Iran Special: Thoughts on Protest, Stoning, and Human Rights (Shahryar)

EA correspondent Josh Shahryar writes

Last Saturday, I went to a protest in Washington DC against the Iranian regime’s continued use of stoning as punishment. I have been to many protests in the past, but this time I chose to speak. It was a spur-of-the-moment decision. I simply felt like it was the right thing to do.

Almost all of my speech was video-taped, posted on YouTube, and soon shared on Facebook and Twitter. It managed to raise some important questions. Two of the first were “1) Since when is Sakineh Ashtiani [a 43-year-old Iranian woman condemned to death for adultery] being stoned for 'standing up for her rights'?" and "2) Where do you get this about Obama wanting to be friends with Ahmadinejad?"

Other friends raised similar questions as asked if some in attendance have ties to “communist” organizations. Others went a bit further and questioned why I hadn't spoken up for human rights activists such as Majid Tavakoli, detained since last December. The noise got so loud that I thought the best way forward would be to give a collective answer.

Was last Saturday's rally in Washington about Sakineh Ashtiani alone? No, it was primarily against all stoning. Because Sakineh’s case is currently the most public, given the international reaction to the sentence, that case was the main example in my speech.

What am I doing at a rally that was also attended by communists? The simple answer is: I was at the rally because I support human rights for everyone. I honestly don’t care to which group you belong if you are gathering to support human rights and democracy.

The protest was organized by members of the International Committee Against Stoning, Iran Solidarity, the International Committee Against Execution, and Mission Free Iran (MFI), an organization dedicated to furthering human rights, especially women’s rights, in Iran. Since I first attended a protest organized by MFI, I have seen members from monarchist, Kurdish nationalist, communist, and other organisations. I have joined those with no political affiliation, chanting with one voice.

My philosophy professor Dr. Rick Schubert would always remind us that he needed warm bodies in class, not zombies. Protests, just like early morning philosophy lectures, need warm bodies.

And I have seldom seen protesters more passionate and committed as these. They have been at every protest I’ve been to. They have endured rainstorms, snow blizzards, and scorching to protest for human rights. They are so committed, they don’t come alone; they bring their spouses and children with them.

On Saturday, one of the Workers Party of Iran supporters –-- a lady in her 50s who was about as big in stature as a 13 year-old boy –-- was carrying 10 signs back to her car. I insisted she let me help her. She adamantly refused. I felt honoured to have stood with her on that hot sunny day.

I want to make sure that no one feels like this is me passing judgment. If you are Iranian and you have not protested, it’s your choice. I know how busy life can get and how dangerous it is to come out to demonstrate in the face of real threats. Many people who do not come out to protest in public are fully engaged in the movement through blogging, Facebook and Twitter and have spent thousands of hours raising awareness about human rights in Iran.

Why am I at a rally supporting Sakineh, whom some claim isn’t even fighting for her human rights, instead of raising awareness about others like Shiva Nazar Ahari and Majid Tavakoli?

The last major article I wrote about Iran was about Majid Tavakoli and the hunger strikers at Evin, published a few weeks ago on Huffington Post. I have publicised the cases of political prisoners for quite a while. I have publicly protested for the freedom of those political prisoners, even if there is no video evidence of those occasions. Being vocal at a protest against stoning just got a little more coverage.

Living in the West, we come to take many things for granted, from the paved roads to reliable electricity and and water supplies. But mostly, we take for granted the most fundamental of human rights: the right to be free.

There exists a human right called the right to receive a fair trial. Beyond the denial of that right, Sakineh Ashtiani has already been punished for having sex with a man. She received 99 lashes. For sex.

She has endured this situation for five years. Her children have come out time and again to beg for mercy and have repeatedly claimed that their mother is innocent of complicity in their father’s murder, a charge later added by the regime to that of adultery.

And Sakineh Ashtiani's case is not the only one. The Iran regime has a fixation on punishing women for the smallest of crimes. It imposes lengthy prison sentences just for the demand of rights. [Editor: see Monday's testimony by women's right activist Mahboubeh Karami about her six months in detention.]

Sakineh did not make an example out of herself; Iranian authorities did. They have branded her lawyer a criminal and forced him out of the country. They have abused her to force her to "confess". When she renounces that confession, she is tortured and forced to confess again, this time on national television. appear on TV and confess again.

Why didn’t we talk about Shiva Nazar Ahari or Majid Tavakoli at this protest? We put up pictures of political prisoners during the demonstration. But --- and this may be stating a hard truth --- neither Shiva nor Majid had the name recognition or the story to captivate an audience that is woefully unaware of what is happening in Iran.

A public protest is not a place where you can explain the complicated political and human rights situation in Iran by using Shiva or Majid as examples, even though their cases are equally important. Sakineh has become someone towhom everyone, especially women, can quickly relate because of the nature of her case.

As for my dislike of Obama’s policy regarding Iran, I assure you I have no personal animosity towards him. The issue here is that I’m a human rights activist. And the fact is that Obama has failed the cause of human rights in Iran repeatedly. It does not help human rights in Iran to mention the Green Movement a few times during the President's televised speeches, especially when the US takes actions such as approving Iran as a member of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Yes, the US Government has passed sanctions. But what were those sanctions for? To stop Iran’s nuclear program, not to pressure it to ease up on arrests, torture, and killings of human rights activists, lawyers and political activists. Obama needs to use sanctions for the express purpose of helping human rights in Iran. He needs to stop Iranian political and military leaders from travelling abroad, prevent companies like Nokia from helping the Iranian regime. and help secure the lives of Iranian activists who are running away from the country.

As for the President extending his hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, well, it’s still out there. I haven’t heard Obama saying, “We are no longer going to attempt to engage through dialogue a regime that only seeks to brutalize its populace into submission and continues to threaten the international community with retaliation.”

If Obama knew Iran, he would have known that the Islamic Republic has no intention of ever seeking warm relations with the West. A regime like this constantly need an enemy to bash to divert their citizens’ attention from the brutality inside the country. Who are the clerics going to denounce in their Friday sermons if the West and Iran got along? Who is Khamenei going to blame for the poverty of the Iranian nation if the West improved relations with his regime?

Obama needs to be strict and unforgiving. And for the love of everything he holds dear, he needs to speak out more often about these atrocities.

The Latest from Iran (1 September): The Threat of Stoning

1750 GMT: Repression. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has issued a new statement, "Authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran are continuing to arrest and jail civil society activists while persecuting and prosecuting independent lawyers."

“With a majority of Iranian human rights activists and lawyers already imprisoned or forced into exile, their remaining colleagues are systematically being taken down by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” Aaron Rhodes, a Campaign spokesperson said.

1740 GMT: At the Movies. Esteemed director Jafar Panahi, who was detained for three months earlier this year, has been barred by Iran authorities from attending the Venice Film Festival.

Panahi's short film "Accordion" is showing at the event, but he claims he has officially been banned from making movies for five years. He says, ""Despite having been released, I am still not free to travel outside my country to attend film festivals. When a filmmaker is not allowed to make films, it is as if his mind was still imprisoned. Maybe he is not locked up in a small cell, but he keeps wandering in a much bigger jail."

NEW Iran Special: Thoughts on Protest, Stoning, and Human Rights (Shahryar)
Iran: Ahmadinejad’s Trash Talk (Theodoulou)
Iran Witness: Activist Mahboubeh Karami on Six Months in Detention
Iran: The Latest on the Karroubi “Siege” and the Qods Day Rally
The Latest from Iran (31 August): Unity? What Unity?

1515 GMT: Karroubi Watch. In a meeting with clerics and students of Qom, Mehdi Karroubi has said the intrusion of some security and intelligence forces in hawzah (religious circles) is "very alarming".

1500 GMT: Economy Watch. Conservative MP Ali Motahari, a member of Parliament's Communications Commission, has issued a warning over privatisation: "We oppose any kind of monopoly in the (tele)communications sector."

Khabar Online reports an extensive reshuffle of officials in Iran's national oil company is on the way, concluding that the move is "not sensible at all".

An EA correspondent reads the report as a warning of consolidation of power by Ahmadinejad allies.

1440 GMT: Today's We-Are-Not-Scared-at-All Message. Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi has declared, "If people stage a riot or coup, we must stop them with security forces."

1425 GMT: Another Slap at Ahmadinejad's Foreign Policy. Hossein Sobhani-Nia, a member of the National Security Council, has repeated the Supreme Leader's criticism of the President's appointment of four special representatives for international matters.

Sobhani-Nia declared that Ayatollah Khamenei had said that the Foreign Ministry's position should not be damaged. He emphasised that, for unity in foreign policy and in accordance with the Constitution, all decisions must be made by the Foreign Ministry. Parallel organisations should not stop that and division in foreign policy should not prevent Iran from reaching its goals.

1415 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Teacher's union activist Mokhtar Asadi has been released on bail after two months in detention.

1400 GMT: The Karrroubis Fight the Siege. Fatemeh Karroubi, the wife of Mehdi Karroubi, has written to the Supreme Leader to condemn the attacks on her home and family by pro-regimes crowds.

Fatemeh Karroubi asks the Leader: “What do the disagreements between you and my husband over issues, that are evident to all by now, have to do with our right to live?”

She pulls no punches as she describes the crowd chanting “derogatory words” against Mehdi Karroubi and “writing slogans on the walls of the residential complex and the neighbours' houses": “These obvious crimes are taking place with your support and in front of the security forces who do not dare to approach these attackers.”

So, noting the policy of “attacking the family and neighbours of political opponents”, Fatemeh Karroubi asks Ayatollah Khamenei if he condones such “unethical acts".

1350 GMT: Claim of the Day. From the Supreme Leader's representative to the Revolutionary Guards, Mojtaba Zolnour: "Israel is out to kill the hidden (12th) Imam."

1345 GMT: Academic Corner. Minister of Science Kamran Daneshjoo, who threatened universities with "destruction" if they were not Islamic enough, now wants a referendum on their fate.

Iranian authorities have "retired" almost 20 senior officials at universities in recent months.

0920 GMT: A Break in Service for Birthdays and Monkeys. It is Ms EA's birthday today, and we're celebrating by going to Monkey Forest --- yes, really.

I'll be away until late afternoon but, as usual, I know I can rely on EA's top-flight readers to bring in the latest news and analysis.

0825 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Mojgan Ebadi and Nasim Rouhi, both of the Baha'i community, have been re-arrested 24 hours after their release from prison.

RAHANA also reports that more activists have been detained in northern Khuzestan in western Iran.

0815 GMT: The Next Campaign? International attention to the case of 18-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi, sentenced to death for sodomy, is growing. Writers Philippe Besson and Gilles Leroy organised an open letter by French activists, publicised by Le Monde last week.

0715 GMT: If You Don't Accept Stoning, You are a Prostitute (cont.). The Foreign Ministry may have told off "hard-line" media for calling Carla Bruni, the wife of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a "prostitute" after she criticised the death sentence handed down to Sakineh Mohammad Ashtiani; however, the message does not seem to have gotten through.

Iran Newspaper on Network (INN), citing British reports of Bruni's past affair with singer Mick Jagger, declares, "Western Media approved implicitly the fact that Carla Bruni is a prostitute". (The story has been reprinted in the almost surreal website www.barackobama.ir. More on this "news outlet" later in the week.)

0655 GMT: Sieges for Qods Day. Pro-regime crowds, who surrounded the home of Mehdi Karroubi on Sunday and Monday night, reportedly moved to the house of reformist politician and cleric Abdollah Nouri on Tuesday evening.

0650 GMT: Freedom of the Press? Daneshjoo News reports that several journalists of Nasim-e Bidari magazine were threatened and interrogated on Tuesday.

0645 GMT: On Air. RASA TV, the Internet-based opposition channel, is now broadcasting.

0605 GMT: Labour Front. Writing for In These Times, Kari Lyderson reports on the continuing repression of Iran's trade unionists, specifically members of the Vahed Bus Workers Syndicate.

0600 GMT: We have posted a special feature by Josh Shahryar, reflecting on the reaction to his speech at last Saturday's rally in Washington against stoning, "Thoughts on Protest, Stoning, and Human Rights".

0500 GMT: We noted earlier this week how the controversy had grown over the death sentence for adultery --- initially to be carried out by stoning, though that has been suspended --- handed down on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani; indeed, the Iranian Government was now appearing very unsettled by the reaction.

Although one website supporting the Government has tried to deflect the issue with the question, "Does the West Want a Real Discussion with Iran?", it is unlikely to disappear. There are reports of two other people condemned to die by stoning. Yesterday Ashtiani's son Sajad said his mother was subjected to a "mock execution", told last Saturday that she was to be hanged at dawn on Sunday.

Ashtiani wrote her will and embraced her cellmates in Tabriz Prison just before the call to morning prayer, but nothing happened as she waited. Sajad Ashtiani said, "Pressure from the international community has so far stopped them from carrying out the sentence but they're killing her every day by any means possible."

Sajad Ashtiani added that he had been told by Iranian authorities that the file on his father's murder case had been lost. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, first convicted of adultery, was later found guilty of complicity in the homicide.

Iraq Video and Transcript: President Obama Declares End of US Combat Mission (31 August)

Video & Analysis: Obama “Iraq Withdrawal” Speech Covers Up Shift on Afghanistan (3 August)

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war. We’ve endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt. The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest -- it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders --- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies ---have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who -- under the command of General David Petraeus -- are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.

As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -- including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example -- to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -- a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world,
but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars -- post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury -- while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II -- including my grandfather -- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq -- the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade -- journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations --- war --- and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar --- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

US Politics: Obama and the Continuing Threat to Civil Liberties (Buttar)

The American Prospect interviews Shahid Buttar, civil-rights lawyer and executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

A lot of people on the left were hoping that Barack Obama would wipe away everything George W. Bush had done to restrict civil liberties. Obviously, that hasn't happened. But what would you say is the best thing the Obama administration has done in this area, and the most glaring omission in its policies?

I'd say the single best thing the president has done in this arena is to renounce extraordinary/coercive interrogation. Ending torture is a big deal, period.

Having said that, the failure to impose accountability has invited more torture in the future by eroding the international legal prohibition and effectively declaring that it's OK to consider and repeat as a policy matter. While I'm disturbed by the continuing, and expanding, surveillance regime, I think torture demonstrates the best -- and worst -- of the administration's performance so far.

Has the fact that there's a Democrat in the White House -- and one who has engaged in high-profile legislative battles over things like health care and financial reform -- taken threats to civil liberties off progressives' radar screens?

I hope not but fear that has indeed been the case. The debate over the PATRIOT Act here offers an illustrative example. When the president -- who campaigned against it in no uncertain terms -- caved to the intelligence agencies by supporting a "temporary" reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act over congressional objections last fall, it shifted the landscape and left members of Congress who do care about civil liberties on an isolated fringe.

How this is all playing out in the popular arena is unfortunately less clear to me. It does strike me that lots of people still care about civil liberties -- only increasingly that voice is coming from a conservative/libertarian perspective. The populist fury over continued government surveillance is still there but is being articulated more by the Tea Party and its supporters than the anti-war/progressive/green side of the spectrum, which was in the lead under the Bush administration.

You've been particularly critical of the FBI in recent months -- you've charged that it has in effect created a new version of the notorious COINTELPRO, in which it engaged in a concerted campaign to infiltrate and undermine left-leaning organizations through the 1950s and 1960s. What is the FBI doing now that most people are probably unaware of?

Undercover infiltration -- what the bureau calls "undisclosed participation" -- was a cornerstone of the COINTELPRO era and has come back again in full force. Like then, the FBI is subject to few, if any, checks and is operating in complete secrecy. Even members of Congress who have sought more transparency here have been denied. It's especially bizarre that the legal standard under which infiltrations are conducted remains secret. It makes sense for operational details to be non-public, but for the legal rules to be secret never makes sense and is an open invitation to abuse -- especially given the bureau's unfortunate recurring history in this area.

FBI Director [Robert] Mueller admitted in late July that the FBI currently pursues infiltration activities limited neither by evidence, which many of us had known, given its exploratory infiltrations of mosques around the country, nor even suspicion, which he'd previously been careful to insinuate as the limiting principle.

Read full article....

Israel-Palestine Talks: Will Confidence-Building Measures for Ramallah Work? (Yenidunya)

Today brings the first meetings in Washington between US officials and Israeli and Palestinian delegations, with direct talks between the Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority starting Thursday. The preliminary talk has begun, however.

Having met with Jordan’s King Abdullah on Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak held a secret meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in Amman.

Jordan's King Abdullah is a key broker as the head of an Arab country which is at peace with Israel. He told Barak to be an honest partner, giving answers on central issues at the start of talks.

Gaza Latest: UN’s Flotilla Interviews Start, More Aid Ships?, Worry Over Hamas
Israel-Palestine: Were 4 Settlers Killed to Sabotage Talks? (Yenidunya)

But then the question: why Barak's secret discussion with Abbas? The Jerusalem Post says that two leaders discussed the further easing of security conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank as a confidence-building measure.

Haaretz has reported recently, from sources “close to the Obama Administration”, that Washington will urge Palestinians to soften their stance on an Israeli proposal for continued construction in large settlement blocs but not in isolated settlements. In response to this “concession”, land from Area C, which is both governed and controlled by Israel, will be transferred to Area B which is controlled by Israelis but governed by Palestinians.

Haaretz also reported in July that Netanyahu was thinking of some confidence-building measures such as enabling the Palestinian police to broaden its activities beyond Area A, which is under the Palestinian Authority's security control, setting up six new police stations in Area B, where the PA is currently responsible only for civilian affairs, and possibly having some authority over civilian matters in Area C.

However, Fatah spokesman Ahmed Assaf dismissed on Monday demands that the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state. He said such a demand was in violation of international law and threatened to sabotage the peace talks.

So to Washington: will the “confidence-building measures” be discussed to get some Palestinian movement on the issue of Israeli settlements? Or is this an unrealistic plan given larger demands that may be on the table?