
Game Developer Sentenced to Death in Iran Asks Obama for Intervention - evo_9
http://kotaku.com/5883510/game-developer-sentenced-to-death-in-iran-asks-obama-for-intervention
======
zalew
US ex-Marine working for US Department of Defence visiting an enemy country is
arrested for spying, well, that was hard to predict.

~~~
psykotic
It gets worse. He held dual US-Iranian citizenships, so what he did was the
textbook definition of treason, regardless of how you feel about Iran. If
anything, this proves he is too stupid to have been very effective in his job
as propagandist. I feel sorry for the guy and hope that someone intervenes on
his behalf, but he is clearly an utter imbecile.

~~~
tzs
What specifically are you considering treasonous?

~~~
psykotic
Working for the military of an enemy state to undermine the government and
instigate rebellion. I'm not making a value judgement. All I'm saying is that
when you take everything into account, the legal charge isn't crazy. The
punishment is a different matter; Iran's legal system is obviously barbaric.

~~~
jackpirate
Treason is punishable by death in the US too.

~~~
psykotic
Yes, it is one of the only countries left in the Western world that still has
capital punishment on the books. But death is not mandated as the minimum
punishment: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within
the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but
not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
United States."

------
paulhauggis
It's things like this that make me wonder why there are so many people that
defend the government of Iran.

~~~
batista
What exactly is a "thing like this"? Let's take a hypothetical example of
countries A and B.

An ex-marine of country A is caught and sentenced as a spy in country B.
Country A not only frequently makes open threats about invading country B, but
has also invaded 2 more countries in the region in the last 10 years, one of
those with a false pretext, and another to revenge the actions of a few men,
not the actions of said country.

Country A, 60 years ago, had the democratic government of country B replaced
with a dictator of their choosing.

Country A has imprisoned non-soldiers of other countries, taking them from
their countries and keeping them in a remote prison in the tropics without
even a trial. A lot of them where found totally unrelated to anything, i.e
innocent, and released several years later without any compensation of course.

Soldiers of country A are known to torture, rape and beat prisoners from other
countries, and even take pictures of said torture with their phones and laugh
at it. Several widespread cases where made known.

Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to
have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians,
just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering.

Country A has made medical experiments on people without their knowledge. In
one case, they publicly said they are "sorry", 40 years after the fact.

Country A is known to have very good relations with dictators and despotic
governments in many countries where it serves it's interests.

Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass
instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing
democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of
natural resources.

As late as 40 years ago, country A still practiced segregation in many of its
cities. They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation
activists. Even today, despite having made progress on the matter, a hugely
disproportionate percentage of the black population of country A is in prison.

Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B, and has a
lot of religious fanatics among its population, too, and certain places even
prefer non-scientific evolution theories instead of the de-facto scientific
theory on the matter for their schools. It's a known fact that an openly
atheist would never, as it is, get elected to the top office in country A.

Can you guess country A and country B? Would you get mad at country B?

~~~
usaar333
You start out with a fair critique of the US, but the later stretched points
undermine your argument:

> Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to
> have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians,
> just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering.

I was not aware that the mainstream view was that Japan was surrendering
before the atomic bombings.

> Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass
> instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing
> democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of
> natural resources.

Easier said for Iraq than Afghanistan. It already had chaos, civil war, etc.
at the onset of the invasion. Expected returns from mineral wealth hardly
justify the cost.

> They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation
> activists

I'm guessing you mean King for one. Not sure who'd other would be? (Malcom X?
He advocated racial seperation). Either way, it's a tall argument that the
country (government?) assassinated them.

> Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B,

Iran executes people at not only a far higher rate but even in absolute
numbers. It also applies death penalty to a far wider range of crimes.

> and has a lot of religious fanatics among its population, too

Sure, but they aren't running the government

> It's a known fact that an openly atheist would never, as it is, get elected
> to the top office in country A.

As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B.

~~~
batista
_the later stretched points undermine your argument_

A little maybe. But also consider that I wanted to show how people from other
countries think of the situation too. I mean, people tend to think of country
B in country's A terms and framing of the discussion, so I tried to do
something like the opposite.

 _I was not aware that the mainstream view was that Japan was surrendering
before the atomic bombings._

That view is widely held all around the world. Try to find some Europeans
thinking the bombs were "needed". There is also evidence that us leaders knew
about it, it was just a showcase, mainly to scare off USSR. Besides, it's of
little consequence if Japan was surrendering or not: the war was going on with
conventional weapons even in more dire times, including the Normandy invasion,
so nothing called at that time to drop atomic bombs on civilians (if anything
ever does). Especially considering that Japan was at the time under attack by
conventional bombs, tons of them, that had burned most of its cities and
killed hundreds of thousands.

 _Easier said for Iraq than Afghanistan. It already had chaos, civil war, etc.
at the onset of the invasion. Expected returns from mineral wealth hardly
justify the cost._

It had the Taliban rule, but not much civil war anymore. And certainly no mass
chaos and deaths, like it does post invasion. And it's not just "mineral
wealth", it's also setting foot in a strategic area.

 _I'm guessing you mean King for one. Not sure who'd other would be? (Malcom
X? He advocated racial seperation)._

Was thinking of X, yeah. Well, even if he advocated racial separation, just
means he was killed just as a pro-black activist, instead of a anti-
segregation activist. Both reasons seem bad to me.

 _Either way, it's a tall argument that the country (government?) assassinated
them._

Who said the government? I said "the country". To show it in the same vain as
people that blame other countries for things done not only by the government
but also by local religious nuts, teams etc.

 _Iran executes people at not only a far higher rate but even in absolute
numbers. It also applies death penalty to a far wider range of crimes._

Not much consolation. One's too many for my tastes. YMMV.

 _Sure, but they aren't running the government_

No, they only run the previous government. And no one can talk openly against
them, or they will lose office pronto.

 _As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B._

You mean like in the Salem trials? What, that was long ago?

Then tell me, why Country A, that stopped practicing slavery later than other
countries, introduced women's voting later than other countries, stopped
racial segregation later than other countries, has not yet stopped practicing
the death penalty unlike other countries, etc etc, thinks other countries
should all be on the same timeline as it does, as to what laws they have?

~~~
yareally
_As opposed to being charged with blasphemy in country B. You mean like in the
Salem trials? What, that was long ago?_

Europe was still trying people for heresy in the 17th century around the time
of the witch trials. The inquisition was still very much alive throughout
Europe (and enforcing the death penalty if needed). Galileo came very close to
being a heretic.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair>

 _Then tell me, why Country A...introduced women's voting later than other
countries..._

The US: 1920 --Women can vote (with many states doing so before then)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_States)

The UK: 1928 – Women received the vote on equal terms as men (over the age of
21) as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1928.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_K...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Germany:

In Germany, women's suffrage was granted in the new constitution of the Weimar
republic in 1919.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#Germany>

France:

Suffrage was extended to women in France by the 21 April 1944 ordinance of the
French provisional government.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_suffrage#France>

~~~
batista
30-33 countries had the women's vote before the US, from 1 year before to
several decades.

Not to mention how many countries had abolished slavery before the Civil War
time.

------
batista
Title a little misleading...

------
bilbo0s
You know ... I gotta say ... Hikers coming into Iran the back way???

Ex-Military type who looks like a spy, sounds like a spy, and behaves like a
spy, but somehow ... isn't a spy???

Look, Americans are probably well advised not to visit Iran right now. With
the obvious exception of American black guys who play basketball REALLY well,
you probably won't receive that great a welcome at present. You need to
realize that if anything untoward were to happen to you there is little that
we can do on your behalf.

I do think that the US Government should use its influence to protect its
citizens but ... MAN... come on people ... please exercise a MODICUM of good
judgement. Help them...Help you. That's not too much to ask.

~~~
sliverstorm
Risking an entire team of special operatives, or spending a few hundred
million in "bail", or going to war with Iran isn't much to ask?

I mean, I'm not saying necessarily leave the guy to rot, but we paid something
like a million dollars a head for the _hikers_ \- and they weren't even
employed by the DoD!

~~~
bilbo0s
Just wanted to ask...are you saying we should do something for him...or that
we should not?

Because I stand by my post, risking ANY of those things is, to my mind, too
much to ask of the Government. Especially when individual Americans KNOW the
risks of going to Iran.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't know all the options at our disposal. Maybe prisoner trades? I don't
know. I agree the things I listed are too much, which was my point.

