PatrickHenry,

Continue to remind yourself that you hold strong opinions about a trial you’ve never studied.  Testimony you’ve never heard.  Evidence you’ve never evaluated. - That alone is telling.

-

I’ve never seen you defend the views of liberal Arab and Persian thinkers.  Without exception you go to terrific lengths to shield and defend the most radically conservative, ultra-religious, in predominantly Muslim regions.  It’s very curious.

Imax,

I keep remembering you have all the attributes of a paid shill forwarding an agenda.

PatrickHenry,

You have very strong opinions about a court case you’ve never studied.  You make a great deal more sense to me now.

I keep forgetting you’re not interested in information you can’t use.

Imax,

If this ruling was truely credible it would have appeared before the UN security council and we would have used it by now as a pretext to invade.

It is not worth the paper it is printed on.

The ruling is laughable as it is an attempt to portray inuenndo and speculation as fact and steal any of the Iranian state funds frozen here or abroad.

What do you think a default judgement in a civil case is anyway.

PatrickHenry,

So you refuse to read this latest judgement or follow the evidence presented.  You know it all already. LOL

Good luck with your self-imposed ignorance.  LMAO

Imax,

I’ve read it all before, speculation and innuendo supported by secrets (we can’t tell you or show you but you have to believe us.)

Same old hasbara garbage.

I’ll bet you believe 19 hijackers did 9/11 too.

PatrickHenry,

You’ve already read the entire 45 page judgment?  I think not.

You’re making excuses again, Patrick.  Are you intentionally keeping yourself ignorant?

Imax,

All are default judgements (no defendents appear to prove their innocence) in civil cases permitted by arms appropriations.

Real case law here.  No real evidence presented, just speculation in a civil case against someone who didn’t appear. 

Just more unconstituional fodder for the booga booga machine.

PatrickHenry - “And this Judge bases his decision on what ‘intelligence’ that has been vetted in a court of law?”

-

Yes.  And it’s not the first time. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 01-2244 (JDB)
Civil Action No. 08-1349 (JDB)
Civil Action No. 08-1361 (JDB)
Civil Action No. 08-1377 (JDB)
Civil Action No. 08-1380 (JDB)
Civil Action No. 10-0356 (JDB)

Look it up, Patrick.  There is much you do not learn from your coveted media sources.

Imax,

I can’t see myself defending Iran, as is common here, simply because the Iranian government is a self-described enemy of the U.S.

No free thinking here, Iran ringed by U.S. military because they want to develop nuclear power as is their right under the NPT.

Judge John D. Bates issued a default judgment. The court found that the “government of the Islamic Republic of Iran…has a long history of providing material aid and support to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,”

And this Judge bases his decision on what ‘intelligence’ that has been vetted in a court of law?  I guess he read it in the NYT.

IanGun, - “state sponsored terrorism does not solely exist in the realm of the likes of Iran or Al Qaeda, we and our allies use it as well.”

-

I wholeheartedly agree.  At the same time there are reasons why Iran is notably a pariah amongst the international community. 

I can’t see myself defending Iran, as is common here, simply because the Iranian government is a self-described enemy of the U.S..

If he’s not a spy surely USA,
Shouldn’t they be going
“nyuck, nyuck, nyuck”?

@IMax

I think there is no doubt that many states, Iran included, use terrorism as a
pseudo-military tactic in an attempt to attain national interest goals. I think the
problem is that in general we in the United States fail to understand the scope
to which even our government uses or endorses it as an acceptable tactic as
well.

Also reported this week with the in absentia conviction was the story that
another Iranian scientist was assassinated when a magnetic bomb was attached
to his car. This is the third civilian/state scientist killed recently in Iran, and all
these terrorist attacks are suspected to be linked to the Israeli spy agency
Mossad or possibly the CIA. In addition there are even questions being asked
about the legality of U.S. drone attacks outside of defined theaters of war,
raising the problem of our forces (whether CIA or otherwise) falling under the
definition of unlawful combatants if not outright terrorists. Outside the current
headlines, even our allies conduct state sponsored terrorist acts; during the
height of the Iraq war the Saudis were suspected of backing the Sunni attacks
on US forces and even now Pakistan’s ISI allegedly supports and advises the
Taliban and potentially Al Qaeda branches.

Regardless of the motivation or justification, I think it is safe to argue that
using car bombs or other anti-civilian attacks are acts of terrorism in the
commonly accepted definition. Our legal system is clearly correct in handing
out verdicts in these types of terrorism cases, but we should be clear that state
sponsored terrorism does not solely exist in the realm of the likes of Iran or Al
Qaeda, we and our allies use it as well.

In a little noticed ruling on Monday, November 28, a Washington, D.C. district court found that both Iran and Sudan were culpable for al Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings. As is typical in state sponsorship of terrorism cases, neither Iran nor Sudan answered the plaintiffs’ accusations. But in a 45-page decision, Judge John D. Bates issued a default judgment. The court found that the “government of the Islamic Republic of Iran…has a long history of providing material aid and support to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,” which “claimed responsibility for the August 7, 1998 embassy bombings.”

Patrick,

As I said.  No love for Mr. Hekmati. 

No concerned questions.  No spirited defense.  No enthralling narrative.  No desire to explore the man’s motives or personal story.  You alluded to it yourself. He got caught. Guilty. Death. Next?

Young Mr. Hekmati is on the wrong side.  Free Bradley Manning!

Imax,

Is Hekmati guilty of spying?  Has it been reported that Mr. Hekmati caused someone their life?  Hekmati was motivated by money? 

Maybe they waterboarded him and he confessed, those type confessions pass the smell test here in the good old U.S. of A.

Manning a hero.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-20031354-2.html

IMax,

Yes, I ‘seems’ sure of it.

If you have a news article post it otherwise I’m calling BS on you.

You seem hung up on ‘spying’, Manning did not spy, he had position and access and did not obtain that position to purposefully disclose secret information, he disclosed information to the public of war crimes once he was made aware of them.

A regular James Bond in your book.

Patrick, - “No deaths have been attributable to Manning.”

-

Interesting.  You seems so sure of this.  I guess those New York Times and Guardian reports of the Taliban using the Manning released ‘War Logs’ to hunt and murder named Afghans never passed your eyes and ears.

Spying is not spying if one is not motivated by money?  Interesting.  I’ve never heard that definition before now.  I had always been under the impression that it’s the act that defines the crime.

-

Is Hekmati guilty of spying?  Has it been reported that Mr. Hekmati caused someone their life?  Hekmati was motivated by money? 

It’s fascinating how you’re able to avoid the subjects you find inconvenient.

IMax,

No deaths have been attributable to Manning, several deaths have been pegged to Pollard.

Manning disclosed to the public, a far cry from selling secrets for money.

PatrickHenry,

If Bradley Manning gave information that caused people to get killed then yes the historical punishment for this kind of spying is death?

I doubt Pfc. Manning will receive capital punishment over the reported deaths of several liberal, pro-American, Iraqis and Afghans after his admitted spying and information dumps.

Has it been reported that Mr. Hekmati caused someone their life?  Information on this is sketchy.

If he gave information that caused people to get killed then yes the historical punishment for this kind of spying is death.

Thats why I don’t understand why Jonathan Pollard is still alive.

PatrickHenry, - “May I be the first to say don’t let the door hit you in the ass.”

-

Sure.

Did you have anything, anything at all, to say on the subject of this thread? No concern for Mr. Hekmati?  No impassioned protestations in support of this American?  Would you have more to say if Mr. Hekmati had been detained and charged here in the U.S. or inside Israel?

Food for thought, Patrick. If Mr. Hekmati sees himself as a liberal Iranian-American chances are great that he views Israel much as you do.  No concern for him?  No thoughts, prayers, or good wishes?......Crickets..?

This is truly embarrassing.

IanGun,

I understood the well founded point you were making.  You’re concerned with U.S. foreign policy and the ramifications of those policies.  Much as I am.

My point was that very few here care about this incident.  Not enough to comment, anyway.  And, interestingly enough, no one displayed even a modicum of concern for this American. We see no debate concerning the veracity of the charges against him. - I assume most here are either ambivalent or can’t get behind this American due to the nature of the accusation. In other words, if he is a spy he’s on the wrong side.

Run a piece on Bradley Manning’s arrest or treatment and interest and passions run extremely high.  Manning too stands accused of spying but for two obvious differences.  Manning admits his spying and the assumption by most on this site is that Bradley Manning, described here as a hero, is on the correct side of a cause. 

I find this embarrassing.

Imax,

This site is an embarrassment to liberals and democrats everywhere.

May I be the first to say don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

@IMax
My Comments were colored by the thinking represented well by Morris Davis,
retired Air Force colonel and former chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay:

“It was interesting yesterday hearing the State Department spokesman—or
spokeswoman talking about the case of Amir Hekmati, the American citizen
convicted in Iranian court, which is indeed unfortunate. But she criticized their
process, saying that here’s a guy that was detained under suspicious
circumstances, had a trial in secret, using a confession that was coerced. And I’m
sitting there looking at this, going, “It sounds an awful lot like what we do at
Guantánamo.” So we lose our moral standing and our ability to really complain
when others do pretty much what we’ve done at Guantánamo. ”

I don’t know that the man charged is guilty.  So little information is public. But, honestly, who cares, right?

-

This story of an American sentenced to death in Iran for spying was put up early on 9 January. So far we see five comments. None of which, interestingly enough, touch on the actual subject at hand. - Gerard, of course, only concerns herself with the U.S. on every topic.

Contrast that with Chris Hedges’ latest piece on James Cone. That thread already enjoys 70 comments. All discussing the same issues we see after each and every Hedges piece.  The comment count will likely reach upwards of 200 or more before the posts fade away.

-

This site is an embarrassment to liberals and democrats everywhere.

Are we still indefinitely holding the Iranian generals kidnapped while on a
diplomatic mission during the Iraq war? After we nabbed them, I didn’t hear
anything about them being released…

And they won’t give back the drone!

Hey, it’s an election year. Of course Obama is going to bomb Iran! Are you kidding?

Close Guantanamo now!

First rule of spying, don’t get caught.