America’s Six Billion Dollar Secret

Reading between the headlines, the US paid six billion dollars to ransom five American spies imprisoned by Iran. Three of those deny they were spying. The other two decline to identify themselves. That’s right. Although that’s 1.2 Billion a head, the press refuses to investigate. Both the US and Iran are colluding to keep the secret. What could that be about?

To clarify, it was a prisoner swap: five Iranian sanctions-violators plus six billion in frozen Iranian assets, in exchange for the release of five American spies.

The five sanctions-breakers are Mehrdad Moin-Ansari, Kambiz Attar-Kashani, Reza Sarhangpour-Kafrani, Amin Hassanzadeh and Kaveh Afrasiabi, from among a dozen held by the US for “breaking US sanctions against Iran.” Former vice president Dick Cheney broke those sanctions but wasn’t detained.

The three named US spies are Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, and Emad Shargi. All three insist their activities were not espionage. There’s little reason to doubt Tehran, a deeply religious and moral society. We also have the hilariously telling example of the famous embassy hostages detained by the Islamic Revolution whom subsequent accounts have dropped all efforts to disguise as other than intelligence officers.

Strangely enough both the press and the Iranian government itself are okay with keeping Washington’s secret. Six billion dollars is a lot of payola.

The pretext is that the two unnamed spies want their privacy. Perhaps they have years to go before retirement, so wish to remain assets to the US intelligence complex. Right. Perhaps their covers, the NGOs which employed them, are not commonly associated with CIA fronts, and networks of similarly inserted operatives would thus be exposed. Is that worth six billion? More likely the two incognitos would be recognized if their faces were seen by earlier dupes than the Iranians. More likely, international figureheads would roll. Iran has probably known this all along and knew that the strength of its bargaining chips lay in concealing their identity.

Who Should Own the Copyright to Our Mugshots?

War Party voices across the media are decrying Candidate Trump’s windfall from merchandizing his jail selfie. They’re convinced that a city and county jail should own the right to exploit the mugshots of its booking victims. Wait what?

Out of spite for the Trumpster, the antipopulist pundits would prefer that a justice system profit from spreading the likenesses of its detainees, innocent-until-proven-guilty be damned? What an unpopular opinion indeed.

Booking officers would have to mandate that arrestees sign releases for the public display of their mugs. That’s an interesting civil illiberty.

I’m sure intellectual property brokers love the idea because those rights could be contracted to IP horders like Getty Images for further control over what the public sees and can’t see. Next would be surveillance footage, doorbell videos, and traffic cams. To my mind the mugshot is overreach enough. If anyone has earned that image it’s the perp themself.

Trump elected to scowl for his jail portrait, apparently peeved at the injustice of his indictment. It seems a rather petty posture considering the theatricality at play. Maybe the Edward G. Robinson menace is his best look, but I always tried to smile for the occasion.

In my experience jailors wouldn’t let you smile. Apprehendees are expected to look glum. and you certainly feel it, being shouted at to stop smiling. I think Tom Delay’s famous car dealer smile mugshot broke the precedent, I told them as much, but wardens have different tools now to snap the expression they prefer. They don’t tell you when they’ve clicked the shutter, or they pretend they have until you stop mugging. With digital equipment they simply record a video and choose the frame of their liking. If you want to effect joviality you have to wear a smile through the entire booking process. For newcomers to our ugly penal system that’s not an easy thing to do.