Al Jazeera's Inside Story: What do Iran's reformists want?

"...Anger and deadly violence in Iran escalate, despite tough warnings from the country's supreme leader. As the protests continue, what do reforminsts want exactly? What will become of their movement? And can they shake the foundations of the Islamic Revolution?"

Educate me

In an earlier post, "Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive" I concluded that a large segment of the protestors in the current Iranian crisis has resulted in international pressure mounting especially from the United States.

However, at the commencement of the G8 Summit this week in L'Aquila it has been argued by Russia that the violence in Xinjiana and in Iran are 'internal matters' and therefore should not be considered as a matter of discussion at the G8 summit. However, this has been opposed by US President Barack Obama, as well as the leaders of both France and Britain who want to increase international pressure against Tehran.

In a statement on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behaviour of the regime".

Clinton's statement reiterates similar sentiments made by President Barack Obama during his visit to Russia earlier this week in which he stated that the issue of Iran's capabilities need to be resolved through 'diplomatic means'. However, he also stressed something else important:

"the United States reserve(s) the right, and I as commander-in-chief reserve the right, to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States."

The perception of Iran as a perceived threat to the United States as a result of their nuclear weapons build-up is a highly complex issue. But I'm sure wondering whether the United States has really vital interests in Iran that are at stake? I mean, the perceived threats of North Korea's missile tests and now Iran? Are the current tensions on the streets of Tehran exercabating public perception of a possible intervention in Iran if other diplomatic channels fail?
Educate me.
Spowf.

Related news articles:

Obama urges Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'

Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive?

In an interview on CNN's American Morning (June 22, 2009), John Roberts interviewed Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies based at Colombia University. Dabashi stated that Iranian protestors want civil rights not a revolution.

Read the transcript of the full interview here.

RGarcia posted the following comment:

Don’t listen to the “so-called” expert who says that this is not revolution being demanded. Listen instead to the voices on the ground in Tehran…the voices of those young brave men and women, the voices of those interviewed over the phone by cnn, like the young man pleading with the international community for support by vehemently pointing out that Ahmadenijad’s rule is now illegal and that a new “structure” of government is needed and that the structure of government with Ayatollahs has got to go; When we hear chants of “death to Khamenei ” [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei], and when we hear others like the son of the former late Shah of Iran who says that he sees now the biggest threat to the current regime since 1979….when we listen to all of these people, the result is quite clear – the people of Iran want nothing less than a revolution, which ovbviously INCLUDES civil rights for its people. Yes, the current Iran constitution provides for civil rights for its citizens, but the current system of government in which there is a ’supreme leader’ is very loudly being opposed. So, please pay little attention to this ‘expert’ (Hamid Dabashi). The people of Iran very obviously are showing that they want nothing less than a revolution which includes a system of government by the people and for the people (and this includes civil rights)…..Revolution and Civil Rights are not mutually exclusive….Rene from Dallas.

Personally, I think that had President Ahmadenijad’s initially been smart enough to have predicted the possibility of riots on a large-scale such as this, and thus opted to have a re-election...the situation would never have exercabated. It would have been more 'democratic' to acknowledge the civil liberties of its citizens as opposed to suppressing their rights to freedom of speech by placing thousands of soldiers on the streets.

President Ahmadenijad seemingly undemocratic response therefore lives little faith in the majority of the Iranian population who now will opt for an overthrow of the current system of governance. What was initially an exercise of civil liberty through peaceful protests and gatherings (although highly emotive) has resulted now in a highly escalating situation that will inevitably either require a peaceful solution or international humanitarian intervention through the use of military force. Only God knows what'll happen then.

NOTE:

Despite his title, President Ahmadenijah does not hold the highest constitutional office in Iran. The highest constitutional office belogns to the Supreme Leader of Iran who is Ali Khamenei, also the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran (as stipulated in Article 113 of the Constitution of Iran).

Ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee is released

After seven years without trial, Guantanamo Bay Prison detainee Binyam Mohamed has been released from the controversial prison.

I'm aware the when David Hicks was released, there was an enforced media ban on him which prevented him from speaking publicly about his ordeal.

Since, his release - Mohamed's lawyers have requested that President Obama release documented evidence (including photographs) which detail abuse and torture inflicted upon Mr. Mohamed during his incarceration.

My question is: Can Binyam Mohamed sue the United States government? If so, on what grounds?

Through their eyes: The Darfur Genocide

I've recently signed up to be a member of The Hub which is the world's first participatory site where individuals, groups, networks and organisations can bring their stories of human rights abuses and draw the attention of citizens worldwide. Members can upload videos, photos or make comment on posts. It's a great site - volunteers all over the world with acclaimed human rights advocacy organisations such as Amnesty International make frequent postings as well.

Well, so we all know that George Clooney didn't rock up to this year's 81st Annual Academy Awards...instead he was briefing U.S. President, Barack Obama and Vice President, Joe Biden on the ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan. This genocide has been going on for a few years now and the fact that someone of George Clooney's celebrity and association with the United Nation's (he is a U.N. Messenger of Peace) brings great publicity before this modern day genocide went off the radar. You would have thought that world would have taken a more firm stance in the aftermath of Rwanda.

The Sudanese government has time and again denied supporting the mass killings and atrocities that have been instigated by the Jajaweed Militia, however, witnesses continue to raise claims about Government helicopters being used in the assault against innocent civilians. To difuse the Government's rejection of any involvement, video below is a shocking testimony from four alleged perpetrators who have been involved in the Sudan crisis - one was a senior officer in the Sudan Army Force, one a high-ranking Janjaweed commander, another a Janjaweed footsoldier, and the last a Sudanese soldier. In this video you see the genocide through the eyes of these four men. They give very key details about who were financiers behind some of the attacks through to detailed accounts of some of the attacks. The stories of these four men make a direct link between the accounts of witnesses claims and their own experiences in the lies that the Sudanese government has been telling the world over and over again. Phil Cox, an independent film-maker who assisted in the production of this film states the importance of this footage as being "the first time that the people can see a Sudanese, Arabic-speaking, high-ranking commander saying that 'We did this.' It never happened before." In a nutshell, the testimonies of these four alleged perpetrators could be used against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and others if this case was to go the the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Watch the video here.

Related articles:

Group releases film allegging Darfur war crimes - International Herald Tribune
Shocking video testimony from Darfur perpetrators (Aegis Trust) - By Samir Padania, The Hub online

Torture techniques: a question of human rights

Okay, fixed myself a bowl of salad (herb and garlic tuna, tomatoes, avocado, balsamic dressing..same old, same old) and decided to sit down and catch up on some current affairs by skim reading some newspapers. Exams are finally over so I guess reading newspapers and enjoying a salad you prepared yourself can be therapeutic at times.

The first article that grabbed my attention was Sally Neighbour's 'Asking the painful questions' in The Australian Inquirer (p.22).

The article gives an account of torture mechanisms and techniques that have developed over the past fifty years or so. Neighbour's article goes on to question why these torture mechanisms are still being used by the U.S. government despite being labelled as 'unreliabile' and thus, ineffective in the war against terror.

Have a look at this picture:

Most of you will probably associate it with the prisoner abuse claims that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that caused much international controversy about two years ago. Most people who have heard only little or not much about torture techniques may at first see this picture only as a man or woman simply standing, arms stretched on what looks like a cardboard box - or even as a gimmick, something that kept the U.S. army personnel entertained in the middle of nowhere.

Upon closer examination, this photograph reveals a can full of worms, unearthing some of the most gruesome and inexcusable human rights violations that have occurred to date. Alfred McCoy, a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (click here for more McCoy's' deconstruction of these images and CIA torture techniques) adds more to this picture by citing that this photo represents two CIA foundational techniques. Firstly, the hood on the detainee acts as a sensory disorientation and deprivation technique. Secondly, his arms stretched out are intended to inflict pain upon him/herself (ie self inflicted pain).

What truly shocks me is the possible legalisation of torture techniques that could allow people such as John Howard and George W. Bush to sign a warrant issued by a judge to authorise torture. Have a look at the picture of the prisoner in Abu Ghraib again. If this person was your father, mother, sister, brother, nephew or friend, would you let this happen to them?

In Neighbour's article, the argument of well-known Harvard academic and criminal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz is used to justify 'painless' torture mechanisms that could be used by governments such as the U.S. and Australia. Dershowitz who claims to not be a supporter of torture contravenes his personal belief and states that governments should be able to use torture as long as they are done so in an "accountable, transparent way." Notably, the U.S. does not have a clean slate in relation to matters dealing with accountability and transparency. For example, no one knew that the U.S. were using torture techniques on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay until one of its own, former chief lawyer for the US Navy, Alberto J. Mora blew the whistle on the use of such torture techniques. Think of the human rights abuse claims made by David Hicks against the U.S. government and the U.S government's failure to bear the onus of such claims.

After reading this, who would you believe...a man imprisoned for over five years without a formal charge or a government which claims itself to be democratic and a signatory to numerous United Nations' human rights conventions, yet exercises a form of modern tyranny.