13 Sep 10
Originally posted by FMFI think it's more likely it was the brutal bungling by the commanders of the Vincennes. I doubt it was US military policy to shoot down civilian airliners. In any case, I don't foresee Iran forking over compensation to the captives for their time in Iranian prison as the US forked over $60m+ as compensation for the 655 victims.
I think the downing of Iran Flight 655 in 1988 with the loss of 290 lives was the U.S. flexing its muscle. It's a rough world out there.
13 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76No admission of wrongdoing. No acceptance of responsibility. No apology to the Iranian government. Medals for the military personell who did it. A mere $150K and $300K for each person killed. The U.S. cocked the snook at the Iranians I reckon. As I said, it's a rough world out there.
In any case, I don't foresee Iran forking over compensation to the captives for their time in Iranian prison as the US forked over $60m+ as compensation for the 655 victims.
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76Your first statement is nonsensical. Of course, a bail would be very high if a suspect was allowed to leave the country for political reasons.
No. If it were really "bail" they wouldn't let her leave the country at all. As it is, they know perfectly well:
1) She's innocent
2) Her family/ the US government will pay their demanded ransom
3) The whole incident will have little or no diplomatic blowback
4) They cam embarrass the US a bit with this innocent
So, they do this. This is extortion; plain and simple... not bail.
Your suppositions are just that. The underlying situation is that the US has declared "all options are off the table" when dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear program, a veiled threat of military action. US citizens who just happen to be wandering into Iran are certainly going to be suspected of spying. Spying is somewhat of a serious charge and a heavy bail doesn't seem outrageous to me.
What is the usual bail set in the US for suspected foreign spies?
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76Have you ever heard of the term "reconnaissance"? Is the Iran-Iraq border considered a "hip" destination to get some mountain air?
Why would a spy be hiking in the mountains near the Iran-Iraq border?
In any case, the fact that the Iranians are apparently willing to release her forever for $500 grand is powerful confirmation that they have no evidence of her being a spy.
If you read the article, you'd know that the political arm of the Iranian government was willing to release her, but that the judiciary balked at her getting special treatment. So a bail was set with the same rules as any bail; if you don't appear, the bail is forfeited. There is nothing preventing Ms. Shourd from appearing at trial; normally refusing to appear at trial is considered probative evidence of guilt.
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah; like this is a normal case of jumping bail not showing up for your reckless driving trial in NY Supreme.
normally refusing to appear at trial is considered probative evidence of guilt.
If you were completely innocent and arrested by an openly hostile regime and kept in prison for a year and then released, would you:
a) go home and never come back; or
b) go back for trial, confident that justice will prevail and you'll be acquitted
?
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThey know perfectly well that she's never coming back. If it were really a matter of ensuring that she shows up for trial (which is what bail is supposed to be), they'd obviously remand her. No amount of bail is going to convince her to come back and stand "trial."
Your first statement is nonsensical. Of course, a bail would be very high if a suspect was allowed to leave the country for political reasons.
Your suppositions are just that. The underlying situation is that the US has declared "all options are off the table" when dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear program, a veiled threat of military ac ...[text shortened]... eous to me.
What is the usual bail set in the US for suspected foreign spies?
If they had any evidence against her other than that she was hiking in the mountains when she may or may not have accidentally crossed the border by a few yards, they'd put her on trial. Instead, they're releasing her forever in exchange for $500,000. Couch it in any terms you choose; you know that's exactly what's going on here. What does that tell you about the quality of the "evidence" they have against her?
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by sh76I would do A whether I was "completely innocent" or not. So doing A certainly doesn't indicate innocence.
Yeah; like this is a normal case of jumping bail not showing up for your reckless driving trial in NY Supreme.
If you were completely innocent and arrested by an openly hostile regime and kept in prison for a year and then released, would you:
a) go home and never come back; or
b) go back for trial, confident that justice will prevail and you'll be acquitted
?
14 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You're making a bunch of assumptions with little evidence to support your claims. This is rather typical on this board. You certainly are not privy to what evidence the Iranian prosecutors possess.
They know perfectly well that she's never coming back. If it were really a matter of ensuring that she shows up for trial (which is what bail is supposed to be), they'd obviously remand her. No amount of bail is going to convince her to come back and stand "trial."
If they had any evidence against her other than that she was hiking in the mountains when she re. What does that tell you about the quality of the "evidence" they have against her?
Real spies get released all the time as part of deals between countries or simply due to international pressure (maybe you missed the NY Post this summer). Iran's willingness to release her with a hefty bail isn't proof of her complete and absolute innocence. You know better, but are simply posturing. If this is just some kind of shakedown, why did President Ahmadinejad intervene to get her released without conditions?
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but it negates your application of the principle that "refusing to appear at trial is considered probative evidence of guilt" to this case; which was my point.
I would do A whether I was "completely innocent" or not. So doing A certainly doesn't indicate innocence.
14 Sep 10
Originally posted by no1marauderproof... complete... absolute
You're making a bunch of assumptions with little evidence to support your claims. This is rather typical on this board. You certainly are not privy to what evidence the Iranian prosecutors possess.
Real spies get released all the time as part of deals between countries or simply due to international pressure (maybe you missed the NY Post ...[text shortened]... sn't proof of her complete and absolute innocence. You know better, but are simply posturing.
You are correct. it's not "proof" or "complete" or "absolute" anything. But it's my best theory with a whole heck of a lot of common sense behind it. Nobody who has debated on this thread has expressed anything other than the belief that she is "probably" innocent. I posit that it's more than a mere probability but an enormously strong probability.
Your casting my message board supposition in absolute certain terms indicates to me that you also believe that she's probably innocent. If so, fine. You're just quibbling with my terminology. Whatever. If not, I submit that you're the one drawing conclusions based on no evidence.
14 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou said "refusing to appear at trial is considered probative evidence of guilt" and obviously meant to apply it to one degree or another to this case (otherwise, why would you even mention it?).
No, it doesn't.
Then you said that you'd jump bail in this case whether you were guilty or innocent.
So, does that or does that not indicate that you believe that refusing to appear at trial is not probative evidence of guilt in this case?