.S. embassy workers hostage in 1979, for instance.
For the record, I did not imply that torture was going on at Guantanamo Bay. My friend was there, and he was not torturing anyone nor was he aware of any torture going on. He told me so quite plainly, his integrity is not subject to question, and his statements are very convincing evidence (to me at least, I realize you don't know him).
I've reacted very strongly to suggestions of US soldiers committing war atrocities before, because I think we're better than that. But just because I would be quick to condemn that sort of behavior if it happened does not mean that I'm similarly quick to assume that we're actually guilty of it. An accusation is not evidence of guilt.
About a month ago a friend predicted that if he came and spoke at a college here. He would get a standing ovation.
"I'm not saying the US is evil, but that is how it is often interpreted."
... how bout if I said, "I'm not saying that attorneys are evil, but that is how it is often interpreted."
Who do you think is better that the US today?
Post a Comment