What Saeed Adedini's case says about US Legitimacy

            One of the roles of the State Department is the protection of Americans living and traveling abroad. John Kerry, as Secretary of State is the head of this agency.

            Yet in September of 2012 the State Department failed to accomplish this protection as Ambassador Chris Stevens, and four other Americans were gunned down in Benghazi under the watch of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately again the Department and John Kerry are again failing to protect Americans abroad as the plight of Saeed Adedini, an imprisoned American in Iran, goes unheeded. As nuclear negotiations with Iran are set to move forward, Saeed has been left behind in a dangerous third world prison. Saeed's imprisonment and treatment (including torture) are violations of human rights--and he is not the only one in this situation as several other Americans are also imprisoned.

            If the current negotiations with Iran (headed by Mr. Kerry) cannot include the release of one or two American prisoners then one must wonder just how effect those negotiations are. John Kerry believes he can negotiate the cessation of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities. If he cannot, or will not advocate for the release of at least one American what makes the world believe he can negotiate a nuclear treaty? What is easier to accomplish: the negotiation of the release of a few Americans, or the negotiation of the cessation and dismantlement of an entire secretive and illegal nuclear program?

            Conversely, if Iran continues to refuse Saeed’s release and humane treatment then this suggests there is little reason to trust that they will do something that demands more effort--as in the wholesale disassembly of their uranium centrifuges. Again, what is easier to do? Release a few political dissidents, or shut down an entire uranium enrichment program?

            This suggests that neither John Kerry nor the Iranians have any legitimacy at the negotiating table. It is likely Kerry either  will not or cannot accomplish the release of Saeed. He is either powerless to do so, or willfully weak on the issue. There will likely be no consequences for Iran’s illegal detention and torture of Saeed, yet Kerry would have the world believe that he bears the power to coerce a jihadist and terrorist sponsoring state to bend its nuclear will to the international community. Yet all the while Kerry has been part of an administration that is rolling back sanctions on Iran in exchange for nothing at all. In light of this and recent events in Syria, the idea of enforceable consequences is somewhat laughable.

            Likewise, Iran itself is also lacking in legitimacy with its human rights failures, and willful violations of Saeed’s human rights. Iran’s suppression of its own people and press, anti-Semitic rhetoric, Holocaust denial, and carte blanche funding of terrorism in Syria and Lebanon utterly shred any semblance of a notion that the nation would comply to a nuclear standard. There have been increasingly few consequences for their other sins. In the face of a weak and compromising administration, what have they to fear for their current sins?

Iran’s leadership already believes it is more powerful than the United States leadership, and has said as much. Given the recent method of “red lines without consequences” as embraced by the US, their bravado is somewhat warranted. As Saeed is still imprisoned and the uranium centrifuges keep spinning, the United States is woefully (and perhaps willfully) powerless to stop either evil from continuing on its merry way.

Why the Phil Robertson Incident is Important

Some thoughts on the Great Duck Hunt of 2013:

            First, I’d like to start off by saying that the remarks made by this man are disgusting, heinous, and intolerant. No mere apology will suffice as his statement reveals that he believes a large portion of this country to be evil, deficient, inferior, and it leaves little doubt that he wants to tolerate them, work with them, or ever validate their point of view. It shows his self-serving arrogance, and his prejudiced view of those who think and believe differently than he does. It is my firm belief that he should retire to private life where his beliefs cannot cause further damage. This man, John Podesta should step down, and leave his position of leadership. Podesta is an advisor for Mr. Obama, and thus can directly impact the country. That’s a much bigger story than Phil Robertson.

            Secondly, the United States government abandoned this citizen in his hour of need. All he was guilty of was expressing views that weren’t popular. In their efforts to negotiate a deal, and make peace the US left their own citizen in prison and never lifted a finger to help this peaceful man whose daily existence is one of fear, torture, and constant threat of death. It’s a shame John Kerry was too busy reveling in the moment of now-worthless negotiations to help an American Citizen who is the victim of multiple human rights violations. This imprisoned American citizen is Saeed Adedini, a victim of Iran’s human rights policy and American bureaucratic ineptitude. Saeed, along with Ambassador Stevens, and a good number of other dead, injured, and forgotten are the living (or dead) proof of an incompetent foreign policy strategy. He too is a much bigger story than Phil Robertson. But onward. You came here for ducks and I won’t disappoint you.

            What Phil expressed was his personal belief in a GQ interview and following this the GLAAD organization pressured the A&E channel to “do something” about Phil’s remarks. More or less, they wanted Robertson punished for his statement—they wanted him punished for speaking about his beliefs. Unfortunately, A&E did just that. What they had not anticipated was the criticism, backlash, and the probable loss of a lucrative show from their network. If you think Phil Robertson suffered something for his freedom of speech, you should calculate the financial impact A&E is suffering for their own freedom to fire him—it’s probably significant.

             There is one simple fact that illustrates this is more about freedom of speech and then it is about homosexuality. That fact is that no less then three different and gay authors and thinkers have sided with the idea of keeping Phil Robertson on the air, and supported his right to express himself without fear of repercussions. Camille Paglia a feminist lesbian author and critic, Don Lemon, a gay CNN anchor, and Brandon Ambrosino, a gay writer for Time magazine online have all voiced their opinions on the matter. While they don’t appreciate his remarks each of these three people understands something the rest of the frenzied world does not: Phil Robertson’s views are protected just as much as their own views are protected. Tammy Bruce, the former head of the feminist organization NOW, and self-described lesbian said, “The gay civil rights effort was about making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. Time the left applies that same value to others.” Our beliefs define who we are—should people be punished for that? Doesn’t this principle go both ways then? In other words isn’t being fired for being pro-gay the same thing as being fired for not being pro-gay?

            This is why the Phil Robertson issue really applies to everyone. Everyone enjoys freedom of expression; that they can say things, have unique thoughts and embrace beliefs without the fear of being oppressed or targeted.

“Well I don’t watch Duck Dynasty, I’m not gay, and I don’t care.” You should. You have beliefs and opinions: do you like the idea of being targeted for having them?

            This entire issue boils down to the idea of precedent. Phil Robertson’s private beliefs cost him one of his jobs. What A&E has done is set a precedent and that precedent is this: your irrelevant private beliefs can get you fired. Let’s personalize that idea. What if your boss looked at your Facebook “About” page and summarily fired you for your “Like” of some page? What if you were fired for liking the works of Karl Marx? Or Ayn Rand? What if your boss found out you voted Democrat, or registered Libertarian and fired you? What if your boss found out you were pro-Israel and fired you? What if your boss found out that you gave money to a certain organization, a certain political figure, or a certain charity, and fired you? Then what? Do you still have “freedom of expression”? When you have something to fear for your stance or beliefs are you really free? It certainly doesn’t sound like it. While there may not be the proverbial “duck-tape over the mouth” there certainly is the proverbial “gun to the head.”

This is what even these gay writers understand—especially Camille Paglia, because she’s been on the wrong side of “the line”. Setting this precedent means that in the right situation someone could be targeted, harassed, or pressured because of what they believe. It’s easy to draw a line, and declare that Phil Robertson was on the wrong side of it. But aren’t “line drawers” always on the safe side of the lines they draw? Drawing lines is all well and good, but those lines can be moved…and sooner or later you find yourself on the wrong side of a line. It’s easy to ignore injustice if you’re on the safe side of the line. But what if you are not? (Extra credit: read Martin Niemöller’s famous statement on the subject).

This is why I wouldn’t vote to outlaw homosexuality, socialism, etc, if given the choice—because it sets a precedent that allows us to outlaw beliefs. Outlawing beliefs sounds great if you are thinking about your political enemies, but it sounds awful when the law gets around to one’s own beliefs. That Duck Dynasty is probably over doesn’t bother me…I never watched it. What does bother me is that our culture is setting a new norm: being yourself can cost you something, stating your views, or even having certain views can make you a target for more than just disagreement. It can make you a target for negative action because you are “different”. Isn’t that what intolerance is anyways? And isn’t it ironic that GLAAD stands behind that norm?