Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, International | Tags: Barack Obama, Elections, Foreign Policy, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Protests, Revolution, Reza Aslan, Suzanne Maloney, Violence
In Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution’s Suzanne Maloney bolsters the case that Iran’s political unrest isn’t about the United States–and that the Iranian people alone can decide their country’s destiny:
If anyone needs another reminder of how minimal Americans’ understanding of and access to Iran has become, the discourse in Washington over the past week certainly provides one. As scenes of Iranian bravery and bloodshed have unfolded, American pundits and politicians have fixated on President Obama’s syntax and inflection. Although a passing familiarity with Iranian history, as well as Iranians’ appeals for Washington not to meddle in their nascent movement, buttress the case for caution, the tempest over presidential semantics is at best a pointless exercise and at worst a distraction from the serious question ahead: How will Iran’s internal crisis will impact U.S. policy?
The fact is, no matter how much Americans like to think they are the ones shaping events in Iran, it’s just not true. The dramatic events in Iran have been wholly internally driven. They are the product of three decades of semi-competitive Iranian elections, a sophisticated population that warily guards its limited rights and freedoms, the tensions of a longstanding elite power struggle, and the ever-important force of unintended consequences – among other factors. Better for the United States, then, to focus on those areas where it actually has some capacity for influence: namely, its own Iran policy, and more specifically, how Washington can move forward with engaging Tehran in light of the dramatic changes of the past 10 days.
As profound as recent events have been, engagement remains the only path forward for Washington. Whenever the dust settles in the tumultuous battle on the streets and behind the scenes, direct U.S. diplomacy continues to represent the most viable mechanism for addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. After all, Obama’s interest in engagement was never about the Iranian leadership, and until very recently, most experts expected a second Ahmadinejad term. Instead, the case for engagement was – and still is – rooted in the urgency of the world’s concerns about Iran’s ambitions and the even-less promising U.S. policy alternatives, such as military action or externally sponsored regime change.
[...]
But what about Iran’s burgeoning democracy movement? And what useful role can and should the United States can play in advancing it? Given recent events, it was inevitable that some American pundits and policymakers would renew their calls for additional U.S. democracy assistance programs for Iranian reformers. This would be precisely the wrong move – not because it would compromise the climate for nuclear negotiations, but because Iran’s own activists have consistently rejected such funding. They don’t want it, and elections-related news such as the massive reformist vote monitoring effort suggests they don’t need it. Better for Washington to focus efforts on where it can be both useful and welcome, such as last week’s timely intervention to encourage Twitter to defer network maintenance during a crucial moment of the protests.
[Emphasis mine]
In an interview with Al Hunt, both former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger side with President Obama:
HUNT: What the critics say is that we wouldn’t have taken that attitude in South Africa in the 1980s, we wouldn’t have taken – shouldn’t have taken that attitude in Tiananmen in 1989, or in Hungary or in Czechoslovakia in the ’50s.
ALBRIGHT: I think very different. And I think the point here is you have to understand the differences.
So for instance, I know a lot about Czechoslovakia and Poland. Those were very different kinds of bottom up revolutions against the Soviet Union. And frankly, there was a very big issue in Hungary. And this is something that people have to be careful of.
The administration in the 1950s kept saying to the Hungarian people, we will help you if you rise up. And then we didn’t. And so there’s a lot of blame that goes around. Czechoslovakia in 1968, same thing.
So first of all, they’re very different. Those revolutions were very nationalistic. And just a different situation.
BERGER: Now the fact of the matter is what the President has said has been very tough. And he’s escalated his rhetoric as the situation has escalated. In the early first days, it was not appropriate to prejudge how this thing would unfold. But his rhetoric over the past few days and his statements have been clear, have been strong, and have been appropriate.
[Emphasis mine]
HuffPo brings us a 10-minute long video of yesterday’s brutal crackdown:
And Reza Aslan writes about the possibility of a compromise solution emerging:
Reliable sources in Iran are suggesting that a possible compromise to put an end to the violent uprising that has rocked Iran for the past two weeks may be in the works. I have previously reported that the second most powerful man in Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts (the body with the power to choose and dismiss the supreme leader) is in the city of Qom—the country’s religious center—trying to rally enough votes from his fellow assembly members to remove the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power. News out of Iran suggests that he may be succeeding. At the very least, it seems he may have gained enough support from the clerical establishment to force a compromise from Khamenei, one that would entail a runoff election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main reformist rival Mir Hossein Mousavi.
[Emphasis added]
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Clerics, Elections, Iran, Islam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mullahs, Revolution, Violence
In one of the most significant developments of the Iran uprising, CNN is reporting that some Islamic clerics are joining the opposition protests:
In a blatant act of defiance, a group of Mullahs took to the streets of Tehran, to protest election results that returned incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.
Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown. What is important here, is the decision to march against the will of Iran’s supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mullahs rule supreme. They are the country’s conservative clerics; the guardians of the Islamic revolution and its ideologies. They’re loyal only to God and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
[Emphasis mine]
Iran also expelled two diplomats from Britain — a nation it bitterly accuses of meddling and spying — and Britain in turn sent two Iranian envoys home.
The latest moves, and a fresh deployment of riot police and militia to break up any street gatherings, signaled the regime’s determination to squelch dissent and mute the voices of those whose protests have been the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
[...]
No rallies were reported Tuesday. Many in Tehran seemed hesitant to confront the feared Revolutionary Guard and members of the Basij militia, suggesting the harsh response wrought by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to large and boisterous demonstrations may have weakened the opposition’s resolve.
[Emphasis added]
Reports are also coming in that opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi has been placed under house arrest. There are also reports that another major demonstration is being planned for Wednesday at 4:00 PM Tehran time.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, Government, IOKIYAR, International, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Rights | Tags: Arrogance, Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Neoconservatives, Republicans, Revolution, Violence
Conservatives are hitting President Obama over Iran, arguing that he should be doing more to support the opposition there. I bristle at the politicization of the situation in Iran because, ultimately, what the Iranian people are going through isn’t about us, it isn’t about American politics and we shouldn’t be making it about us.
First off, I find it pretty disingenuous for conservatives–who spent years calling for the United States to bomb Iran–to suddenly show so much concern for the Iranian people. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out a few days ago:
During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled “The Case for Bombing Iran,” and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he “hopes and prays” that the U.S. “bombs the Iranians.” John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
[…]
Advocating a so-called “attack on Iran” or “bombing Iran” in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives.
Second, like I said, this isn’t about us. It’s about Iran and the Iranian people. The uprising in Iran is really two simultaneous conflicts–the fist is pro-democracy demonstrators facing off against an oppressive government. To that extent, Obama has done what should be expected of a President of the United States—he spoke out in favor of democracy, in favor of free speech and free assembly, and denounced the Iranian government for their violent, brutal crackdown against their own people.
But there’s another conflict here that conservatives are not seeing or not acknowledging–the political conflict over the disputed election. The major players in Iran’s unrest are the ruling party and the opposition party. That’s partially why Obama hasn’t done what conservatives want and side with the demonstrators—that would, in effect, be telling the Iranian people who their next president should be.
One of the basic tenets of democracy is that sovereign states should be able to hold elections without interference. The Iranian people have a right to decide—as much as they are allowed to—who should govern them; it’s not the job of the United States (or anyone else) to declare winner.
Iran’s election occurred, was stolen, and resulted in violence. But, in the end, this is still an Iranian political dispute, though a decidedly violent one. Iran–and only Iran–should determine the course their country takes. They have that right, and Obama has said from the start he isn’t going to take that right away from them.
Honestly, if Iran’s conflict didn’t involve a disputed election, I too would be criticizing Obama for not doing more. But the fact that the core of this fight is about who will run Iran makes it infinitely more complex.
Third, if Iran’s opposition wanted America to get involved they would ask us to. Mousavi and his movement are the center of the world’s attention at the moment; they have a large microphone at their disposal. Yet, we’re not hearing the opposition call for the United States to get involved. As the National Iranian American Council says,
People in Iran have told NIAC’s Iranian-American membership that they don’t want the US to get itself involved in the conflict, but they do want to see the government’s use of violence condemned
[...]
If America’s posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism
I trust the opposition to understand more than anyone how American involvement would affect their movement. The the fact that they haven’t called on Obama to do what conservatives say he should do is telling.
Fourth, it’s funny how conservatives–who like to dismiss Barack Obama as nothing but lofty rhetoric–are now suddenly believers in the power of a speech. But even if Obama did what conservatives wanted and spoke out in favor of the opposition, nothing would change. The opposition would still demonstrate; the government would still crack down; the situation would be as bloody and violent as it currently is if not moreso. As it is, the Iranian government is trying to portray the protesters as puppets for America and the West; if Obama came out fully on the side of the opposition, it would vindicate those paranoid, conspiratorial fantasies and justify even more violence and murder. Obama taking the opposition’s side would do little to help but a lot to hurt; the opposition knows this and that’s why they aren’t asking for Obama’s support.
As an additional note, conservatives are outraged that the administration is going ahead with a planned diplomatic meeting with Iranian representatives on July 4th. But that shouldn’t be surprising or controversial—Obama has always said that America shouldn’t talk only to its friends and that diplomacy shouldn’t be a reward for good behavior. And Obama’s foreign policy was the one chosen by the American people last November.
And how idiotic is it that conservatives are calling for Obama to make a speech, which would accomplish very little, yet they attack him for wanting to engage iwth Iranian diplomats, even though that would actually give us a chance to affect Iran’s polity. And for anyone who would claim that a despotic, terrorism-supporting nation cannot be changed through diplomacy, all I have to say is: Libya.
The arrogant conservatives who would have America further meddle in Iranian affairs don’t know what they’re talking about; they’re the same arrogant conservatives who engineered the Bush administration’s failed, disastrous foreign policy. Iran isn’t about us. It isn’t about Barack Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans; it’s about Iran and the Iranian people. If you truly believe in democracy, then you must believe that the Iranians should decide their own fate instead of having America decide it for them.
UPDATE: Super special note to Sen. John McCain: you lost the election. Get over it.
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Basij, Elections, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Neda, Neda Agha-Setan, Revolution, Violence
There is more news trickling in this morning of the Iranian government brutally suppressing opposition demonstrators:
Riot police attacked hundreds of demonstrators with tear gas and fired live bullets in the air to disperse a rally in central Tehran Monday, carrying out a threat by the country’s most powerful security force to crush any further opposition protests over the disputed presidential election.
[...]
Witnesses said helicopters hovered overhead as about 200 protesters gathered at Haft-e-Tir Square. But hundreds of anti-riot police quickly put an end to the demonstration and prevented any gathering, even small groups, at the scene.
At the subway station at Haft-e-Tir, the witnesses said police did not allow anyone to stand still, asking them to keep on walking and separating people who were walked together. The witnesses asked not to be identified for fear of government reprisals.
Just before the clashes, an Iranian woman who lives in Tehran said there was a heavy police and security presence in another square in central Tehran. She asked not to be identified because she was worried about government reprisals.
“There is a massive, massive, massive police presence,” she told the Associated Press in Cairo by telephone. “Their presence was really intimidating.”
[Emphasis mine]
And Time tells the story of Neda, a young Iranian woman who was allegedly shot to death by the Basij.
Her death was caught on video and has spread throughout the internet; some people are now portraying her as a martyr for the opposition’s cause:
A gruesomely captivating video of a young woman — laid out on a Tehran street after apparently being shot, blood pouring from her mouth and then across her face — swept Twitter, Facebook and other websites this weekend. The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran’s escalating crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes.
[...]
Although it is not yet clear who shot “Neda” (a soldier? pro-government militant? an accidental misfiring?), her death may have changed everything. For the cycles of mourning in Shiite Islam actually provide a schedule for political combat — a way to generate or revive momentum. Shiite Muslims mourn their dead on the third, seventh and 40th days after a death, and these commemorations are a pivotal part of Iran’s rich history. During the revolution, the pattern of confrontations between the shah’s security forces and the revolutionaries often played out in 40-day cycles.
[...]
“Neda” is already being hailed as a martyr, a second important concept in Shiism. With the reported deaths of 19 people Saturday, martyrdom also provides a potent force that could further deepen public anger at Iran’s regime.
Meanwhile, a number of European countries are opening up their embassies to wounded demonstrators who need medical attention but risk arrest and/or execution if they go to an Iranian hospital.
A number of videos chronicle the escalating violence in Iran. Here, police attack a group of unarmed students in Shiraz:
And here a group of opposition demonstrators successfully fight off a group of Basij:
This video allegedly shows opposition forces setting fire to the gas lines that lead to the Basij headquarters:
And pictures, from Andrew Sullivan:
UPDATE: BBC Persia (translated by HuffPo) has more on Neda Agha-Setan. Apparently she was not a supporter of Mousavi–she simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was killed because of it.
Which, in my opinion, is even worse–Agha-Setan was gunned down even though she wasn’t a member of the opposition. So, whoever shot her is targeting people indiscriminately, whether or not they show any sign of being a Mousavi supporter.
UPDATE II: Here are two videos from today’s demonstrations:
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Revolution, Violence
Violence in Iran has escalated to unprecedented levels. Reports from people on the ground there claim that people are being “crudely killed” and that the “Basij forces and police were killing young people like animals.” In southern Tehran, supporters of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi set on fire a building used by backers of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The AP is reporting that dozens of protesters were seriously beaten during one protest at Tehran University:
The witnesses told The Associated Press that between 50 and 60 protesters were seriously beaten by police and pro-government militia and taken to Imam Khomeini hospital in central Tehran. People could be seen dragging away comrades bloodied by baton strikes. Helicopters hovered over central Tehran. Ambulance sirens echoed through the streets and black smoke rose over the city. Tehran University was cordoned off by police and militia while students inside the university chanted ‘death to the dictator,’ witnesses said.
And there was another clash near Revolutionary Square:
Eyewitnesses described fierce clashes near Revolution Square in central Tehran after some 3,000 protesters chanted “Death to the dictator!” and “Death to dictatorship!” Police responded with tear gas and water cannons, the witnesses said.
As well as a supposed bombing at a shrine dedicated to Ayatollah Khomeini:
English-language state TV said a blast at the Tehran shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had killed one persona and wounded two but the report could not be independently confirmed due to government restrictions on independent reporting.
This video shows protesters clashing with police:
And The Guardian reports:
An eyewitness in Enghelab square reports around 20,000 riot police, made up of Basiji militiamen and soldiers, and armed with rifles, tear gas and water cannons.
The eyewitness saw dozens of people beaten by riot police in an attempt to frighten them into evacuating the square, with one young man being beaten to the ground by four policemen.
The protesters were not wearing the green insignia that signifies support for Mousavi, and were not making victory signs or chanting.
The eyewitness reports riot police attacking people on passing motorbikes and, on occasion, innocent passersby who have no way of escaping the heavy police presence. Nonetheless, there are thousands of Mousavi supporters, marching peacefully near the square, where rthey have been subjected to these brutal reprisals from the police.
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Basiji, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Opposition, Revolution, Violence
Here’s a shocking video this morning of a man with an automatic weapon firing on a crowd of demonstrators and then throwing some kind of gasoline bomb down on them.
Since this YouTube is part of a news segment I’m not sure how long they’ll let it stay up before they pull it. The first minute is the most important part:
And this next video shows a man on a rooftop opening fire on another group of demonstrators–you can see one man getting shot before being carried off:
The killing of demonstrators is part of a disturbing trend, as the New York Times reports:
The daytime protests across the Islamic republic have been largely peaceful. But Iranians shudder at the violence unleashed in their cities at night, with the shadowy vigilantes known as Basijis beating, looting and sometimes gunning down protesters they tracked during the day.
[...]
The vigilantes plan to take their fight into the daylight on Friday, with the public relations department of Ansar Hezbollah, the most public face of the Basij, announcing that they planned a public demonstration to expose the “seditious conspiracy” being carried out by “agitating hooligans.”
“We invite the vigilant people who are always in the arena to make their loud objections heard in response to the babbling of this tribe,” said the announcement, carried on the Web site Parsine.
The announcement could be the first indication that the government was taking its gloves off, Iranian analysts noted, because up to this point the Basijis, usually deployed as the shock troops to end any public protests, have been working in stealth.
[...]
“It is the special brigades of the Revolutionary Guards who right now, especially at night, trap young demonstrators and kill them,” said Mohsen Sazegara, an Iranian exile who helped write the charter for the newly formed Revolutionary Guards in 1979 when he was a young aide to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. “That is one way the regime avoids the responsibility for these murders. It can say, ‘We don’t know who they are.’ ”
[Emphasis mine]
And Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is also taking a hard line:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sided with hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and offered no concessions to the opposition. He effectively closed any chance for a new vote by calling the June 12 election an “absolute victory.”
The speech created a stark choice for candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and his supporters: Drop their demands for a new vote or take to the streets again in blatant defiance of the man endowed with virtually limitless powers under Iran’s constitution.
Khamenei accused foreign media and Western countries of trying to create a political rift and stir up chaos in Iran.
[Emphasis mine]
Supporters of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi are going to great lengths to keep their demonstrations peaceful; many are scheduling rallies to commemorate those who have been killed in the recent violence.
Below, courtesy of HuffPo, these pics show opposition supporters lighting candles in memory of the dead:
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Elections, Iran, Mir-Hossain Mousavi, Protests, Revolution, Violence
Opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi gave a speech to his supporters earlier today; here’s the translation:
I have come due to concerns of current political and social conditions – to defend the rights of the nation. I have come to improve Iran’s international relations. I have come to tell the world and get back Iran’s pride, our dignity and our future. I have come to bring to Iran a future of freedom, of hope and of fulfillment.
I have come to represent the poor, the helpless, and the hungry. I have come to be accountable to you, my people, and to this world. Iran must participate in fair elections. It is a matter of national importance. I have come to you because of the corruption in Iran. 25% inflation means ignorance, thieving and corruption.
Where is the wealth of my nation? What have you done with the $300 billion in the last four years? The next Government of Iran will be chosen by the people. Why do all our young want to leave this country? I know of nobody else who places himself ahead of 20 million other of a nation.
This image–as well as the image of a smashed computer I posted a few days ago–is from when plainclothes government security forces raided dorms at Tehran University:
Well, apparently an inquiry into those raids led to a fistfight in the Iranian legislature:
Apparently, Abutorabi (Parliament secretary) questioned the connections of the plainclothes security forces who had earlier storm Tehran University’s dorms and killed and injured students. Abutorabi claims that those individuals have been identified and says: “Why do plainclothes individuals without permission from the government get to storm the dorms?”
Then Ansari, a member of the parliament took the floor and talked about the “fact finding” committee and the fact that everyone in that comittee is an Ahmadinejad supporter and therefore questioned the legitimacy of the committee.
After Ansari, Abutorabi took the floor again and continued questioning the plainclothes security forces once again. At this point Hosseinian, Koochakzadeh, and Resaee, the three biggest supporters of Ahmadinejad in the parliament, started a verbal argument which ended with a number of physical fights. As a result a number of pro and anti Ahmadinejad members of the parliament join the fight and start slapping and pushing each other.
In the end, the anti Ahmadinejad block claims that they will expose the identities of those behind the plainclothes security forces.
Keep in mind that the pro and anti Ahmadinejad blocks belong to the same political party! I think the government is starting to crack up from the inside.
[Emphasis mine]
UPDATE: More pics, from Andrew Sullivan and HuffPo:
UPDATE II: And here’s a video of one of today’s rallies:
Craig Labovitz brings us evidence of Iran’s crackdown on the internet:
The state owned Data communication Company of Iran (or DCI) acts as the gateway for all Internet traffic entering or leaving the country. Historically, Iranian Internet access has enjoyed some level of freedom despite government filtering and monitoring of web sites.
In normal times, DCI carries roughly 5 Gbps of traffic (with a reported capacity of 12 Gbps) through 6 upstream regional and global Internet providers. For the region, this represents an average level of Internet infrastructure (for purposes of perspective, a mid size ISP in Michigan carries roughly the same level of traffic).
Then the Iranian Internet stopped.
One the day after the elections on June 13th at 1:30pm GMT (9:30am EDT and 6:00pm Tehran / IRDT), Iran dropped off the Internet. All six regional and global providers connecting Iran to the rest of the world saw a near complete loss of traffic.
[Emphasis mine]
And here’s a visual representation of the drop-off:
UPDATE: More pics from HuffPo:
UPDATE II: This is, by far, the best piece I have read so far on what the American response to the Iranian protests should be:
This lingering belief among Iranians that America has some unique control over their fate is a legacy of the two nations’ tangled past. Beginning with the American coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, in 1953, through to Jimmy Carter’s tepid response to the revolutionary crowds that helped bring down the shah’s regime in 1979, both U.S. action and inaction are considered equally powerful among most Iranians.
Given this history, Iranians have looked curiously to Washington in recent days, eager to see what America’s new president has to say about Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent re-election and the furious protests it has unleashed. The years I’ve spent living in Iran, both under President Ahmadinejad and his more moderate predecessor, led me to expect that most people would be desperate for a nod from America. Until last week, Iranian student leaders often insisted that they didn’t have the power to meaningfully oppose their government from the inside. They said they needed the West to pressure the mullahs as well, in hopes that the regime would eventually feel squeezed on all sides.
But in conversations with friends and relatives in Tehran this week, I’ve heard the opposite of what I had expected: a resounding belief that this time the United States should keep out. One of my cousins, a woman in her mid-30s who has been attending the daily protests along with the rest of her family, viewed the situation pragmatically. “The U.S. shouldn’t interfere, because a loud condemnation isn’t going to affect Iranian domestic politics one way or the other. If the supreme leader decides to crackdown on the protests and Ahmadinejad stays in power, then negotiations with the United States might improve our lives.”
[...]
Other friends I spoke with cited various reasons why the United States should maintain its discrete posture. “If Obama’s position until now has been to respect Iran, then he really has no choice but to watch first how things unfold. Mousavi hasn’t produced any facts yet, no one has produced evidence of fraud,” said my friend Ali, a 40-year-old photographer. “That’s what is needed before Obama takes a major stand.”
My older relatives fretted particularly that any real criticism by the United States would be used as a pretext by Ahmadinejad to blame the protests on “outside enemies,” a reflexive response for the president when dealing with even housing inflation and the rising price of tomatoes. “It’s better for Obama to stay out of this. Given what happened with Bush in Florida, Ahmadinejad can always claim the United States is in no position to lecture anyone about fair elections,” my aunt noted.
[Emphasis mine]
UPDATE III: More along those lines from the National Security Network:
Calling for the United States to directly support the protests – even symbolically – could place the demonstrators in severe danger. The Iranian regime is feverishly attempting to label the demonstrators as western agitators backed by the United States – Iranian state television even used a clip from FOX News in an effort to make this point. Therefore the calls from Pence, Cantor, and McCain are not only just unhelpful, but they are a total gift to Ahmadinejad.
[Emphasis added]
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Elections, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Revolution, Violence
Even though the Iranian government is cracking down on journalists and jamming communication, a reformist inside Iran managed to smuggle this video to a French news agency.
Translation:
We didn’t want to rebel, but we want freedom, democracy and equality. We can’t use the Internet to get the news, all websites have been filtered and mobiles are jammed. FriendFeed, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and all social networks are also filtered. All the news agencies are also filtered and some newspapers have closed.
[The authorities] have lowered Internet speed to such a low rate that we cannot follow the news with it. Our state media is also cooperating with the government — they don’t show any news at all. All these things signify what we’re going through right now.
The Christian Science Monitor presents the case that the Iranian election was stolen. Some excerpts:
Defeated challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi claims that the official result of 62.6 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad and just 33.7 percent for him was a “dangerous charade,” and has called for a new election. His newspaper, Kalameh Sabz, reported that more than 10 million votes were missing personal identification numbers that made the votes untraceable. He also says some polling stations closed prematurely, preventing some voters from casting ballots.
[...]
Results from 39.2 million handwritten ballots came much more swiftly than in previous votes, emerging within hours. Detailed election data typically released has not been made public.
Iran’s Supreme Leader sanctioned Ahmadinejad’s victory after a day, instead of the customary three.
Ahmadinejad made a surprisingly strong showing in wealthier cities, where he is known to have less support, and in the ethnic strongholds of his rivals. Results from cities and rural areas normally vary, but this time were remarkably consistent.
[...]
Analysts expected a closer race, if not a reverse of that result, after a final surge in cities across Iran galvanized a large anti-Ahmadinejad vote.
Secret Iranian government polls reported by Newsweek earlier this month estimated that Mousavi would win 16 to 18 million votes, and Ahmadinejad just 6 to 8 million. Those polls found that even the Revolutionary Guard and Iran’s “vast intelligence apparatus seem to have come around to this position: a large majority of them also plan to vote for Mousavi,” Newsweek reported.
[...]
Farhi says of the 11 million new Iranian voters, she “simply, simply cannot believe” that Ahmadinejad could have won 8 million of them.
[Emphasis mine]
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Protest, Revolution, Violence
While it’s looking increasingly likely that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may lose the presidency, it doesn’t look as if he will do so quietly:
In Tehran and many other cities, Ahmadinejad does not boast the same levels of support as Mousavi, but twice since the crisis began he has succeeded in gathering tens of thousands of supporters into impressive victory rallies, and his tone is far from penitent. The president provoked the ire of Mousavi’s supporters when he referred to them as “chaff” and “unimportant”, and when he compared their emotions to the pique of a football supporter whose team has lost. On June 15 he was in Moscow, where he pronounced learnedly on the economic and political woes of the United States, without deigning to mention his own.
The possibility of a major confrontation – with or without the participation of the police, who have so far behaved with relative restraint – cannot be discounted. Although Ahmadinejad’s support base is smaller than Mousavi’s, his followers are more fanatical and better armed. On June 14, seven Mousavi supporters were killed during a confrontation with basijis who were firing from their barracks in south Tehran, and the speaker of parliament, no supporter of Mousavi, has demanded an inquiry into brutal raids that were staged on a dormitory at Tehran University and a residential block of flats. It is hard to say whether levels of violence are rising or not, since most of it goes unreported, particularly when it happens in provincial towns, but the confidence of Mousavi’s supporters seems not to have been dented by the arrest of several leading reformists. Rather, it has been bolstered by the success of their monster rallies and the obvious reluctance of the authorities to use overwhelming and lethal force against them.
For those watching around the world, with fascination and horror, the drama is in the streets, but the resolution, if there is one, lies in the corridors of power. In the past, Khamenei has trodden a fine line between the demands of a young population and the need, as he sees it, to defend the core values of the Islamic Republic. Now, as never before, the two are in direct confrontation.
[Emphasis mine]
But it’s also looking increasingly likely that Ahmadinejad may end up bearing the brunt of the Iranian people’s fury:
[B]oth sides’ legitimacy depends upon not being the aggressor in the event of violence. That’s why, notwithstanding the opposition’s dramatic demonstrations and the regime’s brutal but relatively limited repressive measures, both sides have essentially been playing for time. It’s as if two armies were maneuvering in close proximity, knowing that the first one to open fire loses.
It seems obvious that Khamenei and Moussavi realize this, and I’ve read reports (Le Monde here) that suggest some of the Revolutionary Guard commanders realize it also. Judging by his rhetoric, though, I’m not convinced that Ahmadinejad realizes it.
[...]
My sense is that the only non-violent way out of this impasse that restores the regime’s legitimacy (i.e., its stable grip on power) while allowing the opposition to save face is to find a scapegoat. Ahmadinejad would make a useful one, with a plausible scenario then being an interim president followed by a new election. Alternatively, some subordinate to Ahmadinejad could take the fall, with the opposition placated by the kind of institutional accommodation I mentioned yesterday.
[Emphasis mine]
UPDATE: Here’s a really good video from today’s massive, 500,000-person march:
UPDATE II: And now the demonstrators are being threatened with death:
Reuters reported that Mohammadreza Habibi, the senior prosecutor in the central province of Isfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be executed under Islamic law.
“We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution,” Mr. Habibi said, according to the Fars news agency. It was not clear if his warning applied only to Isfahan, where there have been violent clashes, or the country as a whole, Reuters said.
UPDATE III: More pics, from HuffPo:
UPDATE IV: Even more pics, from Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish:
Filed under: Breaking, International | Tags: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Elections, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Protests, Revolution, Violence
[Bumped]
Iran’s Assembly of Experts is calling an emergency meeting–they’re the only people in Iran who can replace Supreme Leader Khamenei–and speculation is that they’ll either to replace Khamenei entirely or force him to drop his support for Ahmadinejad.
According to Iran expert Reza Aslan:
Some of my sources in Iran have told me that Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who is the head of the Assembly of Experts — the eighty-six member clerical body that decides who will be the next Supreme Leader, and is, by the way, the only group that is empowered to remove the Supreme Leader from power — that they have issued an emergency meeting in Qom.
[...]
There’s only one reason for the Assembly of Experts to meet at this point, and that is to actually talk about what to do about Khamenei. So, this is what I’m saying, is that we’re talking about the very legitimacy, the very foundation of the Islamic Republic is up in the air right now. It’s hard to say what this is going to go.
[Emphasis mine]
Possibly in response to the writing on the walls, Khamenei is now getting more involved in trying to end the standoff:
Ayatollah Khamenei has not appeared in public since the election results, but now seems to be deeply involved in the search for a solution to the stand-off.
Meeting representatives of the four election candidates, he urged all parties not to agitate their supporters and stir up an already tense situation. He also repeated his offer of a partial vote recount, a proposal already rejected by the main opposition.
“In the elections, voters had different tendencies, but they equally believe in the ruling system and support the Islamic Republic,” the Associated Press reported him as saying.
“Nobody should take any action that would create tension, and all have to explicitly say they are against tension and riots.”
Here’s video of a massive rally in Ishafan on Monday:
And here is footage of fighting in the streets; gunfire can be heard in the background:
UPDATE: It should be noted that, yesterday, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri condemned the election results:
“No one in their right mind can believe” the official results from Friday’s contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi’s charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers “in the worst way possible.”
“A government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy,” he declared in comments on his official Web site. “I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to ’sell their religion,’ and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God.”
What’s interesting here that Montazeri was once designated as the successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, but was ousted because of his criticism of the government’s human rights abuses.
His name is also being circulated as someone that the opposition would like to replace the current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
UPDATE II: A picture of this incident has been making the rounds, but here is a video of a man who was allegedly shot in the head by a pro-Ahmadinejad militia. Obviously, this is quite graphic:
UPDATE III: Here’s an excerpt from a fantastic piece written by an Iranian born in 1984 during the Iran-Iraq war:
My generation is tired of being disillusioned. We refuse to accept the status quo and we have risen up in defiance. I am not sure how long it will take for the totalitarians to crush our resistance. For now though, we’re holding up just fine. We’re holding up fine even though our brothers at Basij and the police are murdering their dear fellow Iranians. We’re holding up even though you bash us with clubs and batons and try to suffocate us with your tear gas.
A nation stands tall refusing to succumb that easily.
UPDATE IV: Here, in full, is the cyberwar guide for the Iranian elections:
The purpose of this guide is to help you participate constructively in the Iranian election protests through Twitter.
1. Do NOT publicise proxy IP’s over twitter, and especially not using the #iranelection hashtag. Security forces are monitoring this hashtag, and the moment they identify a proxy IP they will block it in Iran. If you are creating new proxies for the Iranian bloggers, DM them to @stopAhmadi or @iran09 and they will distributed them discretely to bloggers in Iran.
2. Hashtags, the only two legitimate hashtags being used by bloggers in Iran are #iranelection and #gr88, other hashtag ideas run the risk of diluting the conversation.
3. Keep you bull$hit filter up! Security forces are now setting up twitter accounts to spread disinformation by posing as Iranian protesters. Please don’t retweet impetuosly, try to confirm information with reliable sources before retweeting. The legitimate sources are not hard to find and follow.
4. Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.
5. Don’t blow their cover! If you discover a genuine source, please don’t publicise their name or location on a website. These bloggers are in REAL danger. Spread the word discretely through your own networks but don’t signpost them to the security forces. People are dying there, for real, please keep that in mind…
UPDATE V: More pictures from HuffPo:
Filed under: International | Tags: Elections, International, Iran, Oppression, Protests, Violence
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, International, Iraq, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Scandal, Terrorism | Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Democrats, Incompetence, Intelligence, Iraq, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, Speaker Pelosi, Torture
So DC is consumed with trying to figure out what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and when.
Strange, since I thought that the people who committed crimes were more important than the people who heard about them.
Still, what led to this media-created firestorm? First, some Congressional Democrats–Pelosi included–discussed launching a truth commission to determine who was responsible for the authorization/implementation of torture.
Second, the CIA released several documents showing that Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats were briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002. There was no indication which techniques were described, nor was there indication of whether Congress was told those techniques were purely hypothetical or being implemented.
Nonetheless, Republicans jumped on the documents of proof that Speaker Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002 and was therefore somewhat culpable in the torture coverup. But that conclusion isn’t borne out by the evidence–it makes assumptions about what was in those briefings that aren’t grounded in reality.
The CIA alleged that Congress was told exactly what they were doing; Pelosi contradicted them and said the CIA was misleading the public, just like they had mislead Congress in 2002. Since there are no solid records of what the CIA told Congress–since these were classified intelligence briefings–we don’t know who is telling the truth.
Conservatives are taking the CIA’s side because it’s politically advantageous to them, but it’s not very sensible. It’s hardly as if the CIA is an objective, unbiased player in all this–doesn’t it serve the CIA’s interest to divert attention away from the implementation of torture and onto a political sideshow? I mean, if there was a comprehensive investigation into torture, wouldn’t it put the entire CIA under a microscope? They have a vested interest in clouding up the investigation with political posturing and conflict, since it saves them from having to confront–and be held responsible for–their role in torture.
Plus, the CIA is pulling together records of these briefings from whatever they have lying around from 2002. Remember, the CIA circa 2002 wasn’t a bastion of competence and credibility; that was about the same time they were gathering the faulty intelligence that led to the Iraq War. As much as John Boehner may cry about the poor maligned “intelligence professionals” I don’t think you can give them the benefit of the doubt.
This story is only a few days old and we’re already seeing evidence that the CIA’s recollection of events isn’t accurate. Take this, for instance:
Almost every briefing described in the document — including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that’s directly at issue — refers to “EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn’t used until at least 2006.
That’s not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.” In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn’t until 2006 that — amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration — the EIT program was formalized, and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were properly defined and given a name.
And this:
Rep. David Obey has sent a letter to [CIA Director Leon] Panetta complaining that a staffer identified in the documents as being briefed was in fact denied access to the briefing.
And this:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House intelligence committee, told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz (h/t Democratic Underground):
On our subcommittee we are beginning an inquiry into a situation … initiated by the ranking minority member to look at a situation where the CIA did mislead the Congress … a documented issue of the CIA misleading the Congress.
A Schakowsky spokesman told TPMmuckraker that she was referring to the findings of a CIA inspector general report, portions of which were released last fall, which concluded that the agency had withheld crucial information from Congress and DOJ investigators who were probing whether CIA personnel committed crimes relating to the shooting of a missionary plane in Peru in 2001.
[Emphasis added]
And:
April 2002 (two briefings), September 2002: When Bob Graham first asked the CIA when they had briefed him on torture, they gave him a list of four dates, two in April 2002, and two in September 2002. However, when Graham reviewed his famously detailed notes, he discovered he had not attended any briefing on three of those dates (both April dates and one September date). The CIA conceded he was correct on the issue.
[...]
February 4, 2003: The CIA claims that, along with Pat Roberts and two staffers, it briefed John Rockefeller on EITs “in considerable detail” including “how the water board was used.” Rockefeller says, however, that he “was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community.”
And finally, from the CIA themselves:
As the agency has pointed out more than once, its list — compiled in response to congressional requests — reflects the records it has. These are notes, memos, and recollections, not transcripts and recordings.
[Emphasis mine]
In short, the CIA hasn’t proven themselves trustworthy in the past and they don’t appear to be very trustworthy on this particular issue.
Let me be clear: this entire issue is nothing more than a political witchhunt. The CIA is doing classic CYA, trying to keep their complicity in the torture debacle from becoming public. The GOP is piggybcking on the CIA’s CYA in order to attack Speaker Pelosi and Congressional Democrats.
They want to drive a wedge between Pelosi and the anti-torture left by trying to mixing Pelosi up into the Bush administration’s torture program, hoping she’ll be forced to justify at least some of it.
They want to throw enough dirt on Pelosi to keep her from launching a truth commission, in case she ends up implicated.
And most of all, they want a scalp. They want to destroy Pelosi’s career, make that the opening salvo in their much dreamed-of political comeback. All the GOP knows to do anymore is drum up a scandal and ride it to political success; it looks like they’re hoping like that particular chapter of their playbook still works.
Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The Bush administration authorized and implemented torture. They broke the law; they need to be held accountable. Whoever may have been told what when isn’t important; who actually justified torture and made it happen is. Don’t let the real criminals get away; don’t let them divert your attention onto trivial political distractions.
Filed under: Conservatives, International, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Terrorism | Tags: Dishonesty, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Los Angeles, Stupidity, Torture, Waterboarding
In order to defend the indefensible, conservatives are turning to their old standby: lying.
Right now, some of them are claiming that, because the United States waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a terrorist attack on L.A.’s Library Tower was thwarted.
Well, except for the fact that Bush administration documents claim that particular plot was thwarted in 2002, and KSM wasn’t apprehended by the United States until 2003.
So, we waterboarded KSM 183 times and what did we get? Useless intelligence on a terror plot that we had already thwarted.
Totally worth it, right?
UPDATE: And for those conservatives out there who say waterboarding isn’t torture–Christopher Hitchens had himself waterboarded, and he says it is. Until I see any of you guys strapped down with former Special Forces members pouring water down your throat, I’m going to trust his word over yours.
UPDATE II: Also, this:
One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.
[Emphasis added]
So, instead of preventing another 9/11, torture may actually be contributing to the next 9/11.
Heckuva job and all that.
Filed under: 2010 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Economics, Government, Health Care, International, Iraq, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Congress, Democrats, Hypocrisy, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick McHenry, Politicking, Republicans
Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry lets slip the GOP’s real goal:
“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010…our goal is to bring down approval numbers for Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”
That’s right–the Republican Party’s priority isn’t fixing the economic crisis. It’s not creating jobs or growing the economy. It’s not getting our troops safely out of Iraq or helping them to succeed in Afghanistan. It’s not reforming our health care system or ensuring that Social Security and Medicare remain strong. It’s not helping hard working families keep their homes or afford to send their kids to college.
No, the Republican Party’s #1 priority is hurting the Democrats’ approval ratings; their only goal is regaining political power.
This is why the GOP is–and should remain–in the minority. They’ve become so obsessed with politicking that they don’t remember what they were elected to do in the first place; they can’t look at anything outside of whether or not it’s politically advantageous to them. While the adults work to clean up the messes the Republicans made, all the Republicans can think about is how they can start making more messes.
Every Democrat in the country should have Rep. McHenry’s words memorized–the American people need to be constantly reminded of just how frivolous and unserious the Republican Party has become.
Filed under: Interesting, International | Tags: Faith 47, Monday Street Art, South Africa, Street Art
Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Government, International, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine | Tags: Democrats, Economic Stimulus Package, New Deal, Republicans, Unemployment, World War II
It has become a common trope among conservatives that the New Deal “failed”–that is to say, it didn’t really fix the Great Depression and may have actually prolonged it. According to this line of thinking, it was really World War II that solved the Great Depression.
The “New Deal failed” argument is being used to argue the economic stimulus package, basically asserting that, if massive government spending didn’t work then, it probably won’t work now, so we should find some other way to resolve our economic crisis.
First, did the New Deal actually fail, or is this argument just a smokescreen being used to undermine an economic stimulus bill that Republicans don’t like? Even if you go by these figures from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, you see that unemployment drops by more than 57% between when FDR implements the first New Deal and when the U.S. enters World War II. Considering that the New Deal was a program designed to create jobs and reduce the massive unemployment rate, it’s hard to imagine how that would constitute a failure.
But what bothers me more is the WWII part of this argument, because it just doesn’t make any sense. Economically, what was the Second World War but a massive government spending program that absolutely dwarfed the New Deal in terms of cost? I mean, that’s how World War II helped the economy–it led to the government investing unprecedented amounts of money in the war effort. Millions of new jobs were created, particularly in the manufacturing sector, where America was suddenly producing everything from military uniforms to bullets to tanks and bombers.Plus, the millions of soldiers deployed in the war effort were sustained by federal spending, since the government paid for everything from the food they ate to the clothes they wore.
You can’t deny that World War II was a far bigger government spending program than the New Deal–at the time, the war effort cost $288 billion while the New Deal cost just $32 billion. In today’s dollars, WWII cost $3.6 trillion while the New Deal cost just $500 billion. And not only was the Second World War massive government spending, it was massive deficit spending; between 1941 and 1945, adjusted for inflation, the national debt quintupled.
So when conservatives argue that the New Deal didn’t fix the economy but World War II did, they’re actually saying that the massive government spending program did more good for the economy than the smaller government spending program. They have no trouble arguing that it took the equivalent of $3.6 trillion in government spending to fix the Great Depression, yet are balking at an $800 billion economic stimulus package today.
I agree that the New Deal didn’t fix the Great Depression and that it took the WWII war effort to really end the crisis. But that argument contends that we should be spending more money to fix this crisis, not less; I worry that our $800 billion stimulus package isn’t enough, not that it will be too much. And, despite what conservatives may argue, history isn’t on their side here.
UPDATE: Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has more about the conservative “New Deal failed” delusion:
Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP — not much, when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal.
Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don’t imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious.
[Emphasis mine]
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, House, International, Iraq, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Terrorism | Tags: Republicans, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Al-Qaeda, Colorado, California, Stupidity, Afghanistan, Bill Ritter, Guantanamo Bay, 1993, Supermax, Prisons, San Francisco, Alcatraz Island, Ted Kaczynski, John Walker Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui, Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma City, Terry Nichols, Richard Reid, Eric Rudolph, Ramzi Yousef
Now that Guantanamo Bay is closing, conservatives would have us believe that the detainees there represent the worst of the worst from Iraq and Afghanistan, even though no case against them has ever been presented and none of them have ever officially been found guilty of anything.
But now we’re learning that there aren’t even case files on many of the inmates at Guantanamo:
President Obama’s plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials — barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees — discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.
Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is “scattered throughout the executive branch,” a senior administration official said.
[...]
Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration’s focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority.
[...]
“All but about 60 who have been approved for release,” assuming countries can be found to accept them, “are either high-level al-Qaeda people responsible for 9/11 or bombings, or were high-level Taliban or al-Qaeda facilitators or money people,” said [a] former official who, like others, insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters about such matters. He acknowledged that he relied on Pentagon assurances that the files were comprehensive and in order rather than reading them himself.
[Emphasis mine]
(Yes, because we all know how credible the Pentagon’s analyses are.)
But there is a strong chance that the above-quoted official is right about how dangerous some of the men at Guantanamo are. Unfortunately, we don’t know whether they’re actually guilty of the crimes they’re alleged to have committed ; in fact, for many of them there aren’t even any comprehensive case files to review. With the closing of Guantanamo, though, cases will be built against those inmates who have done something wrong.
The question is, what do we do with those inmates after the criminal justice system has their say? Well, the GOP’s solution is–and I’m not kidding–”send them to Nancy Pelosi’s district!” Minority Leader Boehner actually suggested sending them to San Francisco’s Alcatraz Island, even though Alcatraz hasn’t been a functional prison in decades. So, while the adults are trying to figure out what to do with Guantanamo’s inmates, the Republicans are content to fling rubber bands from the back of the classroom (and they wonder why nobody votes for them anymore).
Here’s how you deal with the inmates from Guantanamo–first, find a place for those 60 inmates already cleared for release, as well as those found not guilty in a court of law. Fortunately, several European nations have already agreed to take inmates found not guilty and who therefore pose no security risk.
Second, we need to determine where we will imprison those detainees actually found guilty of engaging in terrorist activity. That also won’t be too difficult–Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is open to the idea of housing inmates at Florence, CO’s supermax prison.
Supermax prisons are built to house the worst of the worst, the inmates who pose the greatest threat to civilians and who are too dangerous to even be allowed to interact with other inmates. Some of the current residents of the Florence supermax are: Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, American Taliban John Walker Lindh, 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui, Oklahoma City bomber and Timothy McVeigh partner Terry Nichols, would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid, Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph and 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef.
In other words, the American justice system already has a place where extraordinarily dangerous mass murderers are kept. And conditions at the Florence supermax are not ideal:
They exist alone in soundproof cells as small as 7 feet by 12 feet, with a concrete-poured desk, bed and stool, a small shower and sink, and a TV that offers religious and anger-management programs.
They are locked down 23 hours a day.
Larry Homenick, a former U.S. marshal who has taken prisoners to Supermax, said that there was a small triangular recreation area, known as “the dog run,” where solitary Supermax prisoners could occasionally get a glimpse of sky.
[...]
Life there is harsh. Food is delivered through a slit in the cell door. Prisoners don’t leave their cells to see a lawyer, a doctor or a prison official; those visitors must go to the cell.
[...]
The federal Supermax prison in Colorado was opened in November 1994. Nobody has escaped.
Inmates at supermax facilities are there for incapacitation, not punishment; there is no pretense that any of the inmates held there will ever be released or returned to society. Heck, that’s the entire point.
In other words, it’s just like Guantanamo Bay, except there’s no torture and the inmates there have actually been found guilty of something. Make no mistake about it, those at Guantanamo who are found guilty deserve to be locked up for life, but we should make sure that those being imprisoned indefinitely have actually done something to deserve it, first. And the unseriousness of the Republican Party on this issue is simply astounding.
UPDATE: On further consideration, I have two more things to add.
First, why do Republicans have such a problem with Obama releasing inmates from Guantanamo? The Bush administration released hundreds of inmates from Gitmo over the years with hardly a protest at all from Republicans.
At it’s peak, Guantanamo held nearly 600 detainees; now there are only 245, meaning that President Obama will end up releasing far fewer detainees than President Bush ever did. So why is there an outcry against doing this now when there wasn’t one before?
Second, this entire Guantanamo mess was created by the Bush administration in the first place. They figured they would throw these guys in a hole and let some future administration deal with them. What did Republicans think would happen–that we’d keep those detainees there forever? That 50 years from now we’d have a few hundred grizzled terrorists under lock and key at a military prison in Cuba? Didn’t they stop and think that, at some point, something would have to be done with the inmates at Guantanamo?
The Bush administration created a system they knew was untenable in the long term. Instead of simply trying the detainees and incarcerating the guilty ones in a supermax prison (or a high security military prison like Ft. Leavenworthth), they chose to dump them in a hole somewhere without a trial and didn’t even bother compiling complete case files on them.
So now we have a few hundred detainees of dubious guilt being kept indefinitely in a military prison and we have to figure out what to do with them. If Republicans want to complain about Obama closing Gitmo, maybe they should be blaming the Bush administration for instituting this system in the first place and leaving us with 245 men with possible (but unproven) guilt who we have to now deal with. Had the Bush administration come up with a better solution years ago, President Obama wouldn’t have to worry about what to do about Gitmo.
UPDATE II: Someone’s walking back his claims:
According to the Jan. 25 account, Charles D. “Cully” Stimson, who served as deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs in 2006-2007, “said he had persistent problems in attempts to assemble all information on individual cases.”
[...]
But in a brief interview to double-check his statement Monday afternoon, Stimson maintained, “I never said they were in disarray.”
“They were spread throughout the government – that’s true,” Stimson added. He said his aides could obtain the records via a computer data search or a specific request to the CIA or other agency.
“Not all information was in a single database. It was appropriately compartmented in appropriate places in the federal government,” he said.
[...]
“I may be that Obama’s officials,” Stimson said, “or at least some of some of them, don’t have any government experience.”
See, the files aren’t in disarray! The information just isn’t all in one place. In fact, it’s scattered across a variety of government agencies. And you have to go to each separately in order to get complete information on any detainee. And you have to have an intricate knowledge of the federal bureaucracy to figure the whole system out.
Stimson is currently employed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which tells you everything you need to know about this correction. And it’s not much of a correction–saying that the information is spread across a variety of agencies and that you need to know the federal bureaucracy like the back of your hand to get it all means that, yes, the case files are in disarray. If they weren’t, all the information would be in one place easily accessible to top-ranking officials.
Nice try, though.
