Iran's Civil Rights Violations

[genuinegirly]

Amnesty International is starting to speak up about Iran's civil rights violations. I'm curious what you political folks think about this.

Is Amnesty International's statement likely to impact policy?
What steps would Iran need to take to reverse current trends?
Is it ingrained throughout the system, or would a simple change in leadership be effective?
How does Iran's lack of civil rights impact other nations?

December 11, 2009
Amnesty International Assails Iran’s Rights Record
By ALAN COWELL
LONDON — Amnesty International said on Thursday that human rights violations in Iran after protests against the flawed presidential election in June were as widespread at any time in the past 20 years and should be “fully and independently investigated.”

The report spoke of “many allegation of torture, including rape, unlawful killings and other abuses” and said that “members of militias and officials who have committed violations must also be promptly held to account and on no account should any one be executed.”

The report was published after Iran’s broadest and most violent protest in months spilled over into a second day on Tuesday, with bloody clashes on university campuses between students chanting antigovernment slogans and the police and Basij militia members.

The clashes took place on campuses across the country as students and opposition members took advantage of National Student Day on Monday to vent their rage despite a broad government effort to forestall them.

After the elections in June, in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the overwhelming victor, opposition protesters took to the streets to challenge the outcome, presenting the authorities with their most intractable political crisis since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested and some of them were prosecuted at mass trials. The opposition said 70 people were killed.

In its report, Amnesty International urged Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to allow two United Nations human rights experts to enter the country to investigate.

Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, an Amnesty International specialist on the Middle East and North Africa, said: “The Iranian leadership must ensure that the many allegations of torture, including rape, unlawful killings and other abuses are fully and independently investigated.”

The Iranian authorities offered no immediate response to the report.

“To date, the investigations announced by various Iranian authorities seem to have been more concerned with covering up abuses than getting at the truth,” Amnesty International said in a statement accompanying the report.

The document revived allegations, which the Iranian authorities have denied in the past, that prison authorities raped or threatened to rape detainees.

According to Amnesty International, one former detainee said he was held in a shipping container along with 70 other people at the Kahrizak detention center for 58 days and was told that his son would be raped if he did not confess to antigovernment activities.

“The authorities must show that they have turned the page on the abuses committed this summer. They must now ensure that the policing of protests conforms fully to international standards on law enforcement, and keep the Basij and other strong arm forces off the street,” Amnesty International said.

[Seaver]

I honestly doubt any person would wake up and say "Oh my God, Iran has a bad government! Thank you AI!"

Amnesty International hasn't stopped any foreign government from doing anything, nor are they revealing anything new in this instance.

[roachboy]

thing is that it's often not in the interest of a state to directly violate the civil rights of the population because the fact that it's being done by agents of the state makes the violations into a directly political matter. so these attacks on demos in favor of the opposition and imprisonments etc. have had the effect of galvanizing opposition to ahmadinejad.
at the same time, there's a real problem in a situation such as this for an opposition movement to the extent that there are very few if any options within the existing political system for the redress of problems/grievances etc.
given that, opposition actions are pushed outside the normal operation of the machinery and so are more likely to be treated in the way they're being treated.

given the way in which the clerics who run the show have used the rhetoric of the revolution to maintain themselves in power ideologically, and from what i've read over the past months when i've looked at reports about internal politics in iran since the election debacle, it's pretty obvious that rhetorically the ahmadinejad administration is more than willing to cast the opposition as a threat to the existence of the state--agents of the americans, so the functional equivalent of "terrorists" in the language of the bush people---you know, a kind of redrawing of the us/them line.
once that move is made, it becomes all to easy to engage in violence against citizens.
there's no obvious way to stop it from happening

if that's the case, then it's really quite important that organizations like amnesty publish the reports like this and that these reports get attention internationally. consider it a kind of invisible pressure (which can spill over into quite tangible pressure) on ahmadinejad and the council of clerics to show restraint in their treatment of opposition. such pressure is about the only mechanism that's available (mechanism may be too optimistic a word) for pressure to be brought.

[Seaver]

But it wouldn't cause any more pressure. It's just as easy for Iranian Revolutionary Government to paint the protesters as agents of America as it is any other country. Just as the counter-protests set up by the government chanted "Death to Britain" they could insert any country and have it have equal validity (none, but it doesn't matter).

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Seaver

But it wouldn't cause any more pressure. It's just as easy for Iranian Revolutionary Government to paint the protesters as agents of America as it is any other country. Just as the counter-protests set up by the government chanted "Death to Britain" they could insert any country and have it have equal validity (none, but it doesn't matter).

not unlike american mainstream media painting any person or group who ends up in a violent contest with the US government as radical, extremist, anti government, or rightwing militia.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

not unlike american mainstream media painting any person or group who ends up in a violent contest with the US government as radical, extremist, anti government, or rightwing militia.

Persons or groups who end up in a violent contest (or promote violence) with the US government ARE extremists and predominantly anti-government, right wing militia-types.

Unlike Iran, the US Constitution provides the means by which persons can seek redress of grievances.

[Seaver]

Thanks Dux.

The use of painting anyone in opposition to you as "tools of (insert here)" is a tactic applied by people on all sides in all countries. It's cheap, but effective. Which brings me back to my last post of A.I. not being effective because the only pressure the Iranian Government will actually have to answer to is it's own people.

[Willravel]

Is Amnesty International's statement likely to impact policy?
No. I love AI, but they're surprisingly easy to ignore outside of the US and Europe.
What steps would Iran need to take to reverse current trends?
Iran wouldn't take steps to reverse current trends. The Leader and council
Is it ingrained throughout the system, or would a simple change in leadership be effective?
In this case, a change of leadership is absolutely necessary. The opposition are challenging the legitimacy of an illegitimate (though ultimately unimportant) election, but in actuality we may be seeing the beginnings of revolution or even civil war in Iran. It's in the interest of the current "administration" to keep these people afraid, even though it's mostly just a temporary way of dealing with the problem. Totalitarian regimes function the way they want to when things are just comfortable enough to not revolt. They crossed the line with this election and now things are getting worse and worse. Snowballing into revolution would be very bad for Khamenei, though ultimately I feel it would be best for Iran. Real, home-grown revolutions in the face of tyranny stand the best chance of giving rise to peaceful, stable democracies.
How does Iran's lack of civil rights impact other nations?
Indirectly, I suppose. The west still seems interested in demonizing Iran, and this is giving those fear mongers a bit of ammunition.

[Wes Mantooth]

I have to agree with you Will about a revolution or civil war. I've wondered over the last few years (especially in the wake of the elections) if something wasn't brewing on the horizon. I wonder if the opposition posses enough strength with the population to build any kind of meaningful revolution be it in the ballot box or through war, often times it seems oppositions builds only to fizzle and ultimately go nowhere. I have noticed that Iran seems to have an unusual amount of information being spread about the country for such totalitarian govt. and If that trend continues I wouldn't be surprised to see the opposition gain enough support to launch some real meaningful changes with in the country.

To address the OP I don't think the report will have very much impact unless its to bolster the opposition. A theocracy like Iran needs heavy control on the population to maintain its position, to loosen that grip in any way would cause widespread problems if not a complete collapse of the current regime. I would imagine it would be more then a simple change in leadership to correct the problem, rather a massive overhaul starting with removing the supreme leader from power and abolishing the position. Simply putting a new cleric in the position ultimately wouldn't change anything unless he unusually progressive and orchestrates the changes himself. Other then perhaps providing a model for other regimes I don't think Irans civil rights issue would impact other countries in any major way.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Persons or groups who end up in a violent contest (or promote violence) with the US government ARE extremists and predominantly anti-government, right wing militia-types.

this is solely your own personal opinion, and that of others, but by no means is absolute truth.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unlike Iran, the US Constitution provides the means by which persons can seek redress of grievances.

and when those means are denied, you're just screwed? no, I think not.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this is solely your own personal opinion, and that of others, but by no means is absolute truth.....

Right......just like your narrow interpretation of the Constitution is just your own personal opinion and that of others, but by no means is the absolute truth.

While external reports like the AI report shine light on the issue, the greatest barrier to ensuring the civil rights of the Iranian people is the fact that under the Iranian Constitution, the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) is not accountable to the people, the Council of Guardians (hand-picked by the Ayatollah) has to approve any candidate running for president, and the Supreme Council (de facto Supreme Court) is not an independent judiciary.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Right......just like your narrow interpretation of the Constitution is just your own personal opinion and that of others, but by no means is the absolute truth.

because it's so damned hard to clearly understand 'shall not be infringed', that we need 9 black robed tyrants, 435 lawmakers, 18 different special interest groups, and a handful of lawyers to actually interpret those words as if we hadn't taken english vocabulary.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

While external reports like the AI report shine light on the issue, the greatest barrier to ensuring the civil rights of the Iranian people is the fact that under the Iranian Constitution, the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) is not accountable to the people, the Council of Guardians (hand-picked by the Ayatollah) has to approve any candidate running for president, and the Supreme Council (de facto Supreme Court) is not an independent judiciary.

while here in the US, we also supposedly have a system where our elected leaders are held accountable to the people and an independent judiciary, yet our rights are still violated on a daily basis. hows that working?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

while here in the US, we also supposedly have a system where our elected leaders are held accountable to the people and an independent judiciary, yet our rights are still violated on a daily basis. hows that working?

I don't know.... vastly better than in Iran?

* * * * *

The thing with Iran is that they are an authoritarian theocracy and are vehemently protective of their power and have been since the revolution. We see the same thing in China, North Korea, and other places where individual freedom threatens the power base that has been holding the place together for a while.

It's nothing new, really. I can't expect Iran to change for the better. They might be more tactful in the future, but their goal will be the same.

[dksuddeth]

[quote=Baraka_Guru;2738401]I don't know.... vastly better than in Iran?

you think so?

maybe you should open your eyes and your mind. Check out the following link.

Injustice Everywhere

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The thing with Iran is that they are an authoritarian theocracy and are vehemently protective of their power and have been since the revolution. We see the same thing in China, North Korea, and other places where individual freedom threatens the power base that has been holding the place together for a while.

If you can actually think, for even one second, that the US and UK governments aren't also vehemently protective of their own power.......well, all I can say is I hope the sand doesn't clog up your ears and nose too much.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you think so?

maybe you should open your eyes and your mind. Check out the following link.

Injustice Everywhere

Wow. You're comparing a series of isolated incidents to what's going on in Iran. How interesting.

If you can actually think, for even one second, that the US and UK governments aren't also vehemently protective of their own power.......well, all I can say is I hope the sand doesn't clog up your ears and nose too much.

Are you comparing the authoritarianism of Iran, China, and North Korea to the U.S. and the U.K.?

Just curious. Because I smell a red herring.

You talk about my opening my eyes and mind and keeping my head out of the sand.... but what's with the smoke screen?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Wow. You're comparing a series of isolated incidents to what's going on in Iran. How interesting.

isolated incidents? are you serious? tell us, and this is for all the police apologists on here, when does it no longer remain 'isolated incidents'? Do you require every police officer to fire indsicriminately at civilians? maybe half? I gotta know are you all that accepting of DAILY numerous incidents of abuse?

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you comparing the authoritarianism of Iran, China, and North Korea to the U.S. and the U.K.?

yes, I am. Again, open your eyes and your mind. Stop focusing on mainstream media reports because they are NOT operating in YOUR best interests, they are operating on THEIR best interests and their interests are NOT in exposing the states abuse of authority.

[Martian]

Y'know, just once I'd like to see a thread in Politics not be completely derailed by dksuddeth's beef with the US government. For a change of pace.

dksuddeth, you've made your views clear. This isn't a thread for discussing civil rights violations within the US. If that's what you'd like to discuss, you're more than welcome to go start one.

The only way the western world has of helping those who are in such dire need is through political pressure -- the Amnesty International condemnation is a vehicle to make that happen.

Direct action begets more violence.

roachboy has outlined my thinking well enough.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

isolated incidents? are you serious? tell us, and this is for all the police apologists on here, when does it no longer remain 'isolated incidents'? Do you require every police officer to fire indsicriminately at civilians? maybe half? I gotta know are you all that accepting of DAILY numerous incidents of abuse?

A series of coincidences may look like an orchestrated war machine to you, but when you are dealing with a population hundreds of millions, it may be an optical illusion.

This isn't the thread for this.

yes, I am. Again, open your eyes and your mind. Stop focusing on mainstream media reports because they are NOT operating in YOUR best interests, they are operating on THEIR best interests and their interests are NOT in exposing the states abuse of authority.

Okay, so you think that things in the U.S. are just like they are in, say, North Korea. Okay, thanks.

I think we're done here.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

A series of coincidences may look like an orchestrated war machine to you, but when you are dealing with a population hundreds of millions, it may be an optical illusion.

This isn't the thread for this.

Okay, so you think that things in the U.S. are just like they are in, say, North Korea. Okay, thanks.

I think we're done here.

we were done when you considered the voluminous amounts of police misconduct as 'isolated' incidents.

---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Martian

Y'know, just once I'd like to see a thread in Politics not be completely derailed by dksuddeth's beef with the US government. For a change of pace.

just so we're very clear here, I have not hijacked every political thread with my beef over the US government. I would appreciate it very much if you could keep my number of postings in context with everyone elses, realizing that I RARELY derail threads with my beefs. thank you.

Originally Posted by Martian

The only way the western world has of helping those who are in such dire need is through political pressure -- the Amnesty International condemnation is a vehicle to make that happen.

political pressure will do nothing for these people. It hasn't worked in China. It didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work in North Korea, and it will not work in Iran. As stated above, these totalitarian powers are more concerned with their own control over their own people than they are with how they will be accepted politically by other nations.

Originally Posted by Martian

Direct action begets more violence.

and sometimes direct action is the ONLY thing accomplishes anything. I refer you to our own history.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

political pressure will do nothing for these people. It hasn't worked in China. It didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work in North Korea, and it will not work in Iran. As stated above, these totalitarian powers are more concerned with their own control over their own people than they are with how they will be accepted politically by other nations.

Political pressure along with a peaceful people's revolution worked pretty well with the Yellow Revolution in the Philippines, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Solidarity movement in Poland....

and sometimes direct action is the ONLY thing accomplishes anything. I refer you to our own history.

When in our history (post-Constitution) has direct armed action accomplished anything?

[The_Dunedan]

Political pressure along with a peaceful people's revolution worked pretty well with the Yellow Revolution in the Philippines, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Solidarity movement in Poland....

Quite true. However, the above tactics only work with the targeted government either;

A: Gives a shit what its' constituents think of it, or
B: Gives a shit what the rest of the world thinks of it.

When you're dealing with the likes of the Iranian, Chinese, or North Korean (and frequently American) government, which neither gives a shit for it's constituents opinion nor a fart for anyone elses, nonviolent tactics lose their effectiveness. "Tank Man" was the bravest, hardest motherfucker of the last 100 years. That was MAGNIFICENT. But he didn't change or stop anything; thousands of Chinese civilians died, and the massacre has been so thoroughly covered up that most Chinese know of Tienanmen Square only as an idealistically ill-conceived "student uprising" which revealed only the need for greater military and political indoctrination in the University system.

The only true backup that any nonviolent movement posesses, the only thing to make an otherwise-indifferent State pay attention, is the threat of armed violence should the nonviolent means fail. Nobody played ball with Martin Luther King because they -wanted- to! They played ball because everybody from Hoover on down knew that if they didn't dance with Martin, they'd dance with Malcolm...and Malcolm wouldn't be unarmed, and he would be bringing lots of friends. Nobody in the British Gov't -wanted- to deal with Ghandi, but they knew that Nehru would be a -much- bigger pain in their arse, especially once railway lines and police stations started blowing up. Governments are -force-. Force, or the threat of force (even if unstated) is all they understand. What is an election, after all, but counting the heads in each army, calculating the odds, and giving the day to the anticipated victor?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Quite true. However, the above tactics only work with the targeted government either;

Dunedan, do you really think that most of these people truly care about what goes on in these countires or even come close to understanding the fragility of how nearly identical those incidents come close to the same events in our own country?

not even close. most of these people here are police apologists, not unlike i've said before.

thanks for speaking up for me though.

[Baraka_Guru]

I guess it's difficult to keep perspective when you live in a country with such well-protected freedom and rule of law. When you look to such totalitarianism as found in North Korea, Iran, and even the United States, that infringes on so many basic human rights, it still can be a challenge to think outside of what you're used to experiencing.

I suppose I take my fortunes for granted.

The problem with Iran is that its abuses are too ingrained in the system. As I mentioned above, they are working to maintain authoritarian power. In a world where democracy is infective, they brace against sudden change and individuals and groups vying for the freedom and personal power found elsewhere.

What goes on in Iran on an overt and government level, and perhaps what goes on in the U.S. on a more subtle and fragmented level, may indeed have an impact on nations such as Canada.

We have had our own issues recently with dealings with other nations that don't have the same level of standards regarding human rights and rule of law, and we've had some political upheaval and even a bit of progress in that regard. I'm a little ticked at how resistant and sometimes unresponsive the conservative government has been, but they can only exert their will so far, being that they are a minority power.

We've even had issues regarding our national police recently, but, thankfully, that's being dealt with in such a way that aims to punish those who are responsible for any wrongdoing. Accountability and taking responsibility is often on the menu when things come to the fore politically, especially on the national level.

In light of what goes on in Iran and other areas abroad with similar problems, whether they clinch onto their current situations, or progress for the better or for the worse, nations such as Canada must stick to their principles and standards. We must uphold our values and not bow or compromise when dealing with others.

We've made some missteps recently in light of the GWOT and related political outcomes based on it, but I think if we keep in mind who we are as a nation, we can navigate our way in this world and not sell ourselves out in the process.

Any dealings we have with Iran won't be easy, but we do what we must or we fade into insignificance, which is another danger that preoccupies us as a nation. I think we've done relatively well in being diplomatic on most fronts. Coincidentally that in general tends to be in line with who we are, and that's something we can build on.