This is terrible. Hopefully Obama plays his cards right and can negotiate the journalists’ release.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
32 Responses
Comments are closed.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
get blog updates
Recent Comments
- Angie unduplicated on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Li on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Officer A on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Sam on Prudie on “real” rape
- EG on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- EG on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Kathy Ashley on Pete Hoekstra is super racist, doesn’t understand the word “satire”
- Anon21 on This Is What Happened to CeCe
- Tomek Kulesza on So should we just start calling high heels “body modification”?
- karak on This Is What Happened to CeCe
Most Commented Recent Posts
- An Asexual Map for Sex-Positive Feminism (138)
- Women refuses to give raped daughter EC, brags about it on internet. (129)
- Some Transformative Justice Links (127)
- Prudie on "real" rape (119)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the REAL FEMINISTS edition (77)
- "Kill the Gays" Bill is Back in Uganda (74)
- Facts, myths, and blankety-blank lies about Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation (65)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (63)
- The Annual Post About Sexist Super Bowl Commercials 2012 (63)
- FNTT Season 8, Round 1: the Slutty Slut-Sluts edition (62)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
For wordpress.com support
just for you, a widget as requested
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
The link goes to a “members only” page on NYTimes.
Hopefully Obama will not engage in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” rhetoric and attempt to secure special treatment for these women. Unlike the detainees at Gitmo, Ling and Lee received immediate trials from North Korea’s highest court. And whereas the Gitmo prisoners were not even charged with a crime, Ling and Lee were found guilty of a grave offense. America must show respect for another country’s sovereignty and judicial traditions and not seek to impose privileged status upon its citizens traveling abroad. That is precisely the attitude that earned us the world’s hostility and Obama promised to undo.
Sympathy is of course due these women but America can show it by its charity to their families until their sentences have been fully served. Lee’s daughter will be only sixteen when her mother returns and this country can make sure she is properly cared for until the reunion. After that, we can wish them many happy years together. I know I will.
And hopefully he can do this without having to make any concessions to the North Korean regime.
Dauphine, If you go to the NYTimes home page you should be able to find the story. It’s near the top of the front page, at least for now.
Whoa, NortheastElizabeth.
Although Guantanamo detainees have been treated abominably by America, I would not say that Ling and Lee therefore deserve equally horrible treatment. I sort of can’t believe you’re serious when you say it’s OK because Lee’s daughter will only have to live without her mom until she’s 16. Although if you’re joking, I don’t get the point.
Really, you’re hopeful for that? You’re hopeful that Obama won’t use his position to save two women from twelve years hard labor because they entered North Korea to report?
I find kangaroo courts to be just as repugnant as holding someone without trial. I feel the same way about restricting press access.
Why? I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but why must we show respect to the sovereignty and judicial traditions of another country? I know its not the most progressive stance to take, but the bottom line is that North Korea is an oppressive dictatorship that is trying to pull concessions from the US by holding a pair of citizens on political charges.
This isn’t a matter of decency or diplomacy, nor a matter of right or wrong, nor even a matter of good guys and bad guys (such values mean virtually nothing). On a fundamental level this is about two women being sentenced to over a decade’s worth of hard labor because the North Korean government doesn’t like unescorted reporters and saw an opportunity to use the lives of these two women as pawns in a political game.
This is about the bodies of women being used as currency in international politics.
As an aside, its also worth noting that both journalists claim they were on the Chinese side of the Chinese/North Korean border. Their cameraman, who escaped, had the same story to tell. Moreover, North Korea has a history of grabbing foreign nationals near borders (and sometimes pretty far from borders) then claiming they had tried to enter the country illegally in the hopes getting something in exchange for their release. Japan has danced this dance quite a few times with North Korea.
Of course the cameraman is going to say he was on the Chinese side of the border. Whether he was or wasn’t. Because to say otherwise is to admit the very crime these women were charged with.
And no, being a journalist doesn’t mean you get to commit crimes. As always seems to be the case with North Korea facts are in limited supply, but if they did cross the border illegally then they committed a crime. Normally, entering a country illegally shouldn’t get you more than deported, but if they had recording equipment and were using it in the vicinity of the border, I can see how a country that considers them to be from an enemy state might take that wrong. I’m certain that if some Iranian ‘journalists’ happened to be caught sneaking into the US illegally and conducting surveillance on our border security arrangements, that they’d be going to prison. Or to an unnamed
CIA torture camp, depending on the whim of the administration.
William’s comment gives me pause, because I had previously thought it rather implausible that the women could have been in China. That would mean that North Korea committed an act of war against China, which seems a little far fetched. But if there’s precedent (haven’t been able to confirm that yet), maybe they just are that reckless.
I’m sure that many Republicans agree with your view that Gitmo should be run more like North Korea’s criminal justice system.
I think Northeast Elizabeth is either elaborate flame or a secret North Korean agent sent to demoralize us on the blogosphere.
In all seriousness, she cannot really think the sham kangaroo court system in North Korea provides meaningful due process or was a real “trial” in the way we think of one.
And as to “respecting their sovereignty – ” that makes sense in a country like Singapore, France, Egypt, etc., who may have laws we disagree with but nevertheless must be respected when in their territory. That principle does not apply here because NK is 1) not a legitimate government and (more importantly) 2) we are at war with them so the normal rules do not apply. The Korean War Armistice Agreement only ended open hostilities, but we have not withdrawn our declaration of war against them. Therefore, only the rules of warfare apply and we are not bound by traditional notions of deference to sovereignty and the like. We would be perfectly within our rights to send in a Delta platoon to break them out using any means necessary. Unfortunately that will not happen.
North Korea has had a long history of kidnapping foreign nationals whether near of far from borders.
There has been plenty of reported cases in both South Korea and Japan dating at least back to the 1970′s. In fact, the very publicization of the long history of North Korean kidnapping of Japanese citizens from Japan soil in the Japanese MSM during the 1990s was one factor in the political success of the Japanese far-right politicians and the political weakening of the Japanese left in that period. It isn’t hard to get confirmation as this issue has been blasted all over the Japanese and South Korean MSM and the US/international media to some extent.
As for the comment about North Korea committing an act of war against China if the reporters in question were taken from Chinese soil, that is technically true. However, considering North Korea and China have been long-time regional allies, I doubt China would really care…..who is to say that China didn’t grant an implicit wink and a nod for North Korea to do what it wants on its borders….especially when China is fed up with North Korean refugees fleeing into China?
I can’t begin to imagine what imprisonment/hard labor is like in North Korea, where its own citizens are treated so poorly. I hope Obama, Clinton, or Al Gore can get these women released.
(Northeast Elizabeth, do you seriously think that they received a fair trial?)
Well, because it’s a very steep and slippery slope, I suppose. And I understand that argument. One man’s kangaroo court is another man’s military tribunal.
But I’m not sure I even feel comfortable extending that protection to our government. Look at the political wrangling of Gitmo. If another sovereign nation had citizens detained under our new policy of preemptive indefinite detention, would they be obligated to respect that legal catch-22? Politically obligated to just try again in another quarter century or so? What level of nonjudgmental respect might be effective against a stated policy of imprisoning people forever because there was insufficient evidence to actually try them, or because they’d been tortured throughout their imprisonment? I understand that this was descriptive rather than prescriptive, but this situation:
…doesn’t actually strike me as less of a problem.
The issue of him having possibly committed a crime is a red herring. He escaped and left the region, theres no chance any western government is going to extradite him to North Korea regardless of what he’s charged with. He might (possibly) have a motive to lie in trying to get his friends released, but that seems unlikely because a) his story matches the story of a great many people and b) the North Korean government is simply an untrustworthy source. In the absence of overwhelming, independent evidence supporting a North Korean official claim its generally best to assume you’re hearing propaganda.
That depends on a variety of factors. Crime is not an objective measure, it is a subjective label that is used to discourage behaviors that people with the official power to hurt others would like to see discouraged. A pretty good argument could be made that laws designed to restrict the free flow of information are, themselves, illegal as they violate basic human rights.
Your argument lacks internal coherence. The only reason facts are in limited supply is because North Korea is one of the most oppressive and closed societies in the world. If these women committed a crime by reporting then the only party to blame for having few details is the government which arrested them for reporting. At that point you only really have two options: trust the North Korean government as the sole source of information (a situation they maintain through brutal and systematic oppression) or trust the women who were arrested for potentially challenging that brutal and systematic oppression.
Either way, its a moot point. As Mas Elcnu pointed out, we are legally at war with North Korea. The US would be well within it’s rights to mount any mission it saw fit to extract these women. Moreover, in international politics the only thing that really matters is power. Neither China nor Russia are likely to retaliate any further than some strong words so long as the US stops short of a full scale invasion.
Bwhahahahaha!!! I wouldn’t be so sure of that….
One famous US General thought the same about China several decades ago….with disastrous results…..
What William said. I’ll add, simply, that “The U.S. government also does things that violate international and our own rule of law” isn’t a great argument. Most people here think that Gitmo is an atrocity and an embarrassment, yes? And many of us have been doing work on various levels to agitate against our policies of indefinite detention and close it down? So why does it follow that because a previous administration broke international law, these two women should suffer under the rules of an illegitimate dictatorship?
I know there have only been a handful of people on this thread who have argued that North Korean sovereignty deserves to be respected at all costs, but come on. How come we can spot violations of human rights and international law when they happen on our own soil (or in the name of our own soil), but not when someone else is committing them?
“And whereas the Gitmo prisoners were not even charged with a crime, Ling and Lee were found guilty of a grave offense. America must show respect for another country’s sovereignty and judicial traditions and not seek to impose privileged status upon its citizens traveling abroad.”
I’m sorry, I missed the part where these two were engaged in irregular military operations against North Korea, like the prisoners at Gitmo were against us. Respect for the “judicial traditions” of a dictatorship? Are you high?
NortheastLiz, do you seriously call what happens in a kangaroo court a “trial”? U.S. trials are open to the public, have a jury of peers, and the defendant at least theoretically has counsel. are you claiming that n. korea has the same? pffft.
another consideration, probs even more important: twelve years of hard labor is likely to kill these women. do you seriously believe that that is a just punishment for what amounts to at most illegal entry?
exholt, China intervened when UN forces went well beyond mission parameters. We most certainly can do a competently done Desert Eagle op without fear Chinese reaction…
I think we’ve been missing the context and undercurrent…I think the regime really is about to collapse and everyone involved is trying to prop those guys up, but they are the cat that refuses to get in the bath…
Because one thing I really wish more people understood about N Korea is the situational simularity it has with China during the Warlord years and Congo now. Everyone and their sibs have been looting N Korean natural assets for 50 something years and the consequences keep piling up…
China is a politically savvy country that cares about it’s own interests. Theres no percentage in China going head to head with the US over a few North Korean soldiers getting shot up during a rescue mission. As long as the US doesn’t make a play for North Korea’s natural resources or try to destabilize the region so much that China would have to deal with the refugees, and as long as the US doesn’t go out of it’s way to present the attack as an insult to the Chinese, China could give a shit what happens to their embarrassing ally.
This is precisely one reason why the Chinese government would be nervous about any US military operation in North Korea and not react too kindly to it.
In addition to having to show itself as a regime who won’t stand for signs of Western Neo-Imperialism such as US military activity to maintain one basis of its political legitimacy……China also has a strong interest in maintaining a viable buffer state to both a US military supported South Korea as well as to prevent the creation of a US supported/leaning Greater United Korea. The latter especially would not only add a more powerful competitor for regional dominance, but also pose headaches for China if the recent territorial disputes over certain Northeast Chinese provinces are any indication.
This link points to congressional testimony by a woman who was a prisoner in a north korean camp. I had nightmares days after reading this so don’t read if you’re too sensible. But if you’re prone to making glib comparisons between guantanamo and north korean labor camps then you should at least know what you’re standing up for:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=292&wit_id=665
The whole reason we elected Obama was to end the arrogance of American exceptionalism. Just weeks ago, the President helped restore international respect by his deference to the Saudi King — even though some might take issue with the gender-related cultural norms of that country.
Obviusly, the release of Ling and Lee might be one of many positive resolutions to the dispute. But there is no reason that those two particular wards of the North Korean penal system — two out 300,000 — should be entitled to special consideration, much less the intervention of the President. If the North Korean system is unjust, then all of the prisoners are unjustly detained. To single out Ling and Lee suggests that American lives trump all others. And there is also the unseemly specter of celebrity privilege for the sister of a pop-culture personality and the employee of a former vice president.
Maybe they were in China, so? The US calls people names like ‘terrorist’ renders (kidnaps) them from airports to a foreign nation to be tortured.. plausible deny ability… or sends them to GETMO to rot.
If US detainees are lucky, they get a similar speedy show trial, otherwise they just wait to die or are found dead from a convenient suicide.
This is called a taste of our own medicine, slurp it up. Oblahblah and his DC Mafia lackys can say nothing legitimate or credible without sounding like a total hypocrites..
Strawman. A particularly annoying strawman, actually, since we’re talking about North Korea.
It strikes me as odd, when some Americans attempt to distance themselves from situations wherein American citizens are very obviously and deliberately used as pawns abroad. Is this some sort of guilt complex that I just don’t understand?
It’s like when reporter Anastasiya Baburova was shot in the head in Moscow last year – if she had an American passport, there would have been “well, what did you expect, she went over there and reported on sensitive issues, it was not her place, blah blah blah” for sure. I recall people saying that about Paul Khlebnikov’s death. As it was, it was the Russian far-right that was celebrating that particular death.
And so with Ling & Lee (who will most likely die if someone doesn’t intervene), earnest defenders of equal rights for all (*snort*) will celebrate the triumph of the North Korean justice system.
I suppose I’m heavily biased, as a journalist, but I am constantly amazed by the apologia that gets thrown up in our faces when fellow journalists are detained and/or killed.
No. It suggests that the U.S. government still has a tiny amount of responsibility for its citizens. Unlike some other governments.
“Unseemly specter”? When you’re trying to save a life of your loved one, you play whatever cards are available. There’s nothing illegal or immoral about spreading awareness if the tools are there.
In some poor countries, parents of cancer-stricken children regularly apply to charities to take out billboards in the children’s names, complete with cute pictures and urgent appeals to donate money for a live-saving operation abroad. There’s nothing “unseemly” about it, and there is equally nothing “unseemly” about drawing attention to Ling & Lee.
“TO its citizens,” not “for”
you play whatever cards are available
This indeed explains the conduct of the Ling and Lee families, but provides no justification for the U.S. Government joining in the card game. To intervene only where there are celebrity/political connections defeats the notion that the mission is a primarily a humanitarian one. And again, the idea that American citizens are entitled to special treatment undermines the inclusive, internationalist image that Obama is striving to project. At a minimum, the administration should negotiate for incrementalized improvements in conditions for all North Korean inmates, rather than abandoning those inmates in favor of freedom for two connected Americans.
Furthermore, America would be acting in the face of its own seriously compromised moral standing. Obama has courageously admitted that this country engaged in torture sanctioned by its highest policymakers, including its former Vice President. However, the administration is still struggling to overcome resistance to war crime prosecutions. Until it does, it cannot pursue political favors on behalf of one VP while ignoring the atrocities of another.
NortheastElizabeth: if I were arrested in North Korea, or wherever, I wouldn’t expect President Obama to intervene for me – because I’m not a US citizen. I’m a UK citizen, and I’d expect my government to stand up for me. Governments looking out for their own citizens isn’t exceptionalism, it’s the fulfilment of the government’s end of the social contract. I’ve got no contract with Obama’s government, so it doesn’t owe me anything. My own government owes me its protection, as a citizen, and there’s a world of difference between that and exceptionalism. The Foreign Office of Her Majesty’s government does intervene in other countries to protect its citizens, most notably in the case of UK citizens abducted and taken to other countries in forced marriages. Why should you lose the protection of your government just because you have left its borders?
The aim of the Ling and Lee families is to get the U.S. government involved, and they have every right to do so. These are elected officials, after all, and they can be petitioned.
The U.S. doesn’t “only” intervene when celebrities or politically connected people are nabbed. When you get into trouble abroad, you contact your nearest embassy. This is pretty standard procedure for everyone. Some cases get more media attention than others, for a host of reasons (some of them related, some not so much), but this situation is far from unique, and it’s certainly not restricted to the United States.
I would argue that this isn’t about special treatment, but about a nation looking out for its citizens’ welfare. Furthermore, I don’t believe that there is anything “special” about challenging a show trial. The elected officials of any nation that at least pretends to care about its citizens would do the same.
If you were to express your worry about other cases who don’t get nearly as much attention, due to the nasty geo-political reality of today, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. As such, it appears as though U.S. citizenship somehow be used against these journalists.
But now you’re arguing the exact opposite of what you were saying before – that the U.S. shouldn’t meddle in other nations’ affairs. Perhaps you’re being facetious? (I’m not trying to snark here, I genuinely don’t understand where you’re coming from on this one)
What is more intrusive? And what will get results? Demanding the safe return of your own citizens, or something else entirely?
All governments are morally compromised in one way or another, but if we’re really talking morals, I don’t believe anyone’s moral standing benefits from scapegoating its citizens in country X because of a disaster in country Y.
These journalists are not responsible for the misdeeds of the Bush administration, or any other administration, and nobody has the right to make an example out of them.
The US, along with every other country that possesses the power to do so, has a long history of plucking it’s citizens out of countries where they’re being held as political prisoners. Its part of the game of international affairs and its one of the benefits of having an active and well trained special forces programs. You might not like that, but its part of the way the world works. International politics is not and never will be a game of fairness, it is a game of power in which you will inevitably have winners and losers.
Why? I mean, aside from your political views, what is the Obama administration’s responsibility to North Korean inmates in general? Also, lets be clear here, the US might enter into “negotiations” but there is always the looming possibility of an overwhelming military strike. Any negotiation on an international scale necessarily comes with the threat of force. Thats doubly true when one of the negotiating parties has the most sophisticated, well funded, and technologically advanced military in the world and the other party has technology circa 1970 and a food shortage.
Again, you’re bringing subjective valuation in here. The “compromised moral standing” of the US is something I’m certainly worried about, but I wonder how much it really matters. I have a big problem with the torture program and with rendition, but I’m less concerned about how other countries (countries which, generally, do the same things) feel. The lives to two journalists and the implicit message that the US will not tolerate these kinds of actions is, to me, worth a little ding in the PR department.
Also, incidentally, theres no reason such a thing needs to be done publicly. The third largest military budget on earth is the classified portion of the US military budget. A couple of drones, a small group of special forces troops, and a naval extraction wouldn’t exactly be unheard of in American military history.
Oh bullshit. He’s said a couple of vague platitudes and done sweet fuck all about them. If Obama gave a shit about torture, as opposed to cultivating a low-cost image, Gitmo would be closed and Cheney would be facing an investigation.
Sure it can. This isn’t about right and wrong because politics inevitably leaves every leader with more blood on their hands than could ever be washed off. This is about power, plain and simple.