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.