EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Media Coverage Omits about US Hikers Released by Iran
Two American hikers imprisoned for more than two years by Iran on extremely dubious espionage charges and in highly oppressive conditions, Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer, were released last week and spoke yesterday in Manhattan about their ordeal. Most establishment media accounts in the U.S. have predictably exploited the emotions of the drama as a means of bolstering the U.S.-is-Good/Iran-is-Evil narrative which they reflexively spout. But far more revealing is what these media accounts exclude, beginning with the important, insightful and brave remarks from the released prisoners themselves (their full press conference was broadcast this morning on Democracy Now).
Shane Bauer (center) and Josh Fattal, two US hikers held by Iran on spying charges, were greeted by fellow former detainee Sarah Shroud after returning to the United States yesterday. (Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)
Fattal began by recounting the horrible conditions of the prison in which they were held, including being kept virtually all day in a tiny cell alone and hearing other prisoners being beaten; he explained that, of everything that was done to them, "solitary confinement was the worst experience of all of our lives." Bauer then noted that they were imprisoned due solely to what he called the "32 years of mutual hostility between America and Iran," and said: "the irony is that [we] oppose U.S. policies towards Iran which perpetuate this hostility." After complaining that the two court sessions they attended were "total shams" and that "we'd been held in almost total isolation - stripped of our rights and freedoms," he explained:
In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay; they'd remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world; and conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S.
We do not believe that such human rights violation on the part of our government justify what has been done to us: not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments - including the government of Iran - to act in kind.
[Indeed, as harrowing and unjust as their imprisonment was, Bauer and Fattal on some level are fortunate not to have ended up in the grips of the American War on Terror detention system, where detainees remain for many more years without even the pretense of due process -- still -- to say nothing of the torture regime to which hundreds (at least) were subjected.]
Fattal then expressed "great thanks to world leaders and individuals" who worked for their release, including Hugo Chavez, the governments of Turkey and Brazil, Sean Penn, Noam Chomsky, Mohammad Ali, Cindy Sheehan, Desmond Tutu, as well as Muslims from around the world and "elements within the Iranian government," as well as U.S. officials.
Unsurprisingly, one searches in vain for the inclusion of these facts and remarks in American media accounts of their release and subsequent press conference. Instead, typical is this ABC News story, which featured tearful and celebratory reactions from their family, detailed descriptions of their conditions and the pain and fear their family endured, and melodramatic narratives about how their "long, grueling imprisonment is over" after "781 days in Iran's most notorious prison." This ABC News article on their press conference features many sentences about Iran's oppressiveness -- "Hikers Return to the U.S.: 'We Were Held Hostage'"; "we heard the screams of other prisoners being beaten" -- with hardly any mention of the criticisms Fattal and Bauer voiced regarding U.S. policy that provided the excuse for their mistreatment and similar treatment which the U.S. doles out both in War on Terror prisons around the world and even domestic prisons at home.
Their story deserves the attention it is getting, and Iran deserves the criticism. But the first duty of the American "watchdog media" should be highlighting the abuses of the U.S. Government, not those of other, already-hated regimes on the other side of the world. Instead, the abuses at home are routinely suppressed while those in the Hated Nations are endlessly touted. There have been thousands of people released after being held for years and years in U.S. detention despite having done nothing wrong. Many were tortured, and many were kept imprisoned despite U.S. government knowledge of their innocence. Have you ever seen anything close to this level of media attention being devoted to their plight, to hearing how America's lawless detention of them for years -- often on a strange island, thousands of miles away from everything they know -- and its systematic denial of any legal redress, devastated their families and destroyed their lives?
This is a repeat of what happened with the obsessive American media frenzy surrounding the arrest and imprisonment by Iran of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, convicted in a sham proceeding of espionage, sentenced to eight years in prison, but then ordered released by an Iranian appeals court after four months. Saberi's case became a true cause célèbre among American journalists, with large numbers of them flamboyantly denouncing Iran and demanding her release. But when their own government imprisoned numerous journalists for many years without any charges of any kind -- Al Jazeera's Sami al-Haj in Guantanamo, Associated Press' Bilal Hussein for more than two years in Iraq, Reuters' photographer Ibrahim Jassan even after an Iraqi court exonerated him, and literally dozens of other journalists without charge -- it was very difficult to find any mention of their cases in American media outlets.
What we find here yet again is that government-serving American establish media outlets relish the opportunity to report negatively on enemies and other adversaries of the U.S. government (that is the same mindset that accounts for the predicable, trite condescension by the New York Times toward the Wall Street protests, the same way they constantly downplayed Iraq War protests). But to exactly the same extent that they love depicting America's Enemies as Bad, they hate reporting facts that make the U.S. Government look the same.
That's why Fattal and Bauer receive so much attention while victims of America's ongoing lawless detention scheme are ignored. It's why media stars bravely denounce the conditions of Iran's "notorious prison" while ignoring America's own inhumane prison regime on both foreign and U.S. soil. It's why imprisonment via sham trials in Iran stir such outrage while due-process-free imprisonment (and assassinations) by the U.S. stir so little. And it's why so many Americans know Roxana Saberi but so few know Sami al-Haj.
An actual watchdog press is, first and foremost, eager to expose the corruption and wrongdoing of their own government. By contrast, a propaganda establishment press is eager to suppress that, and there is no better way of doing so than by obsessing on the sins of nations on the other side of the world while ignoring the ones at home. If only establishment media outlets displayed a fraction of the bravery and integrity of Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, who had a good excuse to focus exclusively on Iran's sins but -- a mere few days after being released from a horrible, unjust ordeal -- chose instead to present the full picture.
Read more at Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...




89 Comments so far
Show All" A propaganda establishment press ". Glenn, that says it all!
Another good article by Greenwald.
Couldn't our hikers do more to broadcast their sentiments regarding the U.S. policies towards Iran and the U.S. practice of torture and imprisonment without process? There are Facebook and other Web venues.
For the nth time, the New York Times' public editor has investigated Ethan Bronner's conficts of interest for justifying Israel's crimes, large and small, and for the nth time has found him not guilty. Something tells me the Times' owners are getting from Bronner exactly what they pay him to do.
Maybe a travel agency can set up a trip to recreate the hike these adventurers took in Iraq. Of course it would have to stay in Iraq, but with Google Earth that shouldn't be too hard.
For me, that's what's been missing. Three young people hiking in that area. Perhaps so, what was their interest? What kind of previous experience did they have? Where is their account of what they saw?
I'm just a fairly ordinary hiker/climber but I took the Sierra Club training (day hike with 10 essentials, simple rock climbing, snow and ice, winter overnight at 10,000 feet) and have gone into the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades and other mountains and it's not something you really want to do just for fun. Enjoyable, yes. Meaningful, yes. Just for fun, only for fools.
Excellent article by Glenn Greenwald
The economic royalist banksters who invest in endless wars for endless profits are We The People's truest enemies.
As I see it, they have three main weapons at their disposal:
A) Infiltration and control of the government through the rigged/money based election process
B) Infiltration and control of the Pentagon and our defense system, achieved through the corruption of the political process (A), which ensures that gov't reps and military budget overseers remain trapped in the highly lucrative game of military spending and investiture.
C) Infiltration and control of the public's information, through full-spectrum dominance and consolidation of the media aparatus. This is perhaps the most insidious of the usurpations by the banksters, as it normalizes the criminality and deep corruption of the first two controls. Through command of the public mouthpiece, the People will *perpetually* be told the same lies, and will have no other means of checking the validity of such narratives, other than turning to 'underground' sources, which by definition the mainstream is loath to do.
"Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past.
—George Orwell
Excellent post and insights, Salusa. Thank you for posting them.
They feel the need to continue repeating and perpetuating their lies, so we too must feel the need to continue repeating and perpetuating THE TRUTH.
I do not recommend that the left embrace propaganda methods, but I do recommend that we on the left emulate successful, and clear methods of communication that *work* at getting the message out to people.
Repetition of the truth, simplicity of meaning, and appeals to others' natural, and cultural interests — These are not methods owned by the propagandizing right and are even more effective for spreading the truth, than spreading lies.
De-consolidate and dismantle the hypnotizing machine, re-consolidate and allow an awakened humanity to grow!
.
.
Imagine if we apply this:
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”—Joseph Goebbels
To this:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”― Margaret Mead
and this:
"One word of truth outweighs the whole world."—Alexander Solzhenitsyn
It's not propaganda if its purpose is to neutralize prevailing propaganda, or to give people more knowledge in making their own decisions — to awaken possibilities, offer alternative options, to counteract popular sedation and prejudicial perspectives.
Repetition and consolidation of the message must become our tools as well.
Cheers SR
Salusa: Your light is shining! The other day, John Nichols wrote a piece explaining that some serious luminaries on the Left were pushing to get some Democratic contenders into the ring to challenge Obama. I was VERY curious as to your outlook on that, as it reminded me of an idea you introduced to this forum (and I knocked it around with you, as well), seeking out a way to recruit persons for a very similar agenda. I mean, we might have preferred the effort stay outside of the Democratic party fold, as opposed to theoretically expanding its perimeter by TRULY including (or recruiting) Progressive persons and platforms...
In any case, did you comment there? And if not, would you care to venture an opinion? I, for one, am grateful for this fledgling initiative because "business as usual" otherwise poses as a covert suicide pact for this nation.
Hi Siouxrose, No I did not respond in that thread, because I already became too frustrated with the limited scope of the Nader/West effort to 'pressure' Obama into being a better candidate.... That's causing me cognitive dissonance, so I chose to avoid the whole idea until a more promising effort emerges.
I support a 3rd Party challenge, headed by independents and defectors from the corrupt Democratic Party. I support the breaking away of all remaining vestiges of the progressive left from that party — a complete retraction of progressive support — which will then allow the true left to reorganize around a solid, but inclusive central platform of concrete and socially responsible reforms. Their aim must be focused on *fundamentally altering the course and timbre* of the opposition and our future development as we ascend from the rubble of this failed Western 'experiment' centered on the false paradigm of growth, and profits.
Perhaps at a point in the future, once a real apparatus of progressive change is instituted, we can consider what coalitions and coordinated actions we can take with what remains of the 'mainstream', but we cannot continue doing this from a point of weakness, and with no true foundation to stand upon.
I believe before we on the left can ever emerge victorious on the national scene, we must first enter the wilderness, go underground, go to seed, and then... into germination mode, and rebirth.
Working from within the Democratic Party, to change it from the inside...
isn't that notion becoming a bit intellectually irresponsible and self-defeating? I think that's what progressive activists need to ask themselves. Is working for the Democratic Party really helping progress at all?
Repeating the oligarchs techniques of brainwashing is unnecessary when the counter media, citizens direct internet media is overwhelming the old media. The old media like newspapers is in steep decline, we can just tell our truths directly and honestly without making them into repetitive talking points as you suggest. Managed talking points kill creativity, and long form truthful reporting, FUCK THAT!
Further talking points don't work with people paying attention, for example I can always tell a Zionist Hasbara shill a mile away by the canned stilted quality to the responses they give. Giving up initiative in favor of route responses is NOT a win, rather it just makes the speaker look like a tool.
The internet age is going to be one of vertical interactive and evolving communications, not top down talking points given to minions not allowed to take initiative. Networked intelligence beats top down structures EVERY time, over time, just look at how guerilla wars succeed and top down militaries fail.
Fail! And badly so!
"Repetition and consolidation of the message must become our tools as well."
I would go as far to say an anarchist, and believer in spontaneous self organizing community at the grassroots, that if you really believe that, then you are my enemy as much as any neo-con. I will NEVER mouth anyones talking points, and will strongly suggest any free creative person to take the same stance towards those who want to use you as a mere a mere means to their ends, and as a human megaphone.
FUCK THAT TOO!
You said you were going to read Kropotkin, did you? If you did, and still can come out with this dominator hierarchical mindset then you really didn't understand a word you read. :(
Hi guitarist,
I did order the books, and they should be arriving today or sometime soon after. I already received an Emma Goldman book which I also ordered, and began reading. But no, I can't finish a whole book, or in this case, a handful of them, without maybe a week or so's reading, and only after they arrive.
The problem here is not my reading deficiencies, but I believe it may have something to do with yours. Apparently, no consistency, no ability to return to core precepts and tenets, no ability to explain clearly and concisely fits into your concept of anarchy? Are you merely a discordian anarchist, an anarchist of ideas as well as political authority?
With all due respect, YOUR response, not mine is the 'fail'. You do not want anarchy apparently, you want unmitigated chaos, and a complete lack of organizing of the valid forces of the left. There is absolutely nothing in my post that I feel ashamed to repeat, to the point even of ad nauseum in some peoples' cases, and *I will not be intimidated into retracting my assertions or intentions*. I don't think you're being an advocate for anarchy, but for inaction, and disorder.
Perhaps after reading Kropotkin, which I still have every interest and intention of doing, a new dawning of perception will come upon me — but on looking back on what I wrote, I doubt Kropotkin is against consolidation and effectiveness of messaging. That's all I advocate... for the purpose, and in the spirit of 'mutual aid' which I feel naturally inclined to pursue. From what little I already know of Kropotkin, he comes across as far too sane to advocate against this.
"It is still not enough for language to have clarity and content... it must also have a goal and an imperative. Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble and from babble to confusion."
—Rene Daumal
Now you are just engaging in ad hominem slurs of the lowest order shame on you!
In many ways anarcho-syndacalism with it emphasis on consensus process, and obligation of consistent citizen level participation in the political process at the community level, is more structured than state capitalism where citizens are encouraged to be disengaged bystanders. One can engage in a structured process without everyone mouthing the exact same slogan as you advocate, which is like a dreary scene from 1984. Is your ability to conceptualize really so limited that all you can imagine is either top down talking points, or "chaos?"
Orwell BTW worked very closely with the anarcho-syndacalist labor Union CNT that coordinating services in the large city of Barcelona without a state when he volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil war. He wrote about this in the very moving book "Homage to Catalonia."
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html
And no Kropotkin was not a follower or a talking points kind of guy, he very much turned against the ruling Bolsheviks in the early 20s after initially supporting the Russian revolution, exactly because the Bolsheviks put RIGID central party controlled ideology above common decency, or allowing for local control, which Kropotkin supported. Lock step ideologies such as "consolidated messaging" where there is a hierarchy of "correct" ideas ALWAYS leads to tyranny, as once a small inner circle who have the power to control the messaging have that power, they never relinquish that power. That was the key flaw in Marxism is the idea that the "dictatorship of the proletariat," would be temporary and the state would whither. Top down control once established is never relinquished voluntarily, I challenge you to cite a single historical example where it ever has stepped aside on a voluntary basis. The central committee who will write the "consolidated messages," will become the new central party, I want no part of it, nor should any thinking person in my strong opinion. And of course YOU would be on the central consolidated message writing , committee, correct? A coincidence to be sure... The only way to stop that from happening is to establish decision making processes that are anti hierarchical like consensus and direct democracy, the very opposite of rigid talking points written by a chosen few!
re: "Now you are just engaging in ad hominem slurs of the lowest order shame on you!"
My intent is and has been to retain civility as much as possible with the others with whom I interact on these boards. Who started with the 'fail' comment, and all-cap expletives? Who called who out? My response was a defense only, not an offense.
re: "One can engage in a structured process without everyone mouthing the exact same slogan as you advocate".
Speaking of ad hominem slurs, here's one based on a strawman that you created. I absolutely have not advocated 'mouthing [any] exact ... slogan'. I have advocated clarity and consistency of messaging, which the left — all of it — is in desperate need of.
re: "In many ways anarcho-syndacalism with it emphasis on consensus process, and obligation of consistent citizen level participation in the political process at the community level, is more structured than state capitalism"
And here, you have identified the nature of the order and systemization I too seek... one based on continued consensus, continued and unending, bottom-up democratization and negotiation. The absolute opposite of encouraging 'disengaged bystanders'. I believe in EMPOWERED activists, empowered with clear and consistent memes and frames they can understand. I believe in getting past the rhetorical gobbligook and the technical nonsense, and getting to the core of the simple moral and ethical dilemma. Repeating frames that awaken and enliven an activist populace. So whatever you think I'm saying, doesn't accurately reflect what I am actually saying.
re: "The only way to stop that from happening is to establish decision making processes that are anti hierarchical like consensus and direct democracy, the very opposite of rigid talking points written by a chosen few!"
If I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement, how can I simultaneously be agitating for a rigid consensus based on my unmitigated utterances? I can't, and that's not at all what I represent, in spite of your attempting to paint me that way. My 'utterances', my consolidated message, is for others to take to heart their own independence, their own power to understand, to get involved and stake their own claim in demanding the respect they deserve and require.
You don't seem to understand the value of solidarity, and messaging. Apparently, we want many of the same things, but we simply have very different views about achieving these ends. Neither of us want more mindless robots, repeating received programming. We want self-guided living humans, who clearly understand their rights, their aims and how to achieve them effectively together. That requires good communication, and a strong basis for cooperation. In other words, a strong central platform, and the powerful consistent language that reinforces and stabilizes it.
Cheers guitarist. I don't want this to get too contentious. Its not worth it considering that I'm convinced we agree on more essentials than we disagree on particulars.
Whenever two good people argue over principles, they are both right..
—Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
Now you go from a rabid ad hominem attack, to glossing over real differences. I don't like your idea of "consolidated messaging," I would NEVER cooperate such as scheme as I ALWAYS reserve the right to have my own unique issue by issue perspective on the collapsing empire. For example most on the left are pro gun control, I am not, if gun control is part of the "consolidated message," I won't support it, nor will I support "feminist" suppression of the erotica known as "pornography." I am NOT someone seeking some sort of unified platform to pledge fealty to, I am someone who is looking to break up capitalist, bank, and state power, and looking for ways to establish local cooperatives, credit unions, and decision making processes to allow for local communities to decide fro themselves what their values are. For example people in communities in northern Michigan are likely to be against gun control, while those in urban areas may support, that is fine with me I support diversity, and don't demand some coercively enforced "consolidated" unanimity as those who advocate for unified talking points do.
Processes and abstract thinking trump laundry list talking points in my very strong opinion. The left in the p.c. age has very much devolved into people with a laundry list of issue grievances rather people with an abstract socioeconomic analysis of our problems, and a positive solution of processes that will allow people with diverse view to live together. The reason the original Constitution lasted as long as it did, was it did not deal with specific issues so much as processes for resolving disputes. However, those processes are now dated as they were written in an era when landowning men were considered the only stakeholders in society. We need a new abstract social contract that is inclusive of all people, less hierarchical than the Constitution, and that encourages consensus and cooperation as that is the only way we are going to survive with dignity on an over crowded planet
Feel free to have a conversation with someone who actually fits the profile of your criticisms.
re: "Now you go from a rabid ad hominem attack, to glossing over real differences."
An 'ad hominem'?! Where? You're making a totally specious assertion here, and if you have no interest in meaningful discourse, and only in creating and flogging your own straw-men, then so be it. You'll have to find someone else to spar with.
I'm working on organizing and facilitating meaningful activist participation, and promoting clear frames that engender free-thinking. Yet perplexingly, you appear here to have one intent: obstructing me in that endeavor. Fine... I'm willing to let the rest of the CD community judge the content of our exchange, as it stands. As for now, I have nothing else to add.
You said:
"The problem here is not my reading deficiencies, but I believe it may have something to do with yours. Apparently, no consistency, no ability to return to core precepts and tenets, no ability to explain clearly and concisely fits into your concept of anarchy? Are you merely a discordian anarchist, an anarchist of ideas as well as political authority?"
Which is an ad hominem whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, you can't even keep your spin straight from post to post, can you? I said anarcho-syndicalist several times in "dialog" (I use the term loosely) with you, and have in fact explained it to you several times that, that is NOT discordian individualism, but apparently your memory doesn't work very well? Since your thinking is that disjointed, hateful, and wholly at odds with what I actually said, you might see why I have no interest in being a megaphone for your "consolidated" talking points?
And you accuse ME of a "straw man," after your hate filled wholly inaccurate paragraph above? Please...
*That* was an ad hominem, but these are not?!:
"Repeating the oligarchs techniques of brainwashing"
"we can just tell our truths directly and honestly without making them into repetitive talking points as you suggest."
"Giving up initiative in favor of route responses [...] just makes the speaker look like a tool"
"top down talking points given to minions not allowed to take initiative"
"you are my enemy as much as any neo-con"
"and still [...] come out with this dominator hierarchical mindset"
"you are just engaging in ad hominem slurs of the lowest order "
"everyone mouthing the exact same slogan as you advocate, which is like a dreary scene from 1984."
"Is your ability to conceptualize really so limited that all you can imagine is either top down talking points"
"Lock step ideologies such as 'consolidated messaging' "
"Top down control" "rigid talking points written by a chosen few!" "laundry list talking points"
"Now you go from a rabid ad hominem attack, to glossing over real differences."
* * * * *
Based on the above quotes, there can be no misinterpretation of who is and who is not 'filled with hate'. Your disingenuous and opaque smears are laid out for all to review. As well, your faux-sensitivity and hyperbolic 'offense' are duly noted — and ignored. You are not engaged in true dialog here, but in a ineffective and transparent ploy to assassinate my character. I had begun to think more highly of your intentions, but am forced to consider other explanations.
Is your response the example of what I should expect from Kropotkin's 'mutual aid'? Of course its not, and I will read his work eagerly in spite of your aggression and bad-faith. I know enough of the man to know he was honest, compassionate, and interested in reaching out to others in order to spread his ideas.
"I have nothing else to add."
Lie much?????
I attacked your ideas, you attacked my person, if you can't tell the difference then I suggest you look up the definition of ad hominem. Just another self proclaimed "scholar" engaging in shoddy thinking much like SR from what I can see. Are you her accoladed heir, or perhaps her troll?
Sigh!
Guitarist ----- you have much to offer, and I have learned from you. For that I thank you. However, in your exchange with SS ----- it is my opinion that you have given up what appear to be your principles to protect your ego. SS seems to me to have been consistent. This exchange from your side is one I would expect to see from someone who is drinking heavily as the discussion progesses, and detracts from your message. dh
Salusa Secundas, I admire your patience.
Guitarist, chill, just a skosh.
Dmitri Orlov, a Russian Ex-pat, once observed that the only difference between the USSR and the US was that in America people believed the propaganda.
Studied Russian years ago. The instructor, an ex-pat, told us day one about the main newspaper in USSR and the popular saying "Pravda nyet Pravda". (Pravda/Truth is not true)
I recall an old joke about Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News). It went: there is no truth in the new and no news in the truth.
I thought the joke went that you could find some news in Pravda, and some truth in Izvestia.
Either way, the Ruskies knew they were reading stories that couldn't be trusted. The western peoples don't. (sorry OP, the rest of us westerners seem to be believing the propaganda now too.)
Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges and David Swanson--three treasures of humanity, shining a bright light on our present plight. We, however, must be our own saviors. Can we organize a coherent educational and political action based on their insights to resist our own destruction, and that of our planet?
Basing it any narrow set of speakers is a recipe for brittleness and failure. De-schooling society:
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/chap1.html
and bringing knowledge directly to people without institutional mediation, and having counter cultural reading circles however is an excellent idea.
Can someone point to a link that describes why the hikers were there in the first place? I find it almost impossible to believe they were "just hiking". If that were the case, then the US has a real problem on it's hands...what to do with all the "just hikers" around the Mexican border.
I wonder about the same thing. Why were they in Iraq in the first place, and why were they hiking anywhere close to a national border, especially the one with Iran?
Kane & Sheepherder,.....
I was wondering the same thing..My wife and I like to hike but it never occurred to us to do so in that part of the world.......Perhaps we are just too satisfied with the spectacular hiking trails available in the United States, Canada, and the UK.... .........
Thomas Gilbert-
There is nothing intrinsically sinister about desert hiking or intense cross border hiking.
While in Turkey, I met a woman from Vancouver who had travelled through China, Afghnaistan, Pakistan, India, Iran. Hiking, biking, trains, buses.
I also met a Texan who was in Iran in the late 70's and 80's, and travelled freely there during the hostage crisis.
There may be a backstory hee, but generalized suspicion of hikers is a bit off the mark.
Agreed. A former co-worker has been on biking/camping expeditions all over the world. Nothing nefarious about it at all.
Sorry but hiking on the Iran border when the U.S. is known to be engaging in covert destabilization of Iran tingles my spidey sense. :( Nothing wrong with hiking, I love to hike, but I wouldn't ever think to hike in a war zone, it's at best mind numbingly stupid, and at worst U.S. covert ops IMO.
"...it's at best mind numbingly stupid, and at worst U.S. covert ops IMO."
Or ignorant "above it all" Americanism.
Agreed. There's something fishy about that crew and how/why they were in that area.
These "hikers" look a lot healthier than any Gitmo unfortunates that I have seen pictures of. They can still walk upright, and make complex compound sentences.
Glenn, sounds like you don't believe in amerlcan exceptionalism?
What is ignored is that the idiots were hiking on the border of Iran AND COMMITED A CRIME by crossing it. It's really that simple. They ARE GUILTY of the crime and were either utter idiots or spys. I'm on Iran's side on this one. I just find it really hard to believe these two guys are really this stupid. They deserve worse, they cost us millions of dollars and should be made to pay back what they can. I'm sick and tired of idiots creating messes they can't deal with.
Yah! What were they doing there? Maybe they really were spies. When you hike in another country, you plan a course and look at maps. Something stinks.
I've always found the story a little hard to swallow myself. There are plenty of beautiful places in the world to hike that are not on the border between a war zone and and an enemy state. Perhaps it's true that this group just decided to go for a hike in Iraq right along the border with Iran, but why? I'd like to know if they had been hiking in other exotic (and safer) places before they just happened to choose this very odd destination. Have they been in the Andes? What about the Alps? British Columbia has some great hiking trails, not to mention the Appalachians.. Even China would be a more logical destination choice. Or Mongolia. Or Kazakhstan. I just don't understand why they would choose this particular spot to go for a hike, unless perhaps they have already hiked the entire world and this was the last place on their check list.
Rob -exposure of our own atrocities is not a bad thing------- dh
Surprisingly, Iran didn't paint a line showing where the border in that area is. According to other reports about the incident it is still unclear that they actually did cross the border.
As was stated in the press conference, numerous people of other nationalities who were found guilty of crossing the border were let go with a fine. These people, even if guilty, were held because of their nationality, not because they crossed the border.
to bad greenwald skipped english 101:
"two American hikers imprisoned for more than two years by Iran on extremely dubious espionage charges and in highly oppressive conditions,"
loose the adverbs dude
the espionage charge may be dubious; I assume greenwald knows a tad about 60s history and the un believable extent to which agents provacateur would go to infiltrate left organizations; if greenwald has really looked into the history of the hikers, maybe he can assert that they arenot cia plants, but it is not out of hte question.
It sure is funny when the grammer police show up and include typos, forget periods, fail to capitalize, and improperly use semicolons in the diatribe.
Seriously. I wonder if he means "loosen the adverbs" or "lose the adverbs."
Shhhhhhhush......America is dreaming the dreams of empire. Make too much noise and she'll wake to nightmares.
Lashe
"The entire US media, which I have heard belongs to only five rich people or corporations,..."
wherever you might have think you heard that,(if you're not just making that silly crud up yourself) is some source that's a fountain of feces.
Unfortunately, Scott Ritter is persona non grata. They slapped him with some trumped up kiddie porn allegations, and now it is not possible to even cite the fact that he was 100% correct about the WMDs.
We just had what seems to be an innocent hiker arrested for taking some photos in the proximity of a reservoir, not doing much of anything different than what these hikers said they were doing, yet I see no headlines in Iranian papers drawing the parallels, http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26924723-41/dam-area-corps-nelson-restricted.html.csp