The Dubious Issues In The Saberi Case
A dual-citizenship 'journalist' without official press credentials was working as a temporary translator for the Senate. The 'journalist' copied a confidential document on the Iraq war. Around the same time said 'journalist' went on vacation in Cuba, something not allowed under U.S. laws. The U.S. arrests and sentences the 'journalist' for spying and illegal travel.
How would the U.S. media have reacted in that case?
Glenn Greenwald points out that the U.S. media whined a lot about Roxana Saberi, a woman arrested and convicted in Iran, but hardly says a word when the U.S. is arresting foreign journalists and imprisons them for years without trial. Greenwald also writes:
Saberi's release is good news, as her conviction occurred as part of extremely dubious charges and unreliable judicial procedures in Iran.
While pointing out U.S. media deficits, Greenwald falls for its propaganda hook, line and sinker.
It was said that reason for Saberi's arrest was for buying a bottles of wine. But that was only what the 'western' media 'reported' and it was never confirmed by Iranian authorities. Saberi was also said to be a journalist but her press credentials for Iran had expired in 2006. What Greenwald called "extremely dubious charges and unreliable judicial procedures in Iran" now turn out to have been well founded charges and a seemingly normal judicial process.
The prosecutor accused Saberi of "spying for an enemy country" and in the first swift trial, not open to the public as is usual for spying cases, she was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.
During the appeal trial her lawyers argued that the charges were wrong as Iran is not at war with the U.S. and therefore not an enemy. There is even legal precedent for that argument. It convinced the judge and Saberi's sentence was reduced to two years:
In the end, the court found Saberi guilty based on Article 505 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code, which states, in loose terms, that any person who collects classified information and puts it at the service of "others" with the goal of destabilizing national security is committing a crime. Previously, Saberi had been charged with putting that information at the service of an "enemy country that Iran is at war with," according to Nikbakht. That wording was dropped, reducing her crime.
Sabrini indeed likely committed a crime under Article 505:
[H]er lawyer revealed his client had been convicted of spying in part because she had a copy of a confidential Iranian report on the war in Iraq.
Prosecutors had also cited a trip to Israel that Ms Saberi had made in 2006, he said. Iran bars its citizens from visiting Israel, its regional nemesis.
...
Ms Saberi had admitted that she had copied the document two years ago but said she had not passed it on to the Americans as prosecutors had claimed. She had apologised, saying it had been a mistake to take the report.At the time, Ms Saberi was doing occasional translations for the website of the Expediency Council, which is made up of clerics who mediate between the legislature, the presidency and Iran's clerical leadership over constitutional disputes. Mr Nikbakht gave no details on what was in the document because it remains confidential.
There is nothing irregular in what Iran's officials did in this case. The woman had copied an official confidential report. She traveled to a country that she is not allowed to travel to. And she confessed on both issues. Obviously she did have better lawyers in the appeal case than in during the first trial. But there is nothing in the real story that seems 'extremly dubious' or 'unreliable' to me.
The two year sentences comes with five year probation and Saberi is free to leave Iran. That and the speed with which the appeal trial was done are the really dubious and suspicious issues here.
There is to believe that there is a deal behind this:
Another of Ms Saberi's lawyers, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said a letter from the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the court, urging it to give Ms Saberi's case a complete review, had helped bring about the sentence reduction.
It has been suggested that Iran asked for the return of detained diplomats:
Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst in Iran, said he believed that his country wanted to use Ms. Saberi in negotiations with the United States, but would not keep her for long because it would tarnish its human rights record.
Iran has also been pressing for the release of three Iranian officials whom the United States took into custody in 2007 in Iraq. The men, who Iran says are diplomats, were arrested at Iran’s consulate in northern Iraq. United States forces have said the men had links to the Revolutionary Guards.
Currently Vali Reza Nasr, an adviser to Richard Holbrooke, is said to be in Iran:
New reports claim that Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani and former parliament speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel may be behind the visit.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was informed well after Nasr entered the country," Tabnak reported on Wednesday.
Nasr, who was appointed as a senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke -- the special US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan --, is the son of renowned Islamic philosopher and historian of science, Seyyed Hossein Nasr.
Tabnak and Fararu claimed the alleged unannounced trip by the US official to be linked to the recent release of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi.
So this is how it looks to me.
Iran had good reason and acted within its laws in arresting and sentencing Roxana Saberi. The 'western' media used the case for the usual Iran bashing. Ironically this publicity gave Iran the opening for offering a deal.
The speed of the appeal sentence and the probation are unusual. The personal intervention of Ahmedinejad and the presence of Vali Reza Nasr in Tehran point to a government deal. For immediately setting free Saberi, Iran will get some U.S. concession.
Within a few days we are likely to see some reporting in Iranian media that the three diplomats arrested in Arbil two years ago have been set free.
A small step on the larger path of U.S. Iranian détente.
Posted by b on May 13, 2009 at 17:14 UTC | Permalink
look - it is called investigative journalism. any journalist has the right to collect any information they can lay their hands on - it is called freedom of the press. maybe there is no freedom of the press in the US - that does not make Ms Saberi a spy.
we - the citizens - should defend any journalist who tries to get real information instead of copying press releases. it is our only chance to be informed. you do not need to be accredited to work as a journalist, you should not need to, neither should you be embedded, nor should you be forced to expose your sources.
Posted by: outsider | May 13 2009 20:32 utc | 4
and b - 'journalist' is journalist. in this country - Germany - anybody is a journalist who calls herself a journalist.
Posted by: outsider | May 13 2009 20:34 utc | 5
I would be more agreeable to journalists being given a fair run if when a journalist blatantly abuses that trust eg Judith Miller, particularly where millions of human lives are at stake, all other journalists took action to ensure the deceit was exposed and the journalist concerned lost their automatic protection.
But that almost never happens, a greedy self-interested liar pumps out warmongering propaganda, and instead of exposing the bullshit for what it is, bullshit, other journalists compound the wrong but dutifully repeating (after adding on a couple of their own lies and distortions - to give it their slant, no doubt) the original lie. Sure a couple of journos shouting from the edge of the wilderness may call out a Judith Miller, but most do not.
Even worse the same august journals who have been trumpeting Saberi's release are known to give foreign correspondent's jobs to spies, to provide the spy with 'cover'.
Journalists and their employers would have to be much more outspoken against these duplicitous and deceitful acts if they expect to be granted freedom of the press.
Actually after having heard the awful points of view that a substantial proportion of the sons and daughters of the savaak operatives and other evil members of the Pahlavi circle who fled after the popular uprising in Iran, have elucidated to me, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Saberi was working to further the interests of a foreign power.
Most likely the Iranians felt that the message of what could happen, even to nice middle class girls who aided and abetted amerika and israel, had been made sufficiently clear, in fact who knows, she may even have spilt the beans on some much more important traitors operating in Iran. After that leaving her in jail wouldn't be to iran's advantage, it would just be another piece of bullshit that the zionists would blow outta proportion and whale on about so may as well spike the zionists' guns by letting her go.
As far as the Iranian courts being told what to do by pols, that prolly wasn't necessary, I'm buggered if I can find it now but years ago back in the days of the Libby/Miller thing we found an academic study by one of the rich prick amerikan law schools, which looked at the senior judiciary's ( appeal and supreme courts) penchant for delivering verdicts favourable to the government of the day.
A number of countries were studied and the odds of a government getting a verdict that would suit it were way better than 60% even after a change of government where the same court and been delivering mostly favourable decisions to the previous government - sworn enemy and ideological opposite /sarcasm - of the new mob of power hungry pricks to whose asses the judges had just transferred their lips.
Posted by: Debs is dead | May 13 2009 22:36 utc | 6
I think there's more to this than Saberi being a journalist. As more info comes out, it seems there may have been some actions which any country might find interesting.
This evening, NPR reported that:
One of her attorneys, Saleh Nikbakht, said Wednesday that the prosecution's case also included the allegation that Saberi had met with a person identified only as Mr. Peterson, who told her he worked for the CIA and tried to recruit her into the agency.
"She said that yes, she had met a Mr. Peterson," Nikbakht told NPR, "and that Mr. Peterson asked her to work for the CIA. But she took it as a joke, and didn't take him seriously."
It appears that in an earlier interrogation, Saberi had been questioned about this Mr. Peterson and had given answers that she then recanted during the appeals procedure. She told the appeals court, according to Nikbakht, that "what she said about Peterson earlier had been a lie."
It is not known where and when she met Peterson.
The on air broadcast also said she another document, but that document had not been classifed.
So, were the Iranians watching this reporter, waiting for something more damning or just keeping her as a possible person to arrest and offer trade if and when a more reasonable seeming administration came to power in the US?
Why would the Expediency Council hire a foreigner, a journalist, to do translations of secret documents? Especially an American to translate a report about the US war in Iraq? That does seem strange, no?
Cat, mouse. Who is which? Dolls within dolls.
This will surely become a movie--or be changed a bit to serve as a basis for a Law and Order episode.
Has anyone read the Swiss report and can tell us monolinguists what it says?
Posted by: jawbone | May 13 2009 23:15 utc | 7
This is big folks:
Obama wars Bibi:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085466.html
Posted by: Anthony | May 14 2009 0:26 utc | 8
No, it's not news.
What would be news would be the PS:
PS If you do anything like that, we will cut your pocket money and sell you no more F-16s, Apache helicopters, or white phosphorous bombs.
Posted by: Richard | May 14 2009 2:52 utc | 9
The Swiss were involved because their embassy in Tehran represents the U.S. in Iran. Also the Swiss president Hans-Rudolf Merz recently met with Ahmedinejad in Geneva and talked about the case. (The meeting was heavily criticized by the Israelis.)
@outsider - and b - 'journalist' is journalist. in this country - Germany - anybody is a journalist who calls herself a journalist.
In theory yes, practically no.
There are certain criteria to get a press pass which is often the only way to get somewhere to report on events and to get some information. (I had one for a while, it was not renewed when I stopped working in the field (as photographer)). For most official events one also needs an accreditation to get in. Usually it takes an official letter from the media one is working for. Freelancers have trouble when they can not provide that. You can look up the troubles around the G8 meting in Heiligendamm last year when certain critical journalists were not accredited at all.
For the U.S. this
The "media (I)" visa is a nonimmigrant visa for persons desiring to enter the United States temporarily who are representatives of the foreign media traveling to the United States, engaging in their profession, having the home office in a foreign country. Some procedures and fees under immigration law, relate to policies of the travelers home country, and in turn, the U.S. follows a similar practice, which we call “reciprocity”. Procedures for providing media visas to foreign media representatives of a particular country, consider whether the visa applicants own government grants similar privileges or is reciprocal, to representatives of the media or press from the United States.Only because the 'west' claims its media are free does not mean that they are so.Changes introduced shortly after September 11, 2001 involve extensive and ongoing review of visa issuing practices as they relate to our national security. Visa applications are now subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than in the past. So it is important to apply for your visa well in advance of your travel departure date.
no b. you do not need accrediture nor do you need authorities to let you into places to be a famous journalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Erwin_Kisch
Posted by: outsider | May 14 2009 5:33 utc | 12
It may very well be true that Roxana Saberi was hired by the US and/or Israel to spy on Iran. This may especially be true given that Roxana is not only fluent in Farsi, but, more importantly, she's a former beauty queen. It goes without saying that beautiful people, especially women, make great spies, simply because good lookers are better than people who aren't so good looking at manipulating others into doing things that they wouldn't do under normal circumstances. It doesn't take much intelligence to know that Iranian men, like most men, are suckers for beautiful women.
Posted by: Cynthia | May 14 2009 14:01 utc | 13
outsider, you do not need accrediture nor do you need authorities to let you into places to be a famous journalist
changing goalposts? are we now debating what constitutes a famous journalist because obviously saberi is famous now. who's saying she isn't.
any journalist has the right to collect any information they can lay their hands on - it is called freedom of the press.
doesn't mean you won't be arrested, as Kisch was. are you asserting germany has no laws regarding visas for foriegn journalists like the US has? what exactly is your point? that freedom of the press is extended to foreign spies?
you may recall that 'freedom' was not extended to judith miller/libby in the case of libby vs US by trying to protect himself by exploiting the secrecy afforded to journalists by releasing secret documents for the purpose of exposing a covert agent. hell, any ol person could just claim they were doing investigative journalism under any circumstance to avoid a grand jury, or something. just let it go, you are wrong.
Posted by: annie | May 14 2009 14:23 utc | 14
Anthony @8--Obama's warning to Netanyahu could be just that, or it could be plausible (and publicized) deniability. I'm not sure a really serious warning would be made public, but having this come out makes Obama look good to most voters. There being no consequences getting publicity puts it in the long line of warnings which Israel can safely ignore.
Now, will reporters ask serious questions about this, with follow ups questions when the answer is a nonanswer?
Posted by: jawbone | May 14 2009 16:02 utc | 15
Yet more information about why Saberi was arrested, things she said (accurate and, well, lies). From NYTimes news blog, The Lede. I don't know if this made it into any articles in the paper.
She was not arrested for purchasing wine; there was a warrant issued for her arrest, apparently based on the documents she had in her possession, and Iranian authorities arrested her at her home. At least that's current information.
No mention of her intriguing meeting with "Mr. Peterson" of the CIA and his job offer.... A case of that dog that didn't bark?
Seriously, if a dual-citizenship person --with the country of residence being a nation seriously threatening the US, with heavy sanctions in place, special ops forces known to be operating inside the US, and making threats of further military action-- had given answers similar to hers to US authorities, does anyone think that person would be released with time served and also be permitted to return to the US, but just not practice journalism?
(Hope the HTML tags remain--they've disappeared from my comment on the NPR reporting in #7. When I first previewed that comment, the tags didn't function, so I exited, came back, they worked in preview, I think they worked overall--now don't. Is a puzzlement. So, I'm going to put the link below w/out tags.)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/roxana-saberi-leaves-iran/?ref=global-home
Posted by: jawbone | May 15 2009 16:51 utc | 16
The comments to this entry are closed.
When I read the article about Saberi, I figured she was actually lucky to have been arrested in Iran. She would not be out of prison for many, many years had she been a non-citizen translator for the NSA (or one of Obama's aides) who took a copy of an important document pertaining to any of our wars or, well, about Iran.
She's very lucky. I wish her well.
I would like to the see the US DOJ handle the Muslims, other non-citizens it accuses of security related crimes, citizens of the US or not, with more judiciousness, more restraint. These long prison terms for doing things --or just thinking about doing things-- that may even have been elicited by FBI paid informants/provacateurs verges on insane.
Gee, would be nice if the US handled all its little people accused with more sanity. So far, the US DOJ is pretty lenient with Big Bankster Boiz....
Posted by: jawbone | May 13 2009 19:51 utc | 1