Iran: The Dangers of the Roxana Saberi Espionage Trial

Latest Post: Roxana Saberi Update - Positive Signs Despite a Hopeless TV Interview
Related Post: Iran Jails Journalist Saberi for 8 Years on Espionage Charges

It is a rare day when I agree with an opinion in the Wall Street Journal, but that morning has come.

Commenting on the espionage trial of Iranian-American Roxana Saberi, which began in secret on Monday, Gerald Seib commented, "This is a significant event that likely serves multiple, unpleasant purposes for an Iranian government with which the Obama administration is about to begin talking."

Let's be clear. The immediate multiple, unpleasant effects are being felt by Roxana Saberi, as she remains in Evin Prison in Tehran. Any failure of judgement --- she was initially charged with buying a bottle of wine and then for reporting without a license --- does not constitute espionage, especially when that guilt is to be determined without legal representation or any public presentation of evidence.

Possibly some of my friends and colleagues in Tehran would argue that the judiciary, as an independent branch, makes its own determinations on cases to be tried and that politicians should not interfere in that process. But, again to be clear, every indication is that the decision to ratchet up the charges against Saberi from possession of alcohol to spying was political, not legal, in nature. As Seib writes, "A journalist can be an easy target for signal-sending."

I'm not so sure about Seib's speculation for Saberi's prosecution, "It's the kind of move that chills internal dissent." This feels more like one agency or faction trying to score points against others within Iran's complex political system.

The broader point remains, however, that this trial is a powerful check-and-balance against Iranian engagement with the US. Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passed a letter to Iranian representatives at The Hague conference raising the cases of Saberi and another detainee, as well as an American who has been missing for years after a trip to Iran. The decision to proceed with the trial, as well as a judiciary spokesman's criticism of American interference, is a blunt response that Iran does not bow to US wishes on its internal matters.

Some Iranian officials and politicians may have recognised the damage this case could cause to US-Iranian discussions. However, it has now proceeded so far that Iran cannot release Saberi and "save face".

My hope is that the Saberi case will follow the pattern of that of Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American academic jailed in 2007 on charges of spying. After four months, and an intensive campaign on her behalf by colleagues such as the former Senator Lee Hamilton, Esfandiari was released.

However, it is important to note that Esfandiari was "better connected" than Saberi and that she never went to trial. And the US Government has been very reluctant to step in publicly for Saberi; it was only yesterday that a State Department spokesman broached concern.

Thus for Saberi's sake and --- not more importantly but more broadly --- for the sake of US-Iran engagement, some politicians and officials in Iran need to move with a face-saving solution such as conviction and immediate deportation.

It is essential that US-Iran discussions, leading to a more productive relationship diplomatic, economic, and cultural relationship, continue. It is just as essential that, in the name of those discussions, Roxana Saberi is not seen as expendable.

Text and Analysis of Obama Statement: 4 Torture Memos Released, No Prosecutions of Interrogators

Related Post: The Torture Memos - A Quick Response to George W. Bush’s Officials

UPDATE: Full Text of the 4 Torture Memos

We'll have full analysis of President Obama's statement tomorrow, but here's an immediate reading.

This is good politics. Very good. The Obama Administration pins blame for unacceptable practices on the Bush Administration while finally getting the hook of a criminal showdown for any of those officials. The absolution of "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith" is also the signal that Bush advisors who ordered those activities will not suffer a Truth Commission or judicial hearings.

It's also good for another troubling reason. There are a series of cases where the Obama Administration is not only holding onto its predecessor's executive powers but fighting to ensure there are no court hearings on whether those powers are legal. From warrantless surveillance to rendition to unlimited detention, Gitmo-style, at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the Administration is playing the political game of "Look at the other guys, don't fret about us."

OBAMA STATEMENT

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program - and some of the practices - associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

Bush-Cheney Official Armitage on Torture: "Maybe I Should Have Quit"

Richard Armitage is neither a lefty nor a softie. He has served in the CIA, military special forces, and Department of Defense, and in the Bush White House, he was Deputy Secretary of State to Colin Powell. On the day after 9-11, he personally laid out the seven-point ultimatum to the head of the Pakistani intelligence services: comply with our campaign or the US is coming after your country.

So when Armitage tells Al Jazeera that he should have resigned over the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners of war, this is not the regret of an official who was opposed to the campaign against Al Qa'eda and international terrorism. And when he says for the record that, yes, detainees were tortured by waterboarding, this is a statement for the record rather than party-politics criticism.

This short clip is another sad far-from-footnote in the record of how a US Government tore up international law such as the Geneva Conventions and any meaningful ethical standards in the name of a "War on Terror". Armitage and Powell were out-manoeuvred by a Vice President's office and Department of Defense intent on claiming an unchallenged Executive authority beyond law or public accountability. (What Armitage does not mention in this clip is the awful irony that those same officials would walk away from the battle with Al Qa'eda to pursue war in Iraq.)

Yet, lest anyone make out Richard Armitage to be a valiant hero in a sordid saga, it should be noted that he is eager to avoid any culpability in torture --- as he did not know about waterboarding --- and equally happy to throw blame on members of Congress.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEvvUBkYDk[/youtube]

Global Post: 10 Facts on Mexico's "Lightning War"

Related Post: The “Lightning War” and US-Mexico Relations
More Global Post coverage of Mexico....

1 A recent U.S. government report suggests that “Two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.”

2 Mexico has one of the highest kidnapping rates in the world: An average of 70 people are abducted each month.

3 More than 1,100 guns found discarded at Mexico shooting scenes or confiscated from cartel gangsters were traced to Texas gun merchants in 2007.

4 One of Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpins, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman, escaped a maximum security prison in 2001 by driving out in a laundry truck.

5 This year Forbes magazine included Joaquin Guzman, a Mexican drug lord, on its annual billionaires’ list.

6 A drug cartel hood named “The Cook” reportedly dissolved the bodies of 300 victims in acid as part of the grisly work he committed for crime bosses.

7 The FBI has reported 75 open cases of Americans kidnapped in Mexico.

8 In a poll by the daily newspaper La Reforma, Mexico City residents ranked public insecurity as a worse crisis than the economy by a 5-to-1 margin. In the past year, 20 percent were crime victims.

9 In the past year, Mexico's civil drug war has claimed some 6,300 lives.

10 Grammy-nominated singer Sergio Gomez was kidnapped and his genitals were burned with a blowtorch in December 2007, presumably for singing narco corridos, or “drug ballads.”

The "Lightning War" and US-Mexico Relations

Related Post: 10 Facts on Mexico's "Lightning War"

Violence in Mexico is drawing increased attention, as drug producers and sellers fight a running battle with Mexican security services. More than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since January 2008.

The violence is far from new --- and it's not just a "Mexican" situation, as even a cursory glance at the US will show --- but it is a challenge to the institutional stability of the country. And, inevitably, there will be a spill-over into American political culture, as the toll from drugs becomes entangled with the US discourse over the "border" and immigration.

As President Obama visits Mexico, Ioan Grillo writes for our partners Global Post:

Obama grapples with Mexico’s “lightning war”

TIJUANA, Mexico — The policemen had stopped their squad car for a few seconds on a major avenue in this burgeoning border city on Saturday evening when Kalashnikov bullets flew out of a passing Plymouth Voyager.

Enrique Monge, a 31-year-old beat cop, returned fire but his effort was in vain. A cap shot through his waist and scattered into several vital organs and he died hours later in hospital.

At the wheel, his 23-year-old partner Benjamin Hernandez was hit by a bullet directly in his thorax. By a miracle, he was still fighting for his life four days later as President Barack Obama readied to fly to Mexico City and discuss such violence with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Read the rest of the article...