Sunday, April 19, 2009
A hard bump on the road to soft power
Iran convicted American journalist Roxana Saberi of spying on Saturday and sentenced her to eight years in prison, but it's all good because President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that she should be allowed to offer a full defense at her appeal.
The White House stated that President Obama was "deeply disappointed" by Saberi's conviction. There was no word as to whether another video message to Iran would be forthcoming.
Secretary of State Clinton said in an issued statement:
Saberi has worked for NPR and BBC in the past. NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller issued this statement:"I am deeply disappointed by the reported sentencing of Roxana Saberi by the Iranian judiciary . . . we will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government."
"We are deeply distressed by this harsh and unwarranted sentence. Ms. Saberi has already endured a three-month confinement in Evin Prison, and we are very concerned for her well-being. Through her work for NPR over several years, we know her as an established and respected professional journalist. We appeal to all of those who share our concerns to ask that the Iranian authorities show compassion and allow her to return home to the United States immediately with her parents."Anyone think that if a younger Ross Perot was running NPR (now there's a concept) that a Blackwater team would be en route right now?
According to Reza Saberi, Roxana's Iranian-born father, the trial lasted 15 minutes, and she did not even know there was going to be a trial until a few minutes before it happened. Maybe that should be a class exercise at law schools that have critical legal theory courses -- how to defend your client when there is no notice and no due process whatsoever.
According to the AP report, this may all be product of political in-fighting:
"But Iran's judiciary is dominated by hard-liners, who some analysts say are trying to derail efforts to improve U.S.-Iran relations.Wait, I'm confused, is Ahmadinejad a "hard-liner" or not? Who is the "moderate?"
"Saberi's conviction comes about two months ahead of key presidential elections in June that are pitting hard-liners against reformists who support better relations with the United States. Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election, but the hard-liner's popularity has waned as Iran's economy struggles with high-inflation and unemployment."
Does anyone think that Saberi's conviction wouldn't be kicked if the Mullahs wished it to be so?
11 Comments:
By 
John, at
Sun Apr 19, 01:57:00 PM:
But wait, is anyone actually looking at the charge? What if she actually is a spy. It's a good sign she is allowed to appeal, but just because she's an American citizen doesn't mean she's innocent and doesn't deserve imprisonment. Who knows, maybe she did commit a heinous crime against the Iranian government? If a foreign national journalist came here and spied, they would be in much the same predicament, assuredly.
By Escort81, at
Sun Apr 19, 02:07:00 PM:
I am pretty sure that post-Church hearings in the 1970s, the CIA cannot use journalist cover for their NOCs.
NPR and BBC would probably be angrier at CIA than Iran if your theory is correct.
By davod, at
Sun Apr 19, 02:16:00 PM:
John Sanzone - If she was a spy they would have held a show trial. It's what they do.
TH. Moderates/hardliners - there is no such thing as a moderate, in our sense, in the Iranian parliament. The group that decides whether someone can run for a seat is run by clerics.
The moderate political parties have boycotted the last two elections because they could not get any candidates`approved.
Even Khatemi - the so-called moderate of choice by those espousing better rlations with Iran - is a hardliner, just not as much a hardliner as the rest.
By 
, at
Sun Apr 19, 04:19:00 PM:
No sympathy for her. Any American citizen that voluntarily moves to Iran without considering this type of outcome is either very naive, or a fool.
By , at
Sun Apr 19, 05:21:00 PM:
I think we should go over the heads of the Iranian leaders and direct our diplomatic messages to the wider population, pointing out the reality that they are being made to look like a backward and primitive people despite all the effort to make them a nuclear power.
The Iranian people deserve better representation. They know it, as do we. So why do we keep mum, as if it were a state secret?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Apr 19, 06:56:00 PM:
"I am pretty sure that post-Church hearings in the 1970s, the CIA cannot use journalist cover for their NOCs."
That is correct.
By Escort81, at
Sun Apr 19, 07:05:00 PM:
Thanks for the confirmation, DF82.
Feeblemind, you are a tough cookie. If I told you that Roxana is a former Miss North Dakota, according to the AP bio/backrounder on her, would that change your thinking?
By Unknown, at
Sun Apr 19, 08:09:00 PM:
Let's face it: she was a woman on her own in Iran. She was living independently. She was getting a masters degree in Iranian studies. She was a threat because of her competence and independence.
By , at
Mon Apr 20, 09:21:00 AM:
Sorry E81. That doesn't help. Let's face it. Iran is an enemy. We have no diplomatic relations with them. If an American thinks they can live in an enemy state and not suffer the consequences then they have a stunted self-preservation instinct or to put it more bluntly, they are Darwin Awards' stupid. If she had been apprehended by the Iranians in a third country or at sea like the UK sailors, or if she was indeed sent by CIA, then my stance changes and I would like to see us get her out.
By , at
Mon Apr 20, 06:10:00 PM:
I would like to see us get her out, regardless.
Isn't there a UN committee on human rights, or something, that we could appeal to?
By Shannon, at
Tue Apr 21, 05:14:00 PM:
I honestly hope the nod to the UN Human Rights Council was a joke. Considering their membership consists of some of the worst human rights violating countries on the planet, I wouldn't hold my breath for their lending anything in the way of support or help.
