Iran’s Interior Ministry has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of yesterday’s election. This has been rejected by all the three opponents of Mr. Ahmadinejad, Messrs Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mahdi Karroubi, and Mohsen Rezaaee.
The best evidence for the validity of the arguments of the three opponents of the President for rejecting the results declared by the Interior Ministry is the data the Ministry itself has issued. In the chart below, compiled based on the data released by the Ministry and announced by Iran’s national television, a perfect linear relation between the votes received by the President and Mir Hossein Mousavi has been maintained, and the President’s vote is always half of the President’s. The vertical axis (y) shows Mr. Mousavi’s votes, and the horizontal (x) the President’s. R^2 shows the correlation coefficient: the closer it is to 1.0, the more perfect is the fit, and it is 0.9995, as close to 1.0 as possible for any type of data.
Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own. For example, in the present elections, Mr. Mousavi is an Azeri and speaks Turkish. The Azeries make up 1/4 of all the eligible voters in Iran and in his trips to Azerbaijan province, where most of the Azeri population lives, Mr. Mousavi had been greeted by huge rallies in support of his campaign. Likewise, Mr. Karroubi, the other reformist candidate, is a Lor. But according to the data released by Iran’s Interior Ministry, in both cases, Mr. Ahmadinejad has far outdone both candidates in their own provinces of birth and among their own ethnic populations.
This is the most obviously fraudulent election possible. There is absolutely no doubt.
quote:In an open letter, a group of employees of Iran’s Interior Ministry (which supervises the elections) warned the nation that a hard-line ayatollah, who supports President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has issued a Fatwa authorizing changing votes in the incumbent’s favor.
They warned that the same thing happened in the elections for the 8th Majles (parliament), in March 2008, in order to change the vote in favor of the principlists (fundamentalists) allied with the president; but, fearing for their jobs, they had kept silent then.
The authors of the letter state that a copy of the letter has been sent to the President of the Assembly of Experts (a constitutional body that selects the Supreme Leader and monitors his performance) and to former president and powerful politician, Mr. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; the Speaker of the Majles (the parliament) Dr. Ali Larijani; the Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi; the Chair of the Committee for protecting People’s Vote, Mr. Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour (a leftist cleric and supporter of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi); all the candidates, as well as the office of the Supreme Leader, in order to warn all the important national figures.
The letter states,
After several polls taken by the government in May that indicated a rapid loss of support for the President, an ayatollah, who used to speak about political philosophy in Tehran’s public Friday prayers, held a confidential meeting with the elections’ supervisors. Quoting the Bagharah Soureh, verse 249, of the holy Quran, to justify vote fraud, he stated that,
“If someone is elected the president and hurts the Islamic values that have been spread [by Mr. Ahmadinejad] to Lebanon, Palestine, Venezuela, and other places, it is against Islam to vote for that person. We should not vote for that person, and also warn people about that person. It is your religious duty as the supervisors of the elections to do so.”
Start feeding in the news!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
A reference on the structure of Iran's government might be useful, as any discussion of the election and fraud will likely reference different sections of the government.
Riots, burning buses, destroyed shopfronts, and all in a country that for the last 30 years has been the icon of frowning on discontent.
The polling data I read before the election on what "average" Iranians feel about Iran, America, the West, Israel and a lot of other things blew me out of the water. It would seem they're more than willing, it not eager, for a detente with the West, for peace and new relations, and even a serious willingness to recognize Israel and give up the production of nuclear weapons, so long as they get civilian nuclear power and normalized relations with the United States.
Iran is a country whose identity has been sorely misrepresented by both Western leaders, and by their own leaders. The huge youth segment of the population, along with a lot of educated reformers, are pushing the current status quo, and not only feel cheated out of an election, but in general don't approve of the rabbit hole their leaders are taking them down.
If nothing else, citizen discontent, an 80% turnout rate, and intense passion should prove to the west that there is a thriving democracy in Iran that lies below the surface, and that we have more allies and goodwill there than we perhaps realize.
In real terms though, Ahmadinejad isn't going anywhere soon. Despite the protests, he'll hang on and be there for a couple more years, perhaps until he and Khatami run the country into the ground even more economically, and we see a revolution that the RG can't put down, or we see an Iranian version of Tienanmen Square. That fact that we're even seeing this stuff on CNN means two things: 1. It's big, or they would have clamped down on it. 2. Technology is really hindering the leadership of Iran's ability to control the flow of information. There's only so much they can shut down anymore.
The election matters, and doesn't matter. Khatami runs Iran. But the President is important in a lot of ways, most especially, lately, how Iran is viewed by the world, and that can be a serious detriment to their long term well being. It's also a symbol of citizen discontent, and maybe that's the most important thing we can draw from this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Off topic question, do you recall when you first saw the spelling of Tiananmen Square as "Tien"anmen Square?
I've been wondering what the origin of that is and Google "helpfully" searches for both if I just do the latter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:“The results of the 10th presidential election are so ridiculous and so unbelievable that one cannot write or talk about it in a statement,” said Mehdi Karroubi, a reformist cleric and candidate. He came in last with 300,000 votes — much fewer than analysts had predicted. “It is amazing that the people’s vote has turned into an instrument for the government to stabilize itself.” The other candidate, Mohsen Rezai, got 680,000 votes, Interior Ministry officials said. In 2005, when Mr. Karroubi was also a candidate for president, he accused the government of rigging the vote in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s favor. In that election, the government announced when polls closed that there would probably be a runoff between two of three candidates, a reform candidate and a former police chief. But by 7 a.m. the next day, a spokesman for the Guardian Council, a clerical oversight panel that is not supposed to be involved in vote counting, announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad was in first place. Mr. Karroubi’s charges were never investigated. The turmoil on Saturday followed an extraordinary night in which the Iranian state news agency announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won by a vast margin just two hours after the polls closed. The timing alone provoked deep suspicion here, because the authorities have never before announced election results until the following morning. Mr. Moussavi also announced Friday night that he believed he had won by a wide margin. Mr. Moussavi also complained about irregularities and unfairness in the election, saying there had been a lack of ballots in many areas and that some of his campaign offices had been attacked and his Web sites shut down. The official results prompted further skepticism, in part because Mr. Ahmadinejad won large majorities in some places that were considered safe for his opponents, including even their hometowns. Mr. Rezai’s hometown, for example, gave him less than a 10th of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s total there, the Interior Ministry said.
--
quote:It would seem they're more than willing, it not eager, for a detente with the West
At first when I read this I picked up "for a detonation with the West," then laughed.
quote:2. Technology is really hindering the leadership of Iran's ability to control the flow of information. There's only so much they can shut down anymore.
It's actually both 1 and 2, and here's some stuff on 2.
quote:On Ghaem-Magham Street, a lone chadori woman stood by the roadside, making a peace sign with her index finger wrapped in a green ribbon, saying "Mousavi" to every passing car. Out of 50 cars that passed, all but 5 either honked, rolled down their windows to shout their support, or made peace signs in solidarity. One man passing by told her, "You wrote Mousavi, they read Ahmadinejad!" She responded: "They're illiterate and need to learn reading." Then a man in a car moving in the other direction rolled down his window and shouted at her in anger, "You whore! Why are you creating conflict between people?" A basiji (a member of the volunteer paramilitary aligned with Ahmadinejad) charged at her from nowhere with a metal rod and was about to beat her when he was held down and beaten himself by five or six men streaming out of nearby cars. "I mean, just look at this! If Ahmadinejad won 25 million votes, which they claim, we should be celebrating, right?" an onlooker commented.
Mock not. As the regime shut down other forms of communication, Twitter survived. With some remarkable results. Those rooftop chants that were becoming deafening in Tehran? A few hours ago, this concept of resistance was spread by a twitter message. Here's the Twitter from a Moussavi supporter:
ALL internet & mobile networks are cut. We ask everyone in Tehran to go onto their rooftops and shout ALAHO AKBAR in protest #IranElection
That a new information technology could be improvised for this purpose so swiftly is a sign of the times. It reveals in Iran what the Obama campaign revealed in the United States. You cannot stop people any longer. You cannot control them any longer. They can bypass your established media; they can broadcast to one another; they can organize as never before.
It's increasingly clear that Ahmadinejad and the old guard mullahs were caught off-guard by this technology and how it helped galvanize the opposition movement in the last few weeks. That's why they didn't see what those of us surgically attached to modems could spot a mile away: something was happening in Iran. If Drum is right, the mullahs believed their own propaganda about victory until reality hit them so hard so fast, they miscalculated badly and over-reached.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Off topic question, do you recall when you first saw the spelling of Tiananmen Square as "Tien"anmen Square?
I've been wondering what the origin of that is and Google "helpfully" searches for both if I just do the latter.
I spelled it Tiananmen at first. I wasn't sure how to spell it exactly and just guessed phonetically, then allowed Firefox's spell checker to fix it for me, deferring to their greater wisdom.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, thats interesting.
I've seen both in the English press but the first is more common since it is the standard pinyin transliteration from Mandarin.
"Tien" sounds suspiciously like how you would translate it from Cantonese, but I've never been able to verify that.
Interestingly enough, the term "Tiananmen Square" isn't usually used in the Chinese media (either by pro-ccp groups or not) since there were two previous Tiananmen Square incidents.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm really curious about what actually happened in Iran. My roommate's Iranian, but I've been home getting my teeth pulled so I haven't asked her in person. She posts like crazy on Facebook, but it's all in Persian so I can't read anything besides ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( on her profile.
I asked her about the elections last week, and she is not at all a Ahmadinejad supporter. She said that every word that comes out of his mouth is pretty much a lie, that he bribes the poor to vote for him, and the uneducated get all their media from TV have no idea what he's really like, but people who go online and read print media know the truth. She told me about the run-off thing, and I asked about the best candidate, but she didn't mention Mousavi at all. She figured that Ahmadinejad would get a plurality, but maybe lose the runoff. Ahmadinedjad winning by over 60% just seems like too much to win by, given the high voter turnout. Then again, getting 30% of the people to vote against the guy that runs the media is rather impressive. The young, liberal, educated demographic are loud and cluster together enough that they form such a vocal minority that it's very easy to trick themselves into believing they are a majority.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Unfortunately, I think just about anything the U.S. or its people might do would likely only make things worse. Suddenly the Ahmadinejad opposition goes from "tolerated dissent that only goes to show Iranian democracy in action" to "Western-backed interference into our sovereign state that must be put down with nationalistic fervor".
An uprising from within may be able to wrest some degree of reform if it can retain its vitality and passion, but only if we stay out of it.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Iran's average age is 26.4, 67% of the population is urban, and 80% literate.
The young, liberal, educated demographic might be a bit bigger then one normally would expect.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... An uprising from within may be able to wrest some degree of reform if it can retain its vitality and passion, but only if we stay out of it.
Thats probably quite wise.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yeah, I agree that there's nothing the US or outsiders could or should do that would help Iran, especially since the current regime promotes a "west is bad and wants us to be like them" ideal. I don' t think we could do or say anything without that message coming out of it.
I honestly don't know if there was voter fraud. It could go either way.
I think the high voter turnout indicates trouble. Ahmadinejad was elected because barely any people voted last time due to disillusionment with the last president who said his hands were tied. Then Ahmadinejad gave the office so much power (and did bad things), that people were either going to stay disillusioned or come out in droves to get him out because if Ahmadinehad can break the rules why can't the next guy (even though Ahmadinejad was liked by the Supreme Leader who is the real guy in charge). I can't see people coming out in droves to keep him in.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... An uprising from within may be able to wrest some degree of reform if it can retain its vitality and passion, but only if we stay out of it.
Thats probably quite wise.
Yeah, I can't think of too many better ways to destroy the legitimacy of any reform.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Though I have no idea where those numbers have been pulled from.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The entire middle east as well as parts of asia and europe are experiencing severe interference on their BBC channels because Iran is actively attempting to jam that region's BBC satellite.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He wants the results thrown out, he wants permission to protest in cities across the country, and apparently also needs permission to use the phrase "God is great" and to continue using the color green in their protests. Regardless, 48 hours later, this isn't going away fast.
I can already see historians naming this the Green Revolution.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Man, BBC has been very very tidy about keeping their reporting down to reporting just what is happening. I suspect their television is the same. If what you say is true, Samprimary, it's a good argument that Iran is hiding something, since BBC is saying almost nothing.
EDIT: Never mind, the BBC is linking to all kinds of useful sites.
EDIT #2: Nothing like a ridiculously excessive number of youth in a country to trigger revolt and resistance.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Samprimary, since you gave nothing on your graph, I went searching for it. I'm afraid my suspicions were correct. It is not statistically improbable, and compares it to the American election analyzed in the same way:
However, all is not lost! That site links to this blog, which has some interesting "hints" that the election was fraudulent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Foreign presses are being restricted in their access to protests, and there are reports that allies of Moussavi's reformist movement are being arrested all over the country.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Samprimary, since you gave nothing on your graph, I went searching for it. I'm afraid my suspicions were correct. It is not statistically improbable, and compares it to the American election analyzed in the same way:
Here's what I'm wondering: Is this thing going to end when Moussavi's supporters burn themselves out, or when the government beats them into submission?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Like most totalitarian regeme's without the intervention of the "imperialist" west, the government will beat them into submission. Like Chavez, president for life and Saddam getting 100% of the vote in Iraq.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Like most totalitarian regeme's without the intervention of the "imperialist" west, the government will beat them into submission.
I don't believe you. This could very well lead to a positive change in the system and a chance for real democracy, and you can't tell us categorically that it can not end in anything but victory for the ruling party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually malanthrop, I think the government beating them into submission is one of the worst things that could happen for Khamenei. If he was smart, he'd let them complain, arrest the rioters, and other than that do nothing. Eventually the country would move on, they'd be bitter, but they'd wear themselves out. That's exactly why I asked the question. It's unlikely to end in victory for the reform movement now, but how it ends now might determine how things progress later.
Beating them into submission will make the effects of what is happening ten times worse. The next generation is learning a lot from this. And they'll remember it. Maybe it'll take until Khamenei dies, or maybe just until the next election or the next major event, but with the way it's being handled, this thing is going to boil beneath the surface for a long, long time.
I don't think that this particular election result is going to be changed, not unless the pressure is kept up and the government cracks down harsher and harsher until it spirals out of control. But I don't see that happening. Ahmadninejad won, but the fault line in Iran that has been discussed in the west for years now just cracked open for the world to see, and I don't think we can treat Iran the same way anymore. Certainly they don't view their country the same way.
This might sound silly, and it'll likely matter to absolutely no one...but I plan to wear green tomorrow as my tiny, unnoticeable sign of solidarity.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree that it could lead to change or like so many other situations it could lead to ratcheting down on freedom. Under the constitution he will be unable to run for a third term. I'll wager he will find a national crisis or other situation to keep himself in power at the end of this term. His opponents are on house arrest and if they pose a real threat they'll likely be arrested for treason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I'll wager he will find a national crisis or other situation to keep himself in power at the end of this term.
I'm skeptical of that. In order to do that, it'd require the consent of the clerics and Khamenei. I don't think Khamenei's willing to go that far, and I think if Ahmadinejad tried to force the issue, he'd lose.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I was really surprised at the optimism before the elections. I mean, did really people think this was going to be an entirely democratic process? Or even a mostly democratic one? When I saw the final results I was sad, but I can't say I didn't expect them. There have been internationally monitored elections in which there was fraud*; there was no doubt in my mind that we'd see fraud in these ones.
* The sister of a friend of mine worked at a voting station and she saw people throw away votes for the far-right candidate in the 2000 Romanian elections. The other guy won by a landslide anyway, and I was no fan of the far-right candidate, but still, if we're gonna vote at least let it be meaningful!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'll wager he will find a national crisis or other situation to keep himself in power at the end of this term.
I would have wagered. But he's just blown any leeway he could have operated under. He's changing the interpretive mentality of the young people of his own country. It's being changed because of riots and communication.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Please don't engage.
Corwin: I think previous elections had not been fraudulent; Ahmadinejad actually won legally. The fact that the opposition was allowed to hold meetings and gatherings without interferance seemed like a positive sign.
According to the guy I linked to above, it looks like Ahmadinejad expected to win and the rigging (assuming it did occur) was a last minute thing.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Khamenei knows how much is at stake here for him.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
There are also reports that live fire has been authorized for future protests.
--j_k
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This might sound silly, and it'll likely matter to absolutely no one...but I plan to wear green tomorrow as my tiny, unnoticeable sign of solidarity.
While I think that any official "interference" from Western governments would be unproductive at best, unofficial signs of solidarity like this - personal and individual could be very productive if noticed. And with the access to facebook and twitter and so forth, they might be noticed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tweets containing IP and port info for proxy server access from Iran were circulating last night. I re-tweeted one of them.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
For those wanting to follow the news, the quickest information is coming from the Twitter hash tag Iran Election. Andrew Sullivan's blog is reposting the good stuff. PicFog has an updating stream of images that people on the ground are sending in via twitter.
Edit: It's being reported at 1 to 2 million people marching in Tehran currently, and there are confirmed accounts of gun fire.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah Western intervention will only lead to bad things.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thanks for the links, Jhai. Even though I can't follow them from work, I tweeted that stream link with the #iranelection tag from my phone, just in case noboody else had already done that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: For those wanting to follow the news, the quickest information is coming from the Twitter hash tag Iran Election. Andrew Sullivan's blog is reposting the good stuff. PicFog has an updating stream of images that people on the ground are sending in via twitter.
Edit: It's being reported at 1 to 2 million people marching in Tehran currently, and there are confirmed accounts of gun fire.
I'm reading the Sullivan blog and crying at my desk. They are so brave.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm reading the Sullivan blog and crying at my desk. They are so brave.
Yes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Probably didn't help that Pandora was playing "Blowin' in the Wind" while I was reading either.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm glad David isn't here. He gets concerned when I cry. But sometimes it is the only reaction to have.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
agreed guys, Sullivan's blog is hard to read at times. It's incredibly conflicting to feel such horror and sadness, and yet at the same time such pride and hope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. All those emotions. For me, because I am old enough to remember 1979, the hope is pretty cautious. We tend to overestimate the influence of the people who speak English in Iran and neglect the merchants and the very poor.
And the very last thing they need is for Mousavi to be seen as an American puppet.
I wonder where Iran would be if we had refrained from screwing around with their politics since Eisenhower.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I wonder where Iran would be if we had refrained from screwing around with their politics since Eisenhower.
In an abstract sort of way this is interesting, but aren't you basically asking "I wonder where the world would be if Europe hadn't become its dominant civilisation around 1750 and used its power imperially until around 1980?" It's such a big question it's essentially useless.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
well the thing with post 1950 we're supposed to KNOW better and not act like pedophiles around other nations.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I wonder where Iran would be if we had refrained from screwing around with their politics since Eisenhower.
In an abstract sort of way this is interesting, but aren't you basically asking "I wonder where the world would be if Europe hadn't become its dominant civilisation around 1750 and used its power imperially until around 1980?" It's such a big question it's essentially useless.
Haven't many alternate history novels been written surrounding these very questions? It's an interesting thought experiment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... I wonder where Iran would be if we had refrained from screwing around with their politics since Eisenhower.
Oddly, I came across this intriguing article that claims that American (and European) government officials might actually be hoping for a slightly counter-intuitive result (i.e. they wanted Mousavi to lose).
quote:When Obama Administration Iran czar Dennis Ross and top U.S. Iran negotiator William Burns were planning the details of the President's outreach to Tehran with senior European diplomats earlier this spring, they discussed a possible nightmare scenario for the June 12 presidential elections in Iran. It was not, however, the prospect that incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might win, or even that he might steal the election, as many are alleging he now has, that had them worried. Quite the opposite, it was the possibility that the provocative Iranian President might lose to a moderate challenger. ... And though they dare not say it publicly, Administration officials privately say that the messier and more contentious the postelection period, the more it sends the message to the outside world that even if some Iranians want moderation the hard-liners will not allow it.
quote:I wonder where Iran would be if we had refrained from screwing around with their politics since Eisenhower.
In an abstract sort of way this is interesting, but aren't you basically asking "I wonder where the world would be if Europe hadn't become its dominant civilisation around 1750 and used its power imperially until around 1980?" It's such a big question it's essentially useless.
Well, no. I am asking a more specific group of questions that I think have some lessons that it would profit us to remember.
For example:
1) Young and educated does not always mean pro-Western. Might it have had we not propped up the corrupt Shah?
2) Pro-democracy does not always mean pro-Western. Ditto.
3) We are fools if we think that everyone in Iran is going to forget that not so long ago we were providing our favourite deposed dictator with WMD to use on Iran. However much we have tried to re-write history.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Probably a majority of the country want real democracy, moderation, and an end to the anti-Western and anti-American and nuclear war-threatening fanaticism of Iran's hard line leadership.
But the tyrants will not meekly give up power. They will only be deposed if the military decides to side with the people. Unless Iran has its own Boris Yeltsin, willing to stand up against the hated old leadership, and enough people with power decide to stand with him.
Perhaps some generals will advise Ahmadinejad that he cannot expect to hold on to power unless he is willing to kill over half the populace, and the best thing for him would be to ride off into the sunset quietly.
As far as history is concerned, probably the biggest mistake we made was to allow the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran from his exile in France, at the same time we were encouraging the Shah to step down from the Peacock Throne and give up power.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MattP - Thanks for those pictures. They were stunning, awe inspiring, horrible, and beautiful. The crowds were amazing at some of those events. After witnessing the crowds that flocked to Obama, it was all the more impressive to see the crowds around Moussavi, and Ahmadinejad. Some of their flags, like a giant mosaic, also looked beautiful.
I think to a Western audience, this is extremely productive. Not only are the protests themselves heartening, and something recognizable to us here in America, and the west in general, but the inside view we're getting into Iranian politics. People who are paying attention are learning that it's not really a democracy, it's not really a dictatorship, and in essence: Iran isn't really what we thought it was. Khamenei is in a backroom power struggle with Rafsanjani, the last surviving member of the Revolutionary Council from the original '79 overthrow. He holds a great deal of power in some of the backroom Council of Experts and whatever the name of the other powerful advisory board is. He could even theoretically arrange for Khamenei's ouster, though it's highly unlikely.
The whole point is, the people just made themselves heard, and the government reacted. They learned that if they scream loud enough, they'll be heard. We learned that Iran isn't a Western democracy, but it's not useless either. We learned that Iran isn't of one mind, there are huge ideological rifts and people feel very strongly about them.
I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Probably a majority of the country want real democracy, moderation, and an end to the anti-Western and anti-American and nuclear war-threatening fanaticism of Iran's hard line leadership.
But the tyrants will not meekly give up power. They will only be deposed if the military decides to side with the people. Unless Iran has its own Boris Yeltsin, willing to stand up against the hated old leadership, and enough people with power decide to stand with him.
Perhaps some generals will advise Ahmadinejad that he cannot expect to hold on to power unless he is willing to kill over half the populace, and the best thing for him would be to ride off into the sunset quietly.
As far as history is concerned, probably the biggest mistake we made was to allow the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran from his exile in France, at the same time we were encouraging the Shah to step down from the Peacock Throne and give up power.
Bullcrap. And besides the people of Iran overwhelmingly supported the Ayatollah it was their sovereign right to do so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, which part is bullcrap?
I think his first sentence is true and his second sentence contains truths.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The whole bit about how they "should've kept Khomeini from returning to Iran" and the bit about them starting to pressure the Shah.
Think about it, why should the people or Iran be forced to wait on the US's timetable for them to kick out the Shah? How many years would it have taken?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I think to a Western audience, this is extremely productive. Not only are the protests themselves heartening, and something recognizable to us here in America, and the west in general, but the inside view we're getting into Iranian politics. People who are paying attention are learning that it's not really a democracy, it's not really a dictatorship, and in essence: Iran isn't really what we thought it was. Khamenei is in a backroom power struggle with Rafsanjani, the last surviving member of the Revolutionary Council from the original '79 overthrow. He holds a great deal of power in some of the backroom Council of Experts and whatever the name of the other powerful advisory board is. He could even theoretically arrange for Khamenei's ouster, though it's highly unlikely.
The whole point is, the people just made themselves heard, and the government reacted. They learned that if they scream loud enough, they'll be heard. We learned that Iran isn't a Western democracy, but it's not useless either. We learned that Iran isn't of one mind, there are huge ideological rifts and people feel very strongly about them.
I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
QFT
anyone who was holding on to a black and white picture of politics in ANY country, hopefully just got a big wake up call.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There are videos and pictures all over the place, but the sheer size and strength of of this video struck me.
Also, I think it's good for westerners to hear people shouting "Allahu akbar" in regards to something like election fraud and democracy. Maybe it'll give us an idea as to what the phrase means culturally, instead of just assuming it's an automatic reference to a blood thirsty religious thing. I've never understood why that phrase is some sort of trigger for westerners or Americans when it's really little different than saying "oh thank god," which people say all the time. For all the American phrases we have that are laced with god, "in god we trust," "god bless America," etc, it's always seemed strange that "allahu akbar" gets special notice as a phrase that only a fanatic would say. I think it says more about us than them.
Sorry for the tangent.
[ June 16, 2009, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:it's always seemed strange that "allahu akbar" gets special notice as a phrase that only a fanatic would say.
I've noticed this. Therefore it's like "fanatic = any moslem"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Guardian Council, which had previously announced that they would make a decision on the election in 9 days has now announced that there will be a recount of votes.
Both Ahmadinejad's and Moussavi's supporters planned huge rallies in Tehran again today and for tomorrow, and were jockeying for different times so as to reduce potential clashes between demonstrators from opposing sides. The Guardian Council has also invited the reformist losers to present their concerns before the Council.
I like this quote from Moussavi, which came while he was urging peaceful demonstrations from his supporters:
quote:From Mir Moussavi: "You are not breaking glass," he said. "You are breaking tyranny."
That one, as far as I'm concerned, goes into my big book of quotable quotes.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I think this whole process, no matter how it ends, might end up being a big positive for future Iranian/Western relations. We're relearning the distinction between a government and their people.
Even if it ends with Ahmadinejad winning the election? It might be a good thing in so far as attitudes in the west may change, but as for anything substantive, I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad's re-election will be the best thing. In some sense, that would mean that a majority of people in Iran "voted" for the same policies he has had towards the west, and many, if not most, of the people in the west won't see the lessons of this revolution. They will see Ahmadinejad and the Iranians once again embracing that which has been so destructive on the world stage.
Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
The problem with fighting extremism by exposing it is that the moderates then have to win, the trust placed in the people has to be rewarded, and if not, then the extremists simply gain a larger and more powerful voice. The same goes on here in America, I once said that the litmus test for the Republican party was whether they could stand up and say that Rush wasn't their leader without apologizing and that hasn't happened yet, which means that people like Rush and Hannity and Beck become more powerful, and in the last few months they have. At some point, if you hope to defeat extremism in this manner then the people have to stand up. If the people of Iran sit down at this moment, then I think we have a bigger problem than what we started with.
A more powerful and more extreme Iran.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Update: Even though the Guardian Council has agreed to a recount, Moussavi is rejecting this and is calling for a whole new vote. I don't know a great deal about Iranian politics, but that sounds pretty ballsy.
Humean -
Yes, even if it ends with him winning, which I think is likely to happen no matter how many protest rallies are held. Much like in America, demographics are on the side of those who want a more progressive policy enacted. Iranian youth, who we've seen a lot of these past few days, are the majority of the country, and in the coming years will become more and more powerful in how much say they have in running Iran. What we're seeing is that this vocal segment of the population favors pro-western relations and big changes in Iran itself. They're clamoring for democracy, and are holding almost all of their protests in a place called Freedom Square (I can't remember the name in Farsi).
The west knows, or thinks, that this election is a sham, so the world won't see Iran embracing Ahmadinejad style vociferousness, they'll see kindred spirits growing more organized and more unhappy with the status quo. They'll see potential allies under the surface.
And I think there certainly is a difference between a government and its people. Obviously Ahmadinejad, or Obama, or Bush, don't represent all of their people, or they'd act a lot differently. National are built of contentious populations with political fault lines and rifts running rampant, and those are seldom represented in the words and actions of leaders. Leaders generally speak with one voice, but national populations seldom have but one opinion. Therefore, there's a vast difference between a government and its people.
The bright side of extremism in America is that a very vocal but small minority are people who really subscribe to what people like Rush and Hannity are pitching. The more extreme the party appears, the less appealing it will be to moderates, and the party will effectively ostracize itself from mainstream politics. Sarah Palin certainly brought that point out. She might have fired up a certain segment of the population, but she turned off the moderates that McCain's campaign hinged on winning. I'm not sure the situation here and the situation in Iran are comparable.
Short of a full scale revolution, at the end of the day, when the clerics and scholars ratify Ahmadinejad's reelection, as is likely, Moussavi supporters will again go a little crazy, like a volcanic eruption, extreme and powerful, but not long lasting. But also like a volcano, there's always a lot of movement beneath the surface, and a slow simmering fire that doesn't die easily. The response has proven that Ahmadinejad doesn't have a mandate, hell, it's so tenuous a victory that Khamenei had to reverse himself within 24 hours just to placate the protesters, and in Iran no less, a country that prides itself on order.
Even if a more powerful and more extreme Iran does come out of this, which I don't think is likely, it's only going to inflame the people out there in the streets that much more, and make the extreme movement's hold on power that much more thin. I think you're confusing perception for reality in much of your argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Even though the Guardian Council has agreed to a recount, Moussavi is rejecting this and is calling for a whole new vote.
That's a shame, I would have been interested to see how the guardian council intended to count all the burnt ballots.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
This quote baffles me. Can you really simplify an entire country to who happens to be ruling it at any given time? Sure, you might be able to say that about their policies...but their people? Apparently I was wrong in my above post. I truly thought these events would be a wake up call to those who equated the president or policies of a country with the ENTIRE country.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The whole bit about how they "should've kept Khomeini from returning to Iran" and the bit about them starting to pressure the Shah.
Think about it, why should the people or Iran be forced to wait on the US's timetable for them to kick out the Shah? How many years would it have taken?
What, you think Khomeini was an improvement on the Shah? Give me a reform-minded king over a theist fanatic any day.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
From the Washington Times, so take with a grain of salt:
quote: According to the Cyrus News Agency, Tuesday morning 16 senior members of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were arrested. "These commanders have been in contact with members of the Iranian army to join the people's movement," CNA reports. "Three of the commanders are veterans of Iran-Iraq war. They have been moved to an undisclosed location in East Tehran." This report has not been confirmed by other sources.
Also, from one of the best twitter sources Change_For_Iran (a student at Tehran University):
quote: the gov apparently doesn't trust the normal police, they are all unarmed with empty holsters!
[ June 16, 2009, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've never understood why that phrase is some sort of trigger for westerners or Americans when it's really little different than saying "oh thank god," which people say all the time. For all the American phrases we have that are laced with god, "in god we trust," "god bless America," etc, it's always seemed strange that "allahu akbar" gets special notice as a phrase that only a fanatic would say...
Personally, I had resolved this inconsistency by categorizing those that would say "in god we trust" or "God bless America" as fanatics as well
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: ... Besides, I don't think there is a difference between the government and it's people. The government is the people, and if that's the case, then Iran is Ahmadinejad. Just like we were Bush when he was President and we are Obama now, we get who we deserve as a leader, and that means that a government run by the people and for the people, simply *is* the people.
I think you can reasonably make this argument to a degree for a country that is truly democratic (government by the people, for the people, etc.)... with the caveat that in real Western democracies you'll have differing amounts of voter fraud and corruption. But how you could apply the same thing to autocratic governments is beyond me. We already know how dictatorships retain power, distort what people really want, pit one group against another, and generally run government with a smaller group of people.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Mucus, I would even dispute your claim about the truly democratic government, thought it's closer to the truth. When the President of the United States can win an election while LOSING the popular vote, that should say something about whether the government IS the people.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Grand Ayatollah Montazeri:
quote: In the name of God
People of Iran
These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections.
Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government’s officials to bond with their people.
But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.
Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you :
1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. I fear that this lead to the lost of people’s faith in Islam.
2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people’s confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.
3- I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.
4- I ask the police and army personals not to “sell their religion”, and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognize the protesting youth as your children. Today censor and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth.
I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The west knows, or thinks, that this election is a sham, so the world won't see Iran embracing Ahmadinejad style vociferousness, they'll see kindred spirits growing more organized and more unhappy with the status quo. They'll see potential allies under the surface.
While I do agree that the west will see something different out of Iran, I simply wonder what will happen when and if Ahmadinejad wins the election and everything returns to the way it was before. We will still face an Iran that wants nuclear weapons, that is a threat to Israel, and still supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, so what practical use is this revolution if things return to the status quo? And the better question is this, now that Ahmadinejad and the clerics who want his installation know that no matter what happens they will win the day, will that embolden them and make them even more powerful?
quote:And I think there certainly is a difference between a government and its people. Obviously Ahmadinejad, or Obama, or Bush, don't represent all of their people, or they'd act a lot differently. National are built of contentious populations with political fault lines and rifts running rampant, and those are seldom represented in the words and actions of leaders. Leaders generally speak with one voice, but national populations seldom have but one opinion. Therefore, there's a vast difference between a government and its people.
You remember that debate we had about Obama and whether it was a politicians responsibility to win an election or whether the people are responsible for asking questions and the like? Iran, much like America, claims to be a democracy, and whether that really is true or not, I think politicians have a responsibility to the people and the people have a responsibility to the state. Now, that doesn't mean that the country speaks with one voice or holds one opinion, but who we elect and how we deal with our government speaks of who we are as a people, especially in democracies like ours.
quote:Even if a more powerful and more extreme Iran does come out of this, which I don't think is likely, it's only going to inflame the people out there in the streets that much more, and make the extreme movement's hold on power that much more thin. I think you're confusing perception for reality in much of your argument.
In some sense, I think Obama is trying to fight extremism in Iran the same way he is trying to fight extremism here in America, he is trying to bring it to center stage and then trusting the people to reject that extremism out of hand. If the people do not reject that extremism, as it seems the right as not rejected Rush or Hannity, the strategy cannot work. Let me ask you this, do you think extremists are more or less likely to crack down on these people if they see their hold on power being threatened? If you think that is more likely, don't you also think that the extreme elements of Iran will do *anything* to hold on to power?
Extremists tend not to look at these kinds of protests as mandates against what they embrace because what they embrace is absolute and righteous, they see these things as threats to their existence that must be excised.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Is it too much to hope for that Ahmadinejad just doesn't come back from Russia?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Humean, firstly, you misunderstand Obama's strategy on a pretty fundamental level if you think his goal is to get the right to reject Limbaugh. His goal is to get moderate Americans to reject Limbaugh, and he's been largely successful at doing that. The fact that he's also managed to tie Limbaugh to the Republican leadership is gravy for the Democrats, electorally, but Obama ultimately doesn't give a damn what the right wing (be it the religious radicals or the neoconservatives) says about Rush Limbaugh. If the Republicans want to continue marginalizing themselves by clinging to him, then Obama is happy to let them do it.
As for Iran, I would argue that the mass unrest and protests are exactly symptomatic of "the people rejecting that extremism out of hand." So if, as you suggest, this is all part of some grand diplomatic plan of Obama's, then I think it's working remarkably well. Four days ago, who would have imagined that we'd see this much open defiance against the extremist government in Iran?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point? Definitely. He'd have to be much worse off now than he actually is to just cut and run completely. Of course, that depends on how much the public reality matches up with actual facts in Iran right now.
---
I often wonder what people mean by 'Western-style democracy'. Democracy doesn't have a cardinal direction. 'Pro-Western' democracy is one thing, but a democracy is a democracy, or a shade of democracy such as a republic like we've got here. You don't just get to call something an 'Arabic-style democracy' just because it's closer to a democracy than its even more repressive neighbors, after all.
And as for Iranians not suddenly loving us due to, among other things, American support for Saddam Hussein...hey, depending on how things shake out, maybe Iranians can let bygones be bygones towards us, and we'll do the same for them. Because the f@#*ing with definitely went in both directions.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote: I often wonder what people mean by 'Western-style democracy'. Democracy doesn't have a cardinal direction.
Liberal (as opposed to illiberal), I suspect.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I often wonder what people mean by 'Western-style democracy'. Democracy doesn't have a cardinal direction. 'Pro-Western' democracy is one thing, but a democracy is a democracy, or a shade of democracy such as a republic like we've got here. You don't just get to call something an 'Arabic-style democracy' just because it's closer to a democracy than its even more repressive neighbors, after all.
Well yeah, democracy is democracy, but American democracy and Iranian democracy aren't the same. And Egyptian, Syrian and old school Iraqi democracy certainly aren't the same thing as British democracy.
It might all be about people voting at a very basic level, but it still comes in a lot of different flavors.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Humean, firstly, you misunderstand Obama's strategy on a pretty fundamental level if you think his goal is to get the right to reject Limbaugh. His goal is to get moderate Americans to reject Limbaugh, and he's been largely successful at doing that. The fact that he's also managed to tie Limbaugh to the Republican leadership is gravy for the Democrats, electorally, but Obama ultimately doesn't give a damn what the right wing (be it the religious radicals or the neoconservatives) says about Rush Limbaugh. If the Republicans want to continue marginalizing themselves by clinging to him, then Obama is happy to let them do it.
Well, maybe. I think that Obama is a pragmatist though, and I think pragmatically the best way to get things done is not to not care about the right but to embrace them and allow them to help. Ultimately, if he doesn't court the right, he cannot get many things done without 60 guaranteed votes in the Senate, and he doesn't have the votes and he knows it. In a sense, it doesn't make sense for Obama to completely disown or not care about the right, which makes me think that he does want the right to disown Limbaugh and Hannity. See, I think the fight over the stimulus showed Obama that the right is ruled not by moderates or a want to do what is right (in his view) but by what the far right wants from the Republican Party, and thus, I think he saw what was happening, knew that he couldn't do what he wanted to do without support from at least some on the right, and decided that the way to fight it was to get rid of the extremists on the far right. Of course, someone on the left cannot be the one to call out Limbaugh because then, no matter what is real about the situation, it is a partisan attack, and thus, it has to be the right that does so.
I actually think that makes more sense, but then again, I could be wrong.
quote:As for Iran, I would argue that the mass unrest and protests are exactly symptomatic of "the people rejecting that extremism out of hand." So if, as you suggest, this is all part of some grand diplomatic plan of Obama's, then I think it's working remarkably well. Four days ago, who would have imagined that we'd see this much open defiance against the extremist government in Iran?
Agreed. I argued a while back that Obama had to present a different face to the world, a face that couldn't spun into a boogey-man that scared moderate Muslims into embracing extremism to save them from America and Israel, and I think it's important that he has done so. If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
How does that statement gel with your belief that the government is the people, and vice versa?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Even though the Guardian Council has agreed to a recount, Moussavi is rejecting this and is calling for a whole new vote.
quote: The Guardian Council met with the three opposition candidates -- Moussavi, Mehdi Karrubi and Mohsen Rezaie -- and asked them to specify the areas where they wanted a recount, a council spokesman told the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Moussavi rejected the recount, according to an official close to his camp, demanding fresh elections and accusing the country's religious elite of trying to further manipulate the outcome of the original vote.
An official close to the opposition leader's camp, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a recount would provide another opportunity for the government to manipulate the results.
He said the council ordered the printing of 53 million ballots for the elections, but only 39 million were used. Fourteen million ballots were missing.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:If you can take away the boogey-men and give the people a real chance, then the people themselves, led by Ghandi or Martin Luther King for instance, can bring about real change that governments cannot.
How does that statement gel with your belief that the government is the people, and vice versa?
Great social change has always begun with introspection and acknowledgment of a wrong, we look at ourselves and claim that this injustice cannot stand, and in some sense, revolutions, like the ones led by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, are deeply personal ones where what we really change is our own personal views of the world. And when we do that, government changes because we change. Government is the people, so when we change, it does too.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.
In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.
Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%.
Ayandeh's source said at least 200 polling stations across Iran recorded participation rates of 95% or above. "This is generally considered scientifically impossible because out of every given cohort of 20 voters, there will be at least one who is either ill, out of the country, has recently died or is unable to participate for some other reasons," the
source said. "It is also unprecedented in the history of Iran and all other democratic countries."
The claims are impossible to verify but they are consistent with comments made by a former Iranian interior minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who said on Tuesday that 70 polling stations returned more completed ballots papers than the number of locally eligible voters.
Supporters of the defeated reformist candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, have complained that their campaigns' inspectors were refused permission or ejected from polling centres on election day.
Abbas Abdi, a Karoubi supporter who was among the radical students that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, said some polling stations had run out of ballot papers by as early as 10.30am – even though it is standard procedure to issue each voting centre with more ballots than the number of voters.
After polling times were extended beyond the original 6pm closing time, other stations refused to provide ballot papers for fear that participation would exceed the number of voters on the register, Abdi told Radio Zamaaneh, a Farsi-language station based in the Netherlands.
quote: The man who leaked the real election results from the Interior Ministry - the ones showing Ahmadinejad coming third - was killed in a suspicious car accident, according to unconfirmed reports, writes Saeed Kamali Dehghan in Tehran.
Mohammad Asgari, who was responsible for the security of the IT network in Iran's interior ministry, was killed yesterday in Tehran.
Asgari had reportedly leaked results that showed the elections were rigged by government use of new software to alter the votes from the provinces.
Asgari was said to have leaked information that showed Mousavi had won almost 19 million votes, and should therefore be president.
We will try to get more details later.
quote: Iranian filmmakers Marjane Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf have held a press conference in Brussels to say they have a document proving election fraud, Adnkronos news agency reports.
The document, seen here, says that Mousavi won the election with 19m votes, with cleric Mehdi Karroubi coming in second and Ahmadinejad coming in third. Satrapi and Makhmalbaf said the document had come from the Iranian electoral commission, and is dated June 13, the day after the election.
Adnkronos notes it cannot confirm the document's authenticity.
Satrapi, an artist, is best known for "Persepolis", her beautiful and insightful graphic-novel memoir of the 1979 revolution, which was turned into a film. Makhmalbaf is known in the US and Europe for writing and directing "Kandahar".
[ June 17, 2009, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lord Solar--Wow. If even half of what they show is true, well, wow.
There is another thing that makes Iranian Democracy different than Western Democracy. Iranian Democracy falls under a Theocratic rule. So we have Western Democracy and Islamic Democracy, where above the President and Prime Ministers sits a Mullah--or an Ayatollah who makes sure everything is religiously fine.
They say that such a theocratic ruler is above petty politics and the lure of dictatorship. They say that he won't succumb to greed or power worship, but just keep the country within the bounds of their faith.
There are many in the US who wish for a similar though Christian arrangement.
So this is a test to see if such an arrangement can work. When the Ayatollah was quick to back Ahmidin...what his faces apparently false win, it looked like fears of theocracy failing to power politics would come true. His change of stance offers hope that the two can remain apart, and actually offers hope that the violence in Iran will be minimal.
If Ayatollah Khemeni announces new elections, or that someone else is the winner, it would be hard for Ahmid to remain president, or to gain support from his religiously conservative backers.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Here's what I'm curious about. Let's say after all this that the election results are NOT changed. What then? What recourse do the people have? When the leadership has truly swept democracy aside...how does change happen? And is it possible to do it non-violently?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The people have several options.
1) They can endure. Just do nothing and survive. 2) They can peacefully protest and call for change. Such protests can and will result in ever increasing violence as the controlling government tries to dissuade and stifle the opposition. 3) They can reach out the military and police to help them create change, stopping the more violent options of the government from going into effect. 4) They can reach out to various legal institutions, from the Supreme Court to the Election Board to bolster their case. However, since both of these seem to be in the hands of the governmental elite, that can do much. (It was a big part of Pakistan's political change). 5) They can call on the Theocracy for help. How close the two are connected is the question.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In this case, the Guardian Council and the other bid council of religious scholars and what not that I can't think of the name of really do hold a large amount of power over and above what Khamenei does, and there are clear divisions inside those groups. It might be misleading to talk about factions in the upper echelons of power, but it's clear that this isn't just a people vs. tyrannical government fight. Khamenei has enemies amongst the elite.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
6) They can leave. Not in a "love it or leave it" kind of way, but I could definitely see a brain drain coming in Iran as the younger population - the ones most enthusiastic in the opposition - leaves to find a more hospitable home.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's already been happening to a degree, though not in huge numbers. It's happening for a number of reasons, though I think the economic ones are the biggest. Iran's economy has been doing extremely poorly for some time now, held together only by recently very high prices in oil, but even that's a long term loser since they've been producing less than their OPEC quota due to a lack of infrastructure updates.
But I don't see it happening in the huge numbers it would take to seriously weaken the opposition, and the biggest reason I think is that they'd rather stay and fix things than leave, though that's just my personal opinion. I have nothing to back that up.
Still, it's quite plausible if they really become that discontented.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Did you guys see what Khamenei said today?
quote: "Since the beginning of the revolution 30 years have passed. Events have happened that could eliminate the system and the regime," Khamenei said. "Try to forget about politics and remember spirituality. This is the way to gain freedom. From the beginning the revolution was based on the strength of your faith. "We have to go back to spirituality. It will lead the revolution to success in this materialistic world. It will make a strong pillar of the Islamic system and protect it from the troubles outside.
"Most of our youth are spiritual even if you don't see that in their faces. "Oh God give us a calm and peaceful heart. "About the issue of elections, the main issue of the country. There are three issues. One will be for the political leaders, our president, activists, western counties and leaders of the media. The elections of the 12 June was proof of participation of the people. It was a show of their love for their regime. We can't find other countries with such a level of democracy. "We have not had such participation (85%) since the revolution. The young generation especially showed their worry and their political obligations. There are differences between the people, some prefer different candidates. This is natural. This election was a big celebration of the revolution. That many people showing love and loyalty. This election was a religious democratic event. It showed dictatorial countries that this is a religious democratic country.
"The election showed that people with belief, hopes and joys are living in this country. Our enemies are using it. If the young did not feel free they would not have participated in the election. This trust is the biggest asset of the Islamic republic. "There were claims of fraud before the election. Don't listen to those allegations.
"The competition for the election was very clear. Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. That is not true, all four candidates support the regime." [He lists the government positions of the opposition candidates]. All of the candidates are part of this system and regime. Zionists and the bad British radio said it was a challenge to the regime.
"The issue is inside the system. The dispute is not against the revolution. The dispute was among candidates and there was a positive and negative effect. People were able to judge, they felt part of the system. All views were available to the people.
"The result was clear. They selected candidates they wanted. These disputes and conversations among candidates went to the streets and houses of the people. This gives strength to the system. This should not be misunderstood. The people should be ready to answer critics.
"Rumours spread that were not true, and gave a bad image to the previous government. Calling the president a liar is that good? This is against the truth. The 30 years of the revolution was turning black." Khamenei talks about the rumours about Hashemi Rafsanjani. He praises Rafsanjani as "close" to the revolution. "The youth should know that... He was at the service of the revolution. I do have some difference with him, but people should not imagine something else between him and the president.
"We don't claim there is no corruption in our regime. But this is one of the most healthy systems in the world. Zionists claims of corruption are not right. "My dear people, June 12 was a historic event. Our enemies want to cast doubt on it and portray it as defeat for the regime. The presidential campaign has finished. All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system. The people have trust in the revolution and the republic. The Islamic republic is not cheating against others. There is no cheating inside the election system - it is well controlled. There may been mistakes but 11 million [votes] is not possible.
"The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process. "The candidates should be careful about what they say and do" [Mousavi doesn't seem to be there]. "Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British.
"The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?
Well...this thing is going to get much worse before it gets better. I fear for the violence that will now inevitably follow. For the most part I've been so impressed and overwhelmed with the peaceful nature of these protests. hundreds of thousands of people walking silently. And they've taken to all sitting down en mass at the site of any approaching Basij. But I see two options for how this will proceed. The militia will become more violent and more protesters will be killed/beaten/arrested. Or the people decide a violent overthrow is the only recourse and this turns into a full fledged civil war. Either way...violence.
In other news, I've been wearing this all week to show my support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I watched about 15 minutes of it live while he was talking, and it sounded like utter gibberish, except for the extremely well choreographed breaks so the massive crowd could all chant slogans together, which was a little unnerving. Maybe it's just that it was lost in translation, but his speech was a meandering mass of incoherency. It seemed like he was just spouting off randomly about current events and then as if by clockwork, every five minutes he's just blame the whole thing on the West.
My favorite bit was when he said that there couldn't possibly have been election fraud, because it's against the law. That's rich.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great shirt, Strider. I have been struggling to find green things in my wardrobe.
I have the same problem in March.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm really not sure. Should we be rooting for a peaceful resolution or not?
It seems like Iran may be ripe for a enlightenment pop, which would entail a very drastic break from that ways that things are going now that would be vigorously resisted by the people currently in power. I very much doubt that this would be possible without a fair bit of violence (and would even be fueled by the stupid application of violence by the government forces).
But I don't think that an enlightenment revolution would be a simple thing. It seems like it would be a very long, very bloody civil war, with no inevitable winner.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It would depend entirely, I think, on just how revolutionary it would be. If it was to overthrow the entire religious establishment, it'd be bloody. If it was just to remove Khamenei from power and get a new election...that might be within reach if they're really pushing for a power change, without all out war. If it's just to get a new election, that might be yet easier, though still relatively very difficult.
Few to no people are suggesting that the protesters want such a fundamental change in the Iranian government.
It's hard to guess without knowing where the Revolutionary Guard falls on this issue.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Some Iranians are preparing for this to get worse:
quote:I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looks like this weekend is going to be "go time" for Iran. I think regardless, this weekend things won't stay the same. Either the protests deflate, or they escalate.
I think, for once, and totally by accident, the US government is actually doing the right thing in their rhetoric. Obama is toning it down to make it harder for Khamenei to use him as a symbol of western meddling. If he openly supports the protesters, he might spur them to action and then not be able to follow up (a la Bush with the Iraqi uprisings when Saddam slaughtered thousands). And for that matter, bold language might help unify Iran. But Congress is pushing support of the protesters hard, which shows them we DO support them, but can't do anything overtly.
Their political wrangling to try and score points off this is despicable, but what do I really expect from them?
McCain...oooooh McCain. For a guy who told lambasted Obama for being too blunt in discussing strategy in Pakistan, he's being extremely reckless in his calls for Obama to call the whole election a fraud and to pledge unflagging support to a movement that we don't at all understand...all with nuclear weapons hanging in the balance. If that's McCain's idea of foreign policy, I'm sleeping easy tonight with Obama in charge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Protesters are engaged in violent clashes with police and militia forces in Tehran.
Protesters are dressing down, or not wearing green or carrying signs, to try and fly under the radar, but large groups of police forces and white shirted Basidji (religious militia enforcers, more or less) are turning them away violently with tear gas, clubs and pressure hoses.
There are reports that a suicide bomber killed himself in an explosion at the shrine for the former Ayatollah Khomenei, and there are scattered rumors that some of the police forces involved do not speak Farsi and are not Iranians.
Mir Moussavi has reportedly (unconfirmed) declared himself cleansed and prepared for martyrdom, but he hasn't been seen all day, either at the rallies or at the Guardian Council meeting he was supposed to attend. The GC has agreed to recount 10% of the votes, but that doesn't seem to matter to the protesters, who are calling for a lot of different things, from a new vote, to shouting "death to the dictator" in reference to Khamenei. There are fears that Moussavi might have been arrested, and that Rafsanjani, an enemy of Khamenei and member of the Guardian Council might also be in danger of arrest.
What isn't being reported as much, and hasn't been reported over the last week, is the smaller protests that have taken place across the country in other cities. I haven't seen anything on it today, but I've seen tiny articles or mentions here and there of similar but smaller protests occurring all over the country.
A lot of this seems to be somewhat out of control. In some cases civilians are fighting with each other randomly on the streets, sometimes they run away from police and in other cases they surround police forces and beat them until some other protesters rush in to rescue the police forces.
Other than that, news is coming in very slowly.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
The news coming out today is very difficult to read and watch. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm going to post this, but with some really strong warnings. First off, the grand majority of it is in Farsi, and I can't come even close to deciphering it. But there are a few posts in English here and there. There are a few Moussavi speech videos with subtitles, but be warned, there are a couple really, really graphic videos, including one of a girl that was supposedly shot today by a Basiji member that made my head spin in its graphic nature. Take it with a grain of salt though. I have no idea how much is propaganda and how much is real but the news can't show.
yeah, that video you talk about is the one that did it for me today. i need some separation from this for a little bit.
I have the luxury to do that. Those people don't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To follow up what I was saying before about protests outside of Tehran; there are reports of violence at a university in Shiraz, and of mosque sit-ins in Tabriz and in northwest Iran.
Rumors on Twitter are saying that the Basiji are patrolling hospitals looking for protesters.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, heavens.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Yeah....the video of the girl dying is heart breaking. I had to go take a walk afterwards. This has taken a turn for the worse.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
From Obama:
quote:The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looking at footage of Saturday night in Tehran: Broken glass on the streets from smashed storefronts, burned out police outposts, and people screaming "Allahu akbar" from the rooftops into the dark night. You can't see any of them, but the words are distinct. Apparently they've been doing this for the past few nights, but reports are that this is the loudest it has yet been. I saw a video of it, you can't see a thing, but you can hear them all over the place and t IS loud. Basiji are smashing down the doors of the buildings where people are chanting on the rooftops, reportedly.
The girl who was killed in that graphic video is apparently refueling anger in a protest movement that many analysts were saying was beginning to slightly die down. Reports are that she is already becoming a rallying point, with her picture being printed and put on signs.
I did however see one analyst who, seemingly against the crowd of other analysts, said that she's positive nothing will come of this. The protest movement has no leaders like the Revolution 30 years ago head, or like any successful revolution really has, it's just happening out of nowhere. And the government has too many levers to pull in shutting them down. They've shut down cell phone networks, which kills text messaging, which has been the primary organizational tool. Add to that police power and a few other things, and they're just too strong. She, the analyst, thinks that what we're seeing is a wave of the future whose time has yet to come. I tend to agree, absent something big in the next few days. But that doesn't make it any less important.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe now we can dispense with the notion that Iran is any sort of 'democracy' of whatever geographical category?
Their government is also better, it appears, at suppressing dissent, than I would have expected and that I'd expected*, unfortunately. @#%#ing Ahmadinejad, Khomenei, & cronies. Maybe this sort of thing will at least drum up awareness and alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, because as we're seeing, it's not really the Iranian people we're dealing with when we deal with their government.
*I don't have a source for this. It's just that I can remember hearing, several times over recent years, that things in Iran weren't as bad as I thought, that its government wasn't as repressive as I thought.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I did however see one analyst who, seemingly against the crowd of other analysts, said that she's positive nothing will come of this. The protest movement has no leaders like the Revolution 30 years ago head, or like any successful revolution really has, it's just happening out of nowhere. And the government has too many levers to pull in shutting them down. They've shut down cell phone networks, which kills text messaging, which has been the primary organizational tool. Add to that police power and a few other things, and they're just too strong. She, the analyst, thinks that what we're seeing is a wave of the future whose time has yet to come. I tend to agree, absent something big in the next few days. But that doesn't make it any less important.
It is amazing how much this revolution is looking like what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and though they began for different reasons, this revolution in Iran will probably go the same way. What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy. Also, I just saw the video of the girl dying and that is simply tragic, but maybe she can be the rallying cry that the man who stood in front of the tanks in China failed to be.
I tend to agree with the analyst you mention Lyrhawn, but I think that something big *can* happen in the next few days. I think one of three things can bring about real and substantive change if they occur: the girl in the video becomes their Rosa Parks, Mousavi dies a martyr, or if Khatami can come back and rally the supporters against the the government. The people do need someone, anyone really, to step up and become the leader the people need them to be, otherwise I fear the same fate for all fail revolutions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy.
I'm wondering who ever actually classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as any sort of democracy in the first place. The hint that it's not is right there in its name, given the ease (or lack thereof) of not being Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What that does mean is that, as Rakeesh wonders, we can classify Iran as something other than a democracy.
I'm wondering who ever actually classified the Islamic Republic of Iran as any sort of democracy in the first place. The hint that it's not is right there in its name, given the ease (or lack thereof) of not being Islamic in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
Edit: Why is it that Obama seems to be on one level and everyone else on another? From his CBS interview this weekend:
quote: SMITH: People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?
THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.
What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universe." It's long but it bends towards justice.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey, that's almost exactly what I said the other day. Obama and I are in mind meld. But seriously, he's nailed it directly on the head. People who want him to say more, and a lot of Congress for that matter, don't understand the role that public interference plays in something like this.
I think the American public is a victim of its own nationalistic rhetoric from the last couple decades. We've spent decades telling ourselves over and over that we're the champions of freedom and that we support it everywhere and anywhere at all times, and call ourselves the best examples of it. But the truth of the matter is that we aren't the best example of freedom, and supporting it in all places at all times isn't practical, feasible, or constructive in the real world.
But national politicians don't kiss babies and then shout "Barring any major mitigating factors that might make it unhelpful to do so, America supports freedom abroad! All hail timely support for freedom given a good set of circumstances!"
So now that we're in a situation that no one really understands and requires patience and deliberation before taking action, people are responding with the tools they have available. When all you're given is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and Americans just want to pound something flat right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
The problematic part lies in how the IRI deals with dissent. That's a very, very key part of a democracy. In fact, you can't even really have a democracy without the ability to dissent publicly.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Oh that I have no idea. I do know that there are elections, that there are representatives of the people, and that a country that embraces religion is not necessarily un-democratic, which means that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fairly accurately named by at least those standards.
The problematic part lies in how the IRI deals with dissent. That's a very, very key part of a democracy. In fact, you can't even really have a democracy without the ability to dissent publicly.
Well, I think the people of Iran have the ability to dissent publicly, the problem lies in how far they want to take that dissent and whether the election was truly fair or not. The question is whether the representatives of the republic can perpetrate this fraud, get away with it, and abandon the rule of law of Iran because if they can, then Iran truly won't be democratic, even to the extent it was before. That's why I think this fight is so important, if the rulers of Iran can further force the forces of democracy to the side, they can become more extreme and brutal as they seek to maintain power, and that then becomes a problem for western/Iranian relations.
quote:So now that we're in a situation that no one really understands and requires patience and deliberation before taking action, people are responding with the tools they have available. When all you're given is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and Americans just want to pound something flat right now.
Yeah, it kind of reminds me of the campaign when everyone in the Democratic Party thought Obama should get angry over McCain/Palin, and yet, he met the situation with resolve and calm and won the day. If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's after noon now in Iran.
Influential head of the parliament Ali Larijani airs his opinions. And they aren't very friendly. He's a known Ahmadinejad hater, though usually is supportive of Khamenei, though here he has several critical things to say about the government. Larijani also has important family members among the religious elite of Iran's leadership.
Despite the early morning calm today, reports from human rights groups say that there have been hundreds of cases of arrests of political, religions, intellectual and media figures in Iran.
There are loosely confirmed reports of a great many things from yesterday. There are widespread reports that Basiji spent much of yesterday scouring hospitals for people injured in the protests and arresting them in their hospital beds. The Basiji also reportedly lay in wait in alleyways behind the route that protesters were forced down when retreating from police, so they could ambush protesters. The Basiji are being painted as far more brutal than the police forces, who in many cases hesitated greatly before engaging protesters, in many cases ran, and in others pleaded with protesters to go home before they had to use force. There are also confirmed reports of clashes in Shiraz, Ishafan and Tabriz.
Iran's highest police officer has warned Moussavi that any more protests will be 'decisively confronted,' which many are taking as a call for escalation. He also blamed Moussavi for everything and said that the police were the victims. There are reports from Moussavi's camp that he has ordered his followers to go on a national strike if he is arrested, but that is unconfirmed as well.
I haven't seen word from anyone of planned protests today, but it's quite literally high noon in Tehran.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, I think the people of Iran have the ability to dissent publicly, the problem lies in how far they want to take that dissent and whether the election was truly fair or not.
Well, OK, let me qualify something then. When I said that you can't have a democracy without the ability to publicly dissent, I didn't mean that any ability to publicly dissent, however small, met that requirement.
Barring slander, libel, or airing of national security matters, in a democracy people should have unfettered ability to dissent publicly, either in their own physical voices, or in print. They don't have that in Iran. Not even close, and not just in this crisis either. Which is one reason why they never really were a democracy. They were representative, sort of, but that's not the same thing.
quote:...that then becomes a problem for western/Iranian relations.
It's not already?
quote:If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs...
Taken to extremes and applied to all cases, though, this advice doesn't work either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universe." It's long but it bends towards justice.
and what a great position he is in to say that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Maybe now we can dispense with the notion that Iran is any sort of 'democracy' of whatever geographical category?
Their government is also better, it appears, at suppressing dissent, than I would have expected and that I'd expected*, unfortunately. @#%#ing Ahmadinejad, Khomenei, & cronies. Maybe this sort of thing will at least drum up awareness and alarm at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, because as we're seeing, it's not really the Iranian people we're dealing with when we deal with their government.
*I don't have a source for this. It's just that I can remember hearing, several times over recent years, that things in Iran weren't as bad as I thought, that its government wasn't as repressive as I thought.
I've read several tweets and Andrew Sullivan's site (anecdotes, of course) saying that only now do people feel like they are living in a police state.
I don't think Iran was as bad as reactionaries, or even the general public, in the US thought/think. It is definitely a different sort of democracy, and is definitely incompatible with American Democracy in some key ways, but it wasn't Saddam Hussein's level, or even Saudi Arabia's level, from what I understand.
I expect, even after this all works itself out, that Iran will remain an Islamic Democracy, though hopefully one where the two terms are more balanced.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've read several tweets and Andrew Sullivan's site (anecdotes, of course) saying that only now do people feel like they are living in a police state.
But it seems to me that the truth of the matter is, they were living in a police state before - it's not as though the government is different now, of course, which is the major point of contention after all - and simply weren't aware of it.
I'm only making this comparison because it comes easily to mind, not to take a shot at Iranians, but the animals (aside from the pigs) in Animal Farm thought they had things great before the very end of the story too, didn't they?
quote: I don't think Iran was as bad as reactionaries, or even the general public, in the US thought/think. It is definitely a different sort of democracy, and is definitely incompatible with American Democracy in some key ways, but it wasn't Saddam Hussein's level, or even Saudi Arabia's level, from what I understand.
Well, seeing as how I don't consider either Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq any sort of democracies at all - Saudi Arabia systematically disenfranchises half its population, after all - I don't think comparing Iran to them and saying, "It's not that bad," does much to advance the notion that Iran was or is a democracy.
Certainly right now it's not a democracy by anyone's definition, right? In response to peaceful protests of an extremely questionable election (or are Iranians really so extraordinarily conscientious that they vote in 95% numbers?), the government at first ignored them and now responds with bloody crackdowns.
That's not democracy. It's a form of representative government after a fashion, but that's about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Numbers from Saturday vary as to dead, injured and arrested. Iran state TV claims that 13 were killed, with other press sources saying 19, and unconfirmed rumors pushing the number as high as 150. Almost 500 were arrested on charges of vandalism. The Guardian Council has admitted that more votes were cast in at least 50 cities than there were eligible voters, but in the same breath has also said that the results are fair and there was no fraud.
Hundreds of protesters are currently in the streets headed for a square to meet. Today was supposed to be a memorial for the girl that was so graphically killed in the video I was talking about yesterday. But no signs of a vigil are apparent. Police and Basiji warn that any attempts to stand up to them will be met with a strong response. If it really is just hundreds, then it would seem the fire of last week's thousands has indeed died out after Saturday's brutal confrontations. I think it's a quarter to eight in the evening there right now. If that many haven't turned out yet, they likely aren't going to.
It's possible we've seen the end of the large scale demonstrations, and that now begins years of turmoil below the surface just waiting to erupt again. Or perhaps they're waiting for something big to happen, it's impossible to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, our ability to take protests "to the street" is not exactly unfettered here. While, thank goodness, things don't reach that level of violence here anymore, people do still get arrested, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets and so forth for protesting. Kent State was not all that long ago and we were a democracy then.
I will say again that democracy does not always mean that people will choose they way we would choose. Iran has a long way to go before they are a free society and that free society may not be pro-Western.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, our ability to take protests "to the street" is not exactly unfettered here. While, thank goodness, things don't reach that level of violence here anymore, people do still get arrested, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets and so forth for protesting. Kent State was not all that long ago and we were a democracy then.
Actually, in my opinion, when that happened we weren't a democracy. One of the many reasons that was a rather disgusting blight for us, in fact.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where do you draw the line? People getting arrested? Violently arrested? Killed?
I'm just saying that democracy is not an either or condition. It is always (even here) a somewhat messy work in progress.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I finally talked to some Iranians.
The first was my roommate. She basically said the situation was complicated. She didn't want to talk about it (I also think she didn't want to try explaining in English) and was avoiding the news because it was sad, and there was nothing she could do. Her family is from the east and not Tehran.
Last night I was watching CNN, and my roommate came out and said she didn't want to see that stuff on the TV (or me watching it) so I switched it to Family Guy as she left and she called over her shoulder that that wasn't the president on TV (they were showing Ahmadinejad when they came out). When she came back about a half hour later, she made a comment to tell me to tell everyone that nobody voted for Ahmadinejad.
I realized I knew where she was coming from. After Virginia Tech, people were discussing and debating the killer, and what had happened and what could be done. Well, a high school acquaintance of mine was among those murdered, and I found the people discussing the situation were concerned, but their concern was academic. From the standpoint of grief such discussion is painful and callous (even if the participants take their ideas very seriously), and I realized I had once felt that way too. Ironically, I had started following all of this so I knew what was going on in her home.
However, I had also talked to someone else, someone I had met earlier that day helping out a brunch. She's Iranian/Canadian and up until Tuesday was in Iran. She joked of having voted in two elections and neither of them came out the way she voted. She was willing to explain a lot of stuff and answer my questions (while putting off phoning home to ask for the latest). Here's what I learned:
1. She underscored how sketchy it was for Ahmadinejad to win. He won equal amounts of the votes in the hometowns of some of his opponents as he did in other places. Ethnicity has mattered historically in elections, and the idea that certain towns were suddenly not so rasicist is laughable and impossible. Ahdmadinehad is also very much a Shi'ite, and says things that offend Sunnis every time that he goes on the air. He just wouldn't win in towns with large Sunni populations. Period. Also, one of the candidates who was not Mousavi ran against Ahmadinejad in the last election and was #3. He got 5 million votes last time and this time fewer votes than ballots marked as invalid or blank. Anyway, any reasonable doubts I had about this election being shady are removed.
2. She said there were two million people on the streets of Tehran protesting. She voted in Tehran, and while they don't do exit polls, she didn't know of anyone who voted for Ahmadinejad. So to vote, you have to put in the candidates number, and people were asking each other in line what number to put, and there were cries of "44" (Mousavi's number) and "44 is the only number you need to know".
3. In Iran with state-controlled media, the rumors are generally the true. If someone says "it's rumored" you believe it.
4. Okay. We're all watching these protests to see if the people are going to overthrow the government. Admit it. We (Americans) love watching history live on TV and we love it even more when it goes our way. So I asked about revolution and she said no, not right now. The people just aren't organized enough to do it. She said her parents were involved in/supported the revolution in the 70s, even though they were in Canada at the time. She said that the idea for revolution really started in '72 and what happened in '79 was the result of organization and planning for several years. She thinks what has happened these past few weeks is the spark for the organization that will now need to take place.
5. She suspects the protests will go on protesting for two weeks. People will probably not walk away disillusioned from nothing happening, but get quietly planning.
6. She said good has come out of this because people have thought of the ruling class as very unified. Now, it's more clear which politicians are competent or incompetent. You can tell these people apart.
7. I also asked what news sources were good. She said BBC Farsi, so we asked which ones that we could read were good. She said the BBC, NPR (surprisingly to her) and I think a blog.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've been reading Al-Jazeera English, but they don't have nearly as much as CNN does. The BBC has historical ties to the area, so it's no surprise they'd have better coverage. NPR has stringers in the area too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Where do you draw the line? People getting arrested? Violently arrested? Killed?
I'm just saying that democracy is not an either or condition. It is always (even here) a somewhat messy work in progress.
As a general rule of thumb I'd draw the line at 'killed', since arrests and violent arrests can be a more local sort of problem, but when soldiers are killing people, that changes the equation dramatically-just to me, you understand.
And while it is a somewhat messy work in progress, I think the separation between democracy and not is a range of a line, not a completely subjective and functionally endless hazy area.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I've pulled up Twitter and #IranElection. The feeds are coming in by the hundreds. They range from Iranians giving testimonials to Iranian Government bots saying "Its all a US plot." There are tips for first aid, and tips on Twitter feeding that the Iran Govt can't catch.
Its compelling to read. Its sad, and hopeful, and just impressive on so many levels.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This may have been covered before, but I've been hearing that Mousavi wouldn't really be that much different from Achmadinejad.
Any credence to that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
according to the Daily Show he only Really really really really deslikes America while Achmadinejad hates America.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Reports are coming out that the families of those killed have to pay the Govt for the bullets used to kill them.
Average cost--$3,000 to reclaim your loved one from those who killed them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Myabe they can get a discount if more then one dies?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Yes. Mousavi was approved to run, so he's not really that radically different, but he's better for a few reasons.
Ahmadinejad is a blatant liar and pretty much lies every time he goes on TV. Mousavi is not so anti-women either. He "lets" his wife tag along with him on a lot of his stuff (my roommate has pointed out that that word let is a bit insulting, but it's a heck of a lot better than now).
From everything I've read it was a huge deal that he had his wife with him during the campaigns. She actually campaigned alone for a short time, making her own campaign stops, and became a big part of his campaign. That's pretty big for Iranian politics and Iranian society.
Some of the stories coming out from women protesters are both impressive in shocking.
The Daily Show last night was pretty interesting. I didn't really believe it at first, but Jason Jones is, or was, actually in Iran. He interviewed three Iranian people of note, all of whom were arrested by the government. Then the son of one of them, obviously shaken, was on the Daily Show last night as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
The Iranian soccer players who wore green bands in solidarity during the world cup have been banned from soccer for life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I saw that. It was very powerful. I think that Jon Stewart handled it well. He backed off the sarcasm immediately and with reasonable grace when he saw that the son was not (for good reason) going there.
Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Strider -
Damn, do you have a link to the story?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Yeah I saw that too. He tried a little joke and saw that it wasn't the time and immediately pivoted into serious mode. Classy. The crowd sensed the mood too.
Now I'll have to watch it, because my reaction to these descriptions was first to think, "Wow, Jon Stewart was 'on'* with the son of a guy arrested in Iran?"
My reaction to that wouldn't be 'classy', that's for sure.
*On meaning in the classic Daily Show sarcasm/satire style, which is very enjoyable and often pretty compelling to me when talking about politics in general...much less so when you're actually face to face with someone in real peril, or with a loved one in such.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I just watched a segment on the news where protesters were burning American and British flags in Tehran, and were not being stopped, and it occurred to me that broadcasting that to their own people might not have the intended effect they hope for, because now they might just have a better idea of some other ways in which they are being manipulated.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, the interview with the son followed a pre-recorded segment with one of the "reporters" doing one of their usual "interviews" with the father. In the interview it was crystal clear that the father was a reasonable and nice guy and not at all the bogeyman we (a general "we") tend to think of when we think of Iranian clerics.
Then we find out he has been arrested and Stewart interviewed the son. He started to be sarcastic about what a "threat" the father is, but dropped that schtick instantly and was sympathetic to the clearly very worried son.
It was classy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I feel better having seen it. To me, it seems like he was going the serious interviewer route initially, slipped a bit into Daily Show interviewer style, and (I'm guessing at his mindset here) realized it was a mistake and dropped it.
Just to be clear, I was never suggesting that the switch back to serious wasn't classy...just that the initial mistake could have been seriously unclassy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:He interviewed three Iranian people of note, all of whom were arrested by the government.
Before or after the interview?
EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
And yet somehow they manage to be better informed:
[ June 24, 2009, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup, I've seen that statistic (though not the article you linked) too. It just hasn't borne out in my personal experience is all. It's ironic, though, that in a poll concerning the Daily Show they stack up the Daily Show against Letterman and Leno. I think that's the sort of polling the Daily Show itself would make fun of, heh.
Newspapers and the O'Reilly comparison are good, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I"m not sure the emphasis on Leno and Letterman is the poll so much as the CNN article pulling what CNN thought was interesting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not suggesting they were the emphasis-just that including them in the poll in the first place wasn't helpful.
I mean, what are Leno and Letterman watchers doing in a poll about which news media viewers are better informed?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Maybe because Leno and Letterman are entertainment shows, just like the Daily Show has always claimed to be. I've heard John Stewart many, many times express disbelief that his show was every compared to actual news sources, such as newspapers or O'Reilly (in his case, "news").
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) examines a wide range of political attitudes about candidates, issues and the traits Americans want in a president. It also has a particular emphasis on the effects of media exposure through campaign commercials and news from radio, television and newspapers. Additionally, it measures the effects of other kinds of political communication, from conversations at home and on the job to various efforts by campaigns to influence potential voters.
I suppose Leno and Letterman with their topical monologues and interviews with politicians would be considered "other kinds of political communication" as much as The Daily Show or Colbert.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Back on subject, the twitter feeds keep bringing up Hamas.
Hamas is the Iranian backed terrorist group trying to become Palestine, and Jordan. Is there any other source saying that they are interfering with sympathetic protests elsewhere in the mid-east?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Did you see last night's segment? It looks like there are Daily Show fans in Iran.
quote:the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
On the contrary, fans of the daily show tend to have higher absorption of news, better recall of current events, and come with a better chance of being factually informed of the news with less incidence of misinformation.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
No hot dogs for you, Iran. Before the election and riots, the White House and State Dept. were encouraging diplomatic posts to invite Iranian colleagues to 4th of July parties as part of the new administration's outreach efforts. They've since called for posts to rescind the invitations. Which probably isn't a big deal since no Iranian diplomats RSVP'ed anyway.
More generally, though, Obama's reaction to the events going forward should better delineate how much realism he's willing to stomach in his foreign policy. Kissinger would probably say nothing has changed; you still have to engage Iran, regardless of the fraudulent election and repression of human rights. Realism dictates engagement with whoever is in charge, regardless of how they got there. But political considerations, as well as ideological revulsion, may dictate some period of refusal to engage. In the words of the article, quoting the President of the National Iranian American Council:
quote:The necessity of diplomacy has not changed by this...The political feasibility [of engagement] has changed.
So what should the administration do if (as seems likely) Ahmadinejad remains as the President. Obama already backed away from his campaign rhetoric of dialogue without preconditions by qualifying that he only favored "authoritative" engagement (meaning he doesn't want to talk to some patsy). Going forward, should he simply ice engagement all together based on bad behavior (Bush-style bad cop ideological foreign policy), or should he precondition any talks on being with someone other than Ahmadinejad and/or including discussion of Democracy and Human Rights (which seems to be the direction he's going), or should he stick with his campaign promise to engage without pre-conditions? And if he reattempts engagement, how long should he wait for Ahmadinejad's political radioactivity to decrease?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
This article discusses the possibility of the removal of Khameni, Iran's supreme leader:
quote:EDIT: I guess before. Man, I'm amazed the son would come on the show at all.
I'm not so surprised-whether or not he is a fan, Daily Show has a pretty darn big audience, after all. And that audience* might be hard to otherwise reach.
*Just anecdotal experience there. In my experience - not talking of Hatrack, which is a curve-wrecker in many ways - the more one is a fan of the Daily Show, the less likely they are to get or care about 'the news' elsewhere.
Did you see last night's segment? It looks like there are Daily Show fans in Iran.
friggin bullcrap I hate being linked to places that can't be shown in Canada, whats the point of NAFTA if I can't watch comedy central clips without resorting to a proxy?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
all the people holding up sings saying things along the lines of "I am Neda" remind me of the end of V for Vendetta.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unfortunately, if there's any comparison to be made to V for Vendetta, it rather seems like Iran is where England was when Evie's parents were 'disappeared', rather than at the conclusion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Iran frees five staff of British embassy
Four still held for 'interrogation', says Iranian foreign ministry, amid claims of involvement in post-election unrest
...
Downing Street today condemned the continued detention of four Iranians employed by the country's British embassy, as a partial recount of the disputed presidential poll got under way.
Nine embassy staff were arrested on Saturday accused of playing a significant role in the protests. Five have since been released, while the other four are "being interrogated", according Hassan Qashqavi, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman.
Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "We are deeply concerned at their arrest and their continued detention. These arrests are completely unacceptable and unjustifiable."
Yesterday, the Iranian intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseini Ejehi, said Tehran had video proof that Iranian employees at the embassy "were distinctly present at the scene of clashes" following the 12 June election.
"The embassy sent its local staff to rallies and inculcated ideas into the protesters and the society," he said.
Hmmm. Could be interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey guys! big news is kind of burbling out from underneath ahmanahanadhdigninigghnajahd's bootheel.
NYT
quote:An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.
“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”
oooooh, this clerical split is calling the protest dead martyrs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rafsanjani is still jawboning too. He's being careful about it, but he isn't being quiet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Perhaps most interesting of the chants was the crowd shouting "liar" while Ahmadinejad railed against Israel. I suspect they're hating on the man more than the message, but still, that's something.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Perhaps most interesting of the chants was the crowd shouting "liar" while Ahmadinejad railed against Israel. I suspect they're hating on the man more than the message, but still, that's something.
Probably. According to my Iranian friends, every other word that comes out of Ahmadinejad is a lie. Hopes of the western world aside, Ahmadinejad is flat-out a disliked, bad politician who controls the media.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb]Probably. According to my Iranian friends, every other word that comes out of Ahmadinejad is a lie.
It's funny how often I've heard that statement, verbatim. I have to wonder if it's a common Iranian saying or something.
--j_k
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*stashes for later reference*
quote:U.S. law enforcement appears to be reading from a playbook perfected in the streets of Tehran. In the wake of protests last week at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the police arrested a self-professed anarchist for using the social-networking site Twitter to coordinate communications among G20 summit protesters, and direct them away from police positions. The charge for this exercise of free speech: the criminal uses of a communications facility, in this case a computer and a Twitter feed.
According to news reports, the arrest was followed up by an FBI raid of the man’s house in Queens, NY, where they seized computers, phones, black masks, newspapers, books and pictures of Lenin and Marx (yes, pictures) looking for evidence of additional crimes. ... The next time protestors take to the streets of Tehran or Beijing, armed with cell phones and Twitter accounts, we should not be surprised when countries crack down hard on those tweeting the revolution and point to Pittsburgh as a precedent. And America will be relegated to the sidelines, rendered mute by our own foolish actions.
quote: The next time protestors take to the streets of Tehran or Beijing, armed with cell phones and Twitter accounts, we should not be surprised when countries crack down hard on those tweeting the revolution and point to Pittsburgh as a precedent. And America will be relegated to the sidelines, rendered mute by our own foolish actions.
Yeah, well, as upsetting as this story appears so far, much depends on what actually comes of it in trial. Not time to liken us to Tehran or Beijing just yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wouldn't compare us to Tehran or Beijing yet either, but I would also insist that the backlash needs to be swift and sure.
It's part of the give and take in healthy democracy, the police recognize that the person was using a tool they weren't use to dealing with and that it was making their job more difficult, we tell the police that as far as the law goes there was nothing illegal in the man's actions (Assuming I read the events correctly) and the man is set free. The police figure out how to deal with this new development and actually discover brains they already had and become more effective in the future.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: We'll see, thats why I'm stashing the story for future reference.
But I will say that given the lacklustre response to the current administration pushing the renewal of the Patriot Act or other Bush legacy positions, my expectations are kinda low.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I found this story more disturbing:
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
I agree with you that checking the files is overstepping their bounds. I can think of some really stretched hypotheticals where the officials might see evidence of child pornography and have grounds to look further into it, but from the articles presentation not in this case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: We'll see, thats why I'm stashing the story for future reference.
But I will say that given the lacklustre response to the current administration pushing the renewal of the Patriot Act or other Bush legacy positions, my expectations are kinda low.
I was actually curious on how you felt about the possibility of them reneging on dismantling Guantanamo bay. I'm currently trying to figure out a good second option but coming up with nothing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scholarette:I guess thats an example of a Bush legacy position which does not seem to be under any threat of repeal. These are the new bounds.
quote:The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search -- without suspicion of wrongdoing -- the contents of a traveler's laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.
The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers' laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.
But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.
"It's a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration," said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn't deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people's laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever." ... Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself "broke sharply" with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.
edit to add: BlackBlade: Well, obviously I'm disappointed.
But in a way, Guantanamo is just a very public and visible symptom. Closing it, while a good thing, does not necessarily solve the underlying problem.
Indeed, it appears that some of the debate (and indeed, some of the prisoners that otherwise were intended for Guantanamo) was already shifting from Guantanamo to Baghram anyways.
[ October 07, 2009, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I found this story more disturbing:
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
Basically a man was arrested at the airport when a "routine" search of his laptop revealed child porn.
I can understand checking to see if the computer was a bomb, but going through the actual contents of the computer as a routine search seems to be overstepping their boundaries.
I have to imagine that he'll have an excellent 4th amendment defense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, not so far anyways
quote:The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Suspicionless searches of suitcases and other "closed containers" at the border are considered reasonable, while searches of the person require grounds for suspicion because of the greater dignity and privacy interests involved. The government argues that searching a laptop is legally identical to searching a suitcase, and so far, several courts have agreed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( on her profile.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)