Free Bijan Khajepour

So much for that "breezy freedom" . . . .

I was going to go for the snark and add "with purchase of another Bijan Khajepour of equal or greater value," but I guess maybe this is too serious.

Even so, if we start getting posts on everyone in custody for political reasons we won't have any 1's and 0's left to address the things there's any possibility of affecting. Anyone have a link, say, to a list of senators on the take from the insurance/pharma industries? You could punch that up as "Free the uninsured Americans."

Two words, Klein: Jose Padilla.

If we were to hold Iran to the same standard that the Beltway Punditry holds the U.S. government, we would only ask two questions:

1. Does the Iranian government have a nation security interest in detaining Khajepour?

2. Is it legal in Iran to detain Khajepour?

If the answer to those two questions is "arguably" then, sorry, but most American pundits don't have much to whine about.

Ah, square1, gotta love the false moral equivalence . . . .
.
But hey, don't question your patriotism.

I know wingnuts like to drop bumper-sticker slogans like "false moral equivalence" in lieu of making actual arguments, but you will generally get more mileage here if you actually try to explain why you disagree with someone.

BTW, JK, is there a good reason why the neoconservative comment by Rusty has been the featured blog comment on the Time.com political front page for the past two months? Maybe Time should just run it above the masthead permanently.

Well, square1, equating Jose Padilla to Mr. Khajepour is the use of moral equivalence. The situations are far apart. I suspect you know it, but love to take a shot at your country. But don't question your patriotism.

Conclusory statements are not an argument, Spob. But maybe if you type in all caps I will get it.

One doesn't need to argue that red roses are red . . . .

One doesn't need to argue that red roses are red . . . .

No, but if one desires to avoid looking like a hypocritical jackass, one needs to be able to articulate coherent legal principles instead of meaningless bumper-sticker slogans.

Any meaningful comparison of two countries' legal systems must be made based on a comparison of the respective procedural systems...not a comparison of individuals caught up in those systems. It is asinine to say that America's legal system is superior to Iran's because Padilla was guilty and Khajepour is innocent.

Now I happen to believe that the criminal justice system in the U.S. is better than that in Iran (but worse than in many countries), but that is because cases like Padilla's are far, far rarer here than they are in Iran...not because Padilla's treatment wasn't a "stiletto of inhumanity."

I didn't realize this was a "legal" debate. Seemed like it was on the moral level from this vantage point. But hey, many lawyers tend to look at things strictly from a legal standpoint. In any event, there is no comparison of the morality of the treatment of Padilla, who was a member of a worldwide conspiracy to attack the US, and Mr. Khajepour, who is only a perceived threat to the powers that be in Iran.
.
But I won't question your patriotism . . . .

Two things; As Amerkins we bear no responsibility for the actions of the Iranian gov., despicable though they may be. We therefore have no power to affect their government.OTOH by law we do have the power to affect the actions of our own gov.,and overwhelming evidence exists to show that our own government has abused and murdered helpless innocent people in our custody by the hundreds and perhaps thousands. It therefore follows that an appeal to justice from this country is hypocritical to say the least, and can be dismissed out of hand. That boat has sailed I'm afraid, and unfortunately there is no return trip.

Oh, and SPOB your patriotism isn't the only thing I question.

whatever jimmy, given my military service, that's a silly comment

But I won't question your patriotism . . . .

Question away. I consider it a badge of honor to have my patriotism questioned by defenders of the Bush/Cheney thugocracy. And I have no problem questioning, in turn, those who would cast aside the fundamental principles of justice upon which the country was founded.

In any event, there is no comparison of the morality of the treatment of Padilla, who was a member of a worldwide conspiracy to attack the US, and Mr. Khajepour, who is only a perceived threat to the powers that be in Iran.

Your personal opinions of Padilla's and Khajepour's guilt or innocence matter as much to me as the determinations of the tribal council on Survivor. Who are we to determine the innocence of people on the other side of the planet? For all any of us know, Khajepour was complicit in a conspiracy to kill Ahmedinejad. What makes the Iranian government's actions objectionable is NOT that Khajepour is objectively innocent, but that the process is secret.

In a just society, there is a presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty in a court of law with proper procedural safeguards. I heard nary a peep from the wingnuts when Bush and Cheney declared the absolute power of the Executive to indefinitely detain (and torture) an American citizen arrested on U.S. soil with no trial ever. If not for the Courts forcing the Bush-Cheney administration to try or release Padilla, he would still be languishing in a military brig without a trial.

How quickly self-professed "conservatives" toss aside centuries of legal tradition? "Terrorists" don't deserve trials? Who does? I see no need to waste taxpayer money on trials for murderers, rapists and pedophiles when Spob (or, at the very least, our honorable and upstanding district attorneys) can simply tell us who is guilty or innocent. Once you are indicted, off to prison you go! Who is to question the infallible wisdom of the duly elected executive branch?

Spob, What does the fact that you needed employment , and the military hired you, have to do with patriotism?

whatever square1 . . . . whatever . . . . Not everything has to be run through a court of law. We held hundreds of thousands of German POWs here in the US with no courts to evaluate the propriety of their detention. Heck, we even held thousands of Confederate soldiers in the Civil War with no courts. And ask Manfred Pernass about access to courts . . . .
.
By the way, the Iranian government would have no right to prosecute anyone for trying to kill Ahmedinejad, who is part of a tyranny.
.
Don't worry, square1, you can rest assured, you're not as dumb as Sotomayor who cannot even figure out how to read a Supreme Court dissent.

"centuries of legal tradition"--what claptrap.

"No moral equivalence" is neoconman for "don't question our support of South American fascists, torture, and illegal spying, and failed imperial adventures because ummmm....Pol Pot! Stalin! Mao!".

And no, it doesn't make any moral, practical, or legal sense.

And please, ignore spob.

He is irrelevant now.

What's relevant now is cleaning up the mess left by spob's heroes.
~

Anyone looking for a little masochism with their morning coffee? Well, here's a hefty dollop for you. After reading (my eyes are still bleeding), I thought, WTF, share the wealth.

To Joe Klein:

Please tell me and the many other readers of this fine blog how you defend Iran's pursuits for nuclear arms and energy in one breath. Then, the Iranian Officials utilize trumped up charges to detain, murder or jail the likes of Bijan Khajepour, and others you scream “bloody foul”?

I am being very serious, it makes no sense to me to condone anything Iran or the people of Iran do with the exception of a complete overthrow of the Muslim Extremists, who are currently in power at this time in Iran.

Are you still on the Obama band-wagon of “appeasement” and apology tour for the wrongs committed by the United States over the past 233 years? You know Joe, the Obama diplomatic agenda to show the world that we ARE the horrible place all the wingnut liberals who write for the MSM say we are.

To square1:

Write something that makes any sense sometime, perhaps you too may be a "featured readers comment", one day. Jealousy by the far left liberal extremists. One simply only needs to sit back and enjoy it.

Hmmmm…

Going on sixteen hours without a new post.

Anyone? Anyone? Bible Girl?

Just so Spob doesn't get a free pass tossing out the military thing. Nothing is silly just because you served in the military. I am retired Navy, and although we (Americans) don't like to talk about it (because on a societal level we are still very much so immature in many aspects) the military is littered with drug users, gangs, murderers, rapists, sociopaths, child abusers and every other poor construct you can think of just like every major city or entity in the country.

Why? Because it is made up of the same people as the civilian world. The same reason why the argument that government is somehow less efficient or more corrupt than the "private sector" is hollow under observation. We all pull people from the exact same pool.

If anything, the failings of the military and the government are resultant of not being more selective and separate from the sources of questionable behavior and motivation in the "private sector". Washington often uses a revolving door with wall street, international corporate boards, etc. These are career driven "profit first", "me first" people (on average) and then we expect them to be about the "greater good" and long term interests just because their job title changed to "government employee". Yeah right.

The military does similarly in recruiting dropouts, criminal record holders, in ghettos, near poverty line families, and broken homes, etc all the time. They are easy sells, and for the most part those that cannot be controlled can easily be turned right back around after a short stint.

Now obviously, there are no absolutes, and there are many great people serving in the military and even in Washington DC. I know this first hand on both accounts. Yet, that is far and away different from thinking someone is automatically one thing or another just because they belong(ed) to any particular grouping. It would be more logical to conclude there are no good or bad people. There are good and bad actions. We all do our fare share of each. It is the magnitude of those actions, in quantity and quality over a period of time, that develops a conclusion there after.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and swims like a duck: it is a duck. It doesn't matter if it's parents were zebras.

"Question everything."

pinto, wasn't Scott Ritter some sort of pedophile?

Joe and commenters, have any of you seen the indy movie The Stoning of Soraya M. ? I think everyone needs to see it, it's disconcerting and very powerful at the same time.