The link posted above talks about a Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was arrested because of espionage charges, and has stayed in jail for more than one year even though he is guiltless. Not only his family and the Post, but also the US Government have claimed that he was just simply working as a journalist. However, Jason Rezaian is now still being detained without any live witnesses or real evidence to prove him guilty. Jason Rezaian was born and raised in California, he decided to move to Tehran in 2008. Clearly, moving to the biggest city of the currently turbulent Iran is not a action of seeking peace and comfort. Nevertheless, Jason Rezaian still chose to live there because he wanted to promote greater understanding between Iran and the United States. From our perspective, it is undoubted that the Iranian Government has violated human rights as well as the International law, however, do we really have the right to judge the court decision of the other country even though we regard the decision as unjust? And if you were Jason Rezaian, how would you face the current hopeless situation? Will you make the same decision like Jason made before moving to Tehran?
Like Hobbes argues in Leviathan:“nothing the sovereign representative can do to a subject, on what pretense soever, can properly be called injustice, or injury; because every subject is author every act the sovereign doth; so that he never wanteth right to anything, otherwise, than as himself is the subject of God, and bound thereby to observe the laws of nature” (Hobbes, 140). Hence, it is reasonable for the Iranian Government to assume that Jason Rezaian has already being prepared for whatever it would do to him. Clearly, it is impossible for two nations like the U.S. and Iran to share the entirely same laws and principles. Since it was Jason Rezaian who decided to work there, there is nothing he can do other than obey the local laws. After all, it is unrealistic for us force the Iran Government to act in a way that we regard as just and moral. Therefore, if I were Jason Rezaian, I would accept this situation, though unwillingly. In Chapter 21, p.141, Hobbes states that: “If a man be interrogated by the sovereign, or his authority, concerning a crime done by himself, he is not bound to confess it; because no man can be obliged by covenant to accuse himself”. Thus, instead of being hurt both physically and mentally, Jason should strive against the Iran Government and prove himself to be sinless. What’s more, if we all need to make the same kind of decision which requires us to balance between potential risks and strong personal will, I will choose to follow my heart fearlessly even while I’m totally submissive to the new country’s regime, and would follow the commands without any conditions.
Tong,
ReplyDeleteWhile you are probably right about Hobbes here (and it is interesting that you mention his choice to move to Iran), what about other thinkers? What might Locke or Rousseau say about this situation? If they differ, why should we agree with Hobbes over them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor Locke, the current situation is not tolerable. According to Locke: "The legislative authority, by which they are in force over the subject of that commonwealth, hath no power over them. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France, or Holland, are to an Indian but like the rest of the world -- men without authority," (Locke 4). Therefore, there is no reason for Iranian government to punish Jason Rezaian since he is from another country. As for Locker, the sovereign of Iran and Jason Rezaian are all equal in state of nature, no one has more than another.
DeleteAccording to Rousseau: "For a government to be legitimate, therefore, the people at each generation would have to be the master of accepting or rejecting it," (Rousseau 168). The Iranian government, obviously, cannot be regarded as a legitimate one since it has imprisoned an innocent foreigner without any proof.
Personally, I agree with Hobbes over them since it is hard for the government all over the world to reach an common view over governing. Different states have different principles and values, thus, even though you do not originally belong to the state that you currently live in, you still have to obey the law since you chose to live there.
I agree with you Tong. Jason chose to move to Iran. It is not a peaceful place right now as you mentioned and he knew of the many possibilities of danger to him. The U.S. doesn't have a right to overturn their rule because it is not their rule that presides over there. In other cases, like prisoners of war or U.S. hostage situations, I think the U.S. has every right to go against that country because it is the nation itself who put them there. But in this situation, it is different due to the fact that he chose to live and work over there.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ariana. Since it was Jason who chose to live and work there, he is the only person that responsible to this situation. In order to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents, people like Jason should anticipate the situation like this before moving to another country.
DeleteI agree with your statement about Jason moving to Iran. Jason decided himself to live and work in Iran; therefore I believe that in this scenario he is responsible. Although Iran is not currently considered to be a safe place to live, Jason knew what he was getting himself into and he was well aware of the dangers involved with going there. Although it is not an ideal situation, I believe that Jason should accept this outcome. It is not realistic to leave it up to the U.S. and Iranian governments to come to a conclusion on what to do when considering the many things these two governments already disagree on.
ReplyDeleteThank you Avery, I also believe that Jason had already anticipated the situation before going to Iran, and he is responsible for the scenario even though we all know that he is guiltless. After all, we can't intervene the decision made by the other country.
DeleteThank you Avery, I also believe that Jason had already anticipated the situation before going to Iran, and he is responsible for the scenario even though we all know that he is guiltless. After all, we can't intervene the decision made by the other country.
DeleteWhile Jason's decision to move to Iran was his own and his choice ended poorly for him, it was exactly that; his choice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree that we cannot intervene in another country's decision. Precedent has been repeatedly set that when American citizens are treated unjustly abroad, we do not leave them there to rot. Instead, I argue that America has a moral obligation to free this American of his unethical and illegitimate imprisonment.