Freed Hiker Summoned For February Trial in Iran

[Skybird]

Do you guys really not see the point? Of course it is not meant as a serious demand. It is a calculated provocation. The offense lies in that they imply that Western nations and Western people could be so weak or stupid as that she would return indeed.

And if she does not come they score in the propaganda war again: the corrupt, decadent West preaches equality but does not honor Iranian laws and rules etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Platapus

The Iranians released the girl on a humanitarian bail agreement. The Iranians have to "officially" request her return. I doubt anyone in Iran seriously thinks she will come back.

Of course ajaminabadnutjob will use the fact she doesn't return as proof they really were spying.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think somebody in Iran's government went first with thinking: yeah, let'S make regular Americans suffer by committing an act of terrorism. That'll show them.

It's not terrorism. She didn't have a visa, so she was simply trespassing on Iranian territory. The Iranians are not really being nice, but as far as I'm concerned they are in their right. She committed a criminal act (crossing the border without visa), now she just has to face the consequences.

[Skybird]

Ah, it is being legal then, because their law says so. Well, by their laws the m,urdering of that Dutch women some days ago also was "legal", then. So was the torturing and killing of the Nazis - they did it becaseu they were authorised by laws.

When your laws are arbitrarily designed and used, like in Iran, and when government and RG interfere with justikce system, and the state has a known history of hijacking hostages and absuing them for propaganda - then this is what makes it state terrorism indeed.

It's not terrorism. She didn't have a visa, so she was simply trespassing on Iranian territory. The Iranians are not really being nice, but as far as I'm concerned they are in their right. She committed a criminal act (crossing the border without visa), now she just has to face the consequences.

Yes.
Do you think Sky would be singing a very different tune if it was one of the evil muslims from the despotic cess pit of global muslim land who had violated european civilised territory by entering without the correct paperwork?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ah, it is being legal then, because their law says so. Well, by their laws the m,urdering of that Dutch women some days ago also was "legal", then. So was the torturing and killing of the Nazis - they did it becaseu they were authorised by laws.

When your laws are arbitrarily designed and used, like in Iran, and when government and RG interfere with justikce system, and the state has a known history of hijacking hostages and absuing them for propaganda - then this is what makes it state terrorism indeed.

That may well be, but the right of countries to restrict who may enter them (through the issuing of visas) is commonly accepted. If she didn't have a visa as she crossed the border, the West is obliged to follow the rules it laid down and hand her over.

[Skybird]

We would be stupid to hand her over to a regime that is totally arbitary in implementing its laws. I again remind of the assassination of the Dutch woman just days ago.

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim. That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

In both cases it is totally unacceptable.

Juristic rules of a legal system basing on injustice, are evil, injust juristic rules. Injutrsice remains injustice, no matter whether legitimated by laws or not. Laws can be explicity tailored to be injust, and to protect the interests of those abusing them. When we rate bureaucracy as ranking higher than basic ethical imperatives and moral values defending human dignity, human rights, human freedoms, than we in fact declare unethical behavior and imorality not only as acceptable, but as a collective duty. And then we are not any different from the fascist regimes of the past indeed.

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim.

Thats not surprising.

That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

errrrrrrr....no
The comparrison would be handing over Jews to the third reich because the country also had its own version of the nazi laws.
It is quite hard to see the subtle difference, there are border laws and visa laws which lots of countries have in common, then there was the law which said people who had 1 jewish grandparent were sub humans which your country had.
I can see how its confusing to tell the difference as after all immigration laws and nuremburg laws both have the word law.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We would be stupid to hand her over to a regime that is totally arbitary in implementing its laws.

They may be arbitrary in some cases, but in this case, it seems that the woman did break a law, and not some Sharia-specific law but one that Western countries would agree is a violation of sovereignty (entry into state w/o permit). Regardless of what you think about them, to not hand her over in this case says more about YOUR hypocrisy and arbitrariness than theirs.

To use your Jew and Nazi example, if the Jew DID (at least probably) murder someone in Germany and the Nazis demanded his return, the fact he happened to be a Jew or the government happened to be Nazi is no barrier to handing him back.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, I do not see at all that obligation you claim. That wopuld be like handing over Jews to the Nazis, because the Third Reich had according laws.

Nope, it would be more like a Jew sneaking into Germany at the height of Hitler's power, and then being shocked and playing crybaby when the Nazis arrest her. She really should have seen it coming. If you don't want to get arrested, don't trespass into Iranian territory. It's her own damn fault.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

To use your Jew and Nazi example, if the Jew DID (at least probably) murder someone in Germany and the Nazis demanded his return, the fact he happened to be a Jew or the government happened to be Nazi is no barrier to handing him back.

No? Even today most civilised Western states have laws forbidding to hand over suspects to states where they are threatened with torture or death. For example Europeans do not hand over suspects to the United States if they are threatened with possible death penalties there.

And the women in question here did not commit any murder in Iran. The threat to her due to propaganda interests of the regime is in no relation to her "guilt". But maybe you also find it a defensible case that a 11 year old pay gets life because he was caught the second time stealing in a shop (example from the US, 2 or 3 years ago, but there were many others quoted as well).

You do not hand over people to arbitrary justice systems that are not justice but state-run terror. Currently they are executing people in Iran because they demonstrated, and the regime has demoinstrated repeatedly its willingness to abuse foreigners for propaganda purposes over constructed charges.

You may find that a system worth to be respected and obeyed. But that says more about you than about the issue.

Legal consequence and offence must have a reasonable relation to each other. This is not the case here. There also must be trust that the law will faithfully be implmeented and left unman ipulated and no politcal interest interfering. This aloso is not the case here. The threat to the women by far outweighs the small and minor offence that she may have become guilty of.

But maybe you also find it a defensible case that a 11 year old pay gets life because he was caught the second time stealing in a shop (example from the US, 2 or 3 years ago, but there were many others quoted as well).

Is that a fictitious example sky is inventing ?
You can find an 11 year old at the time being the youngest facing life for a double murder or an earlier 11 year old being the youngest at the time getting life for doing a murder while he was stealing.
But life for a second offence of shoplifting????? must be the 3 strikes and you're out policy for people who can't do numbers

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You may find that a system worth to be respected and obeyed. But that says more about you than about the issue.

I will say that you judge depending on the individual case rather than on whatever your perception of the general system is.

If this woman is innocent (in that she never violated the border), sure don't hand her over. But apparently you agree this is not the case. The Iranian court will no doubt find her guilty, but since she did violate the border, regardless of politics it is the correct decision. The only role politics has to play here is to distort justice, to allow this woman to escape punishment using humanitarian issues as a smokescreen.

I also have little doubt the Iranians will execute her. You might find this disproportionate. But the value of sanctity of border varies widely amongst nations, and IMO this is one of the points where (as opposed, to example, to stoning woman for not wearing a veil over their face) other positions are quite valid. The right to intrude into another country is not some kind of fundamental human right. To demand that the women not be trialed on excuse of perceived dis-proportionality is to insist on extraterritorial rights - if a country doesn't already hate you, surely such arrogance will make them so.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

To demand that the women not be trialed on excuse of perceived dis-proportionality is to insist on extraterritorial rights

You mean like extradition?

[Skybird]

Kazuaki,

so you seriously argue that we shall actively assist in the assassination of a women (you said they would execute her) over charges describing a total bagatelle, in a regime that massively influences the justice and runs a known agenda to abuse justice for its own propaganda (whioch makes it an injust system not only by its laws, but its arbitrariness.

Lovely.

Please stay far away from me, I do not wish people getting the impression we would have anything in common.

We could also start extradicting woman that fled from iran becausue there they would be stoned for having been raped, or their families try to kill them for being not slavish enough. And the European habit of not extradicting criminals wanted in the US for crimes thjat could earn them death penalty, also is unacceptable for you then, eh?

Oh that pressure respect of yours for barbaric culture!