Those democratic elections back in ’97 really paid off. The LA Times has a sad and disturbing tale of the experiences of an Iranian weblogger, who was arrested for daring to criticize the Iranian regime. On the third day of her confinement, she was finally informed of the charges against her:
The next day, I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups.
"Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked.
"What charges?"
"That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran."
"I’ve tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said.
He was displeased.
"These answers will lead us nowhere, and you will stay here for years. Tell us the truth. How much have you received to write these offenses against the Islamic state? How are you and your fellow Web loggers organized?"
Ms. Farzami had to confess to a whole host of "crimes" and was imprisoned for 36 days, but one of the most bizarre incidents was upon her being released:
Before I departed I was politely asked to fill out a form seeking suggestions for improving conditions in the jail.
I can just imagine the totalitaritan prison guard saying "have a nice day" after her five-week stay in the Iranian reeducation center.
Although I have no doubt that atrocities have been committed in Iran, this particular incident doesn’t seem all that different from what we (statistically) must have done once or twice in our various post-9-11 detentions (and we’ve held people a great deal longer than 36 days)…so I’m not sure why this incident qualifies as evidence in furtherance of an argument against Dr. Cole.
Isn’t one of the sticking points about our various Middle Eastern ventures that democracy (i.e. democratic elections) does not ineluctably lead to liberty, nor that liberty necessarily requires democracy?
while being imprisoned for opposing the government on a weblog is vile, i wonder, do they have Free Speech Zones in Iran?
Charles: Those democratic elections back in ’97 really paid off.
Charles, you have a gift for throwing in phrases that completely derail any further reading of your articles on my part. I see the headline, think to myself “Okay, this looks interesting, as it deals directly with the ebb and flow of democratic reform in Iran. Looks like either the conservatives are either growing in strength, or they’re so freaked out by the moderates that they’re starting to act defensively. Wonder how this relates to the reactions to all the US sabre-rattling going on? Better dig into it and see what Charles thinks.”
Then I get to the very first damned line in the article, and it’s that phrase. Then I have to think “What does he mean by that? Is he dismissing the 1997 election as a joke? Is it some kind of reference to the recent blog-fight surrounding Cole’s mention of the 1997 election? Is he outright dismissing any chance of fair elections in Iran through reform in a snarky way? What the hell?”
And then I’m too pissed off to read the rest of the article, because a throwaway line like that as the lede indicates that I’m going to have to slog through more of the same.
I’ll try to read it later. Because I really really want to hear the conservative voices here, even if I have to deal with snark in the #@^^&ing lede, for %#$@&^$! sake.
Serenity now. Serenity now.
As disturbing as this incident is, um, it hardly indicates that Iran is “totalitarian,” unless the word has developed some new meaning that escapes me.
“As disturbing as this incident is, um, it hardly indicates that Iran is “totalitarian,” unless the word has developed some new meaning that escapes me.”
Sounds like the classic totalitarian “admit you are an enemy of the state” situation to me. That combined with a sect which has all the answers to how you should live your life, and enforces it strictly with the ‘court’ system often when the death penalty for offenses like unchastity, sounds at furthest within spitting distance of totalitarian to me.
Maybe you mean it isn’t a dictatorship because there are a lot of mullahs?
Second what ++ungood said. Snark should not be a prime quality in a post.
Let me explain it to you
very
slowly.
“totalitarian” means complete and violent control over all aspects of life. It’s not the same thing as “dictatorships.”
If Iran were totalitarian, she’d be dead or in a prison camp. And Iran wouldn’t have human rights groups.
The point of this is not to excuse Iran, but rather to be pedantic and condescending in addition to being precise about our use of terminology.
“totalitarian” means complete and violent control over all aspects of life.
If you want to be truly pedantic, IME “violence” is not usually considered an inherent part of the definition of totalitarianism but rather a near-inevitable consequence. One could conceive — as did Aldous Huxley in Brave New World — of a totalitarian regime which kept its control by regular dosages of mind-altering drugs rather than physical harm.
This doesn’t sound like the description of a totalitarian regime to me:
Sebastian: Sounds like the classic totalitarian “admit you are an enemy of the state” situation to me.
Indeed.
Opus: this particular incident doesn’t seem all that different from what we (statistically) must have done once or twice in our various post-9-11 detentions (and we’ve held people a great deal longer than 36 days)…
Indeed.
So is Bird subtly saying by means of this post that he thinks the US is no better than Iran?
Just checking.
Iranian Blogger’s Ordeal
“Do you accept the charges?” the interrogator asked. “What charges?” “That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system,” he said. “You are inviting corrupt American…
Iranian Blogger’s Ordeal
“Do you accept the charges?” the interrogator asked. “What charges?” “That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system,” he said. “You are inviting corrupt American…
Jesurgislac, regularity is a key difference.
Praktike, basically you are arguing that a regime cannot be totalitarian without cutting itself off from the world like North Korea. I would suggest that is true, in the long run. I would argue that Iran directly totalitarian in aim and does a poor job of maintaining control. You seem to suggest that a totalitarian regime cannot be totalitarian unless completely successful.
And whatever Iran is, it definitely is NOT a dictatorship.
Iran has waves of repression followed by relaxations. We’re in a crackdown period, but the Iranian people are pretty amazing at carving out private spaces.
“And whatever Iran is, it definitely is NOT a dictatorship.
Huh, Sebastian?
Care to elaborate?
While Iran may not be a “totalitarian” state along the lines of North Korea or Myanmar (or Taliban Afghanistan) – it is hard to see how its religion-based mullahcracy (however lenient they might occasionally be in practice) could be defined as anything but.
Are they not a “dictatorship” because: They have a Parliament? A collective leadership? A semi-tolerated opposition? Blogs?
As disturbing as this incident is, um, it hardly indicates that Iran is “totalitarian,” unless the word has developed some new meaning that escapes me.”
If this incident wasn’t a totalitarian tactic, prak, then jailings for expressing dissent in the USSR weren’t either. Not all dissidents got sent to gulags. The Chicoms also had a nifty way of eking confessions out its dissidents before sending them off to starve on work farms. Her story is of similar bully tactics, this time applied by the Iranian thought police.
Serenity now. Serenity now.
Like I briefly touched on here, d-p-u, freedom is so curtailed in Iran that elections are a joke. I don’t deny that I took a little swipe at Juan Cole in the process.
Charles: If this incident wasn’t a totalitarian tactic
Oh, it was, definitely. It’s also a totalitarian tactic when the US does it. I’m just saying.
OK, I’ll give you totalitarian tactic. In any case, props to the blogger for publishing her story. I hope it helps her.
Totalitarian tactic, yes, totalitarian state? Everyone acknowledges that there are reformers within Iran (some would have us believe that they are gathering rose petals), so it is unsurprising that we see the Islamic police adopt tactics like these. Of course, if you are bent on demonizing Iran, sure, knock yourself out, but you are just demagoging if you do that. Others have already listed similar incidents in the US and a large portion of the Right would argue that Federal intervention on marriage laws or church/state separation is the result of a totalitarian government. If you had presented as a battle (which seemed to have been lost) in the fight between moderates and those supporting Islamic oppression, this article might be readable. Otherwise, what d+u said, both here and here. (Note that he reads what you say, so merely citing what you have written is not such a powerful argument)
I would also note that your use of chicoms really has no place here. This is not because I hold any brief whatsoever for the Chinese Communist party (though I would note that large discount manufacturers like WalMart might), but by using the word chicoms, you put yourself in the space where rational discussion is not possible. (please don’t tell me that someone who can type variants of Wahhabi 14 times (assuming that you cut and pasted the block quotes) is saving their typing chops)
What is the point of this post? It isn’t news. Iran has had human rights issues for years. For over a decade we were involved in their human rights abuses (our taxes to our CIA to Savak to torture chambers in Iran). Are you part of the drumbeat, Charles, to get us all puffed up so we can justify another military action? Iran isn’t any worse than a couple dozen other governments. And being Islamic doesn’t make them worse, either.
Terrorism should be fought by going after the terrorists, not nations that are only guilty by association of similar religion.
The irony here is that, left alone iran would almost certainly liberalize all on their own. Our saber-rattling stregthens the conservatives and engangers anyone who speaks for reform. This is a dynamic that American conservative use themselves sometimes ( use fear of the outsider to give themselves power and label reformers as connected to the evil outsider. Remember the Red Scare? Was the blogger imprisoned because her words were interpeted as pro-American rather than pro-reform?) Bush has helped marginalize the reformers in Iran.
Lily is right. Charles is a Bush lackey and just wants an excuse for war. The U.S. created this problem. The U.S. is just as bad as Iran anyway.
Hold it right there, Moby. For all my grievances with the conduct of US foreign policy and our current administration, we have a long way to go yet before we hit Iranian territory.
And while it’s not my place to chastise you, I would suggest that calling Charles a Bush lackey is highly uncivil, and not consonant with the posting rules.
Now, if you want to contend that Charles is making noises very similar to the GOP noise machine when it was drumming up war fever against Iraq, I’d be inclined to agree–but as neither you nor I can read minds, I would hesitate to speculate on what he “wants”.
LJ: If memory serves, ‘Chicoms’ is originally from diplomatic cables and other US government documents of the 50s. I’m not entirely sure why Charles uses the term, or for that matter why WorldNetDaily does, but then again I sometimes lapse into forms of speech not heard for several centuries myself, so I’m hardly one to complain. It can’t make rational discussion impossible unless we let it. The more serious risk, imho, is that it could lead to the use of lots more 50s-isms, which would be truly unnerving.
About the Cole snark: I don’t see how this incident affects his point one way or the other, since he was explicitly comparing one election to another, not one country to another.
And about the Cole/Goldberg fight: I think Cole is completely right, though at times when I read his posts I thought I would have put things differently. Jonah Goldberg of course has a right to his opinions. But in his place I hope I would have declined any offers to go on TV and talk about Iraq, on the grounds that I don’t know nearly enough to do that responsibly, and I have read more books on it than he has, by orders of magnitude. I think he should have as well, and also that the idea of having someone who basically knows nothing about the region on TV (or about e.g. military tactics or some other relevant area of expertise) to talk about Iraq policy speaks volumes about how low most TV has sunk these days.
When you’re asked to go on TV to talk about something, especially a TV show with a large audience (as opposed to, say, local access cable), you’re asked to assume a responsibility. I don’t think you should accept it unless you think you can do so in good conscience. I think Jonah Goldberg can’t do that for Iraq, and he shouldn’t have tried. And his posts since then have just confirmed it.
I also think that in reading Cole’s posts, it helps to be a professor, or some other sort of person with a serious area of expertise, since in that case you tend to know how maddening it is when someone who truly knows nothing at all starts spouting off in front of a large audience. I was once driving and some radio show — I’ve repressed which one — had (I think it was) Dr. Laura Schlesinger on to talk about morality, which of course my field. I, normally a mild-mannered person, nearly exploded within minutes, and had to turn off the radio so as not to endanger other drivers.
Catsy,
Word it however you want, but that kind of soft-peddling didn’t stop Bush from creating the quagmire in Iraq. What makes you think you are going to be able to stop them from attacking Iran or Syria with those same tactics? These people have declared war on anyone who disagrees with them and need to be stopped.
Word it however you want, but that kind of soft-peddling didn’t stop Bush from creating the quagmire in Iraq.
It’s not soft-peddling, it’s courtesy to others who come to this community to have civil discussions. I think most of Charles’ arguments and positions are simply awful. But that doesn’t give me license to call him a lackey.
If memory serves, ‘Chicoms’ is originally from diplomatic cables and other US government documents of the 50s.
I believe it is from the Korean conflict, short for Chinese Communist Forces (CCF). The Google search I linked shows who uses it now. We don’t call the government of Vietnam the Vietcong, so I don’t really want to speculate why Charles would want to use a term that saw its heyday in the 50’s, I would just strongly suggest that he stop using it as it is redolent with the notion of yellow hordes overrunning the West.
As someone who grew up under the aegis of China, I agree with LJ. There’s bad mojo in that term.
I stand corrected.
Of course, if you are bent on demonizing Iran, sure, knock yourself out, but you are just demagoging if you do that.
The Iranian regime’s behavior speaks for itself, Japonicus. I thought the story written by the blogger was moving and important. It is newsworthy when fellow webloggers are jailed for writing something that makes their government nervous and uncomfortable.
Others have already listed similar incidents in the US…
Let me know when you find a U.S. citizen jailed for writing dissenting words on a weblog. Then you’ll have your comparison.
…and a large portion of the Right would argue that Federal intervention on marriage laws or church/state separation is the result of a totalitarian government.
When Freedom House downgrades the U.S. to a 2 on political rights and civil liberties, that will indeed be a time for worry. As it is, putting “U.S.” and “totalitarian government” in the same sentence is overblown hyperbole.
I would also note that your use of chicoms really has no place here.
As I understand it, the term is short for Chinese communists, or those who run communist China. My intent was a shorthand descriptive. Instead of a Google link and tut tutting, tell my why you believe the term is offensive, LJ, because I haven’t really heard a good reason yet. I have no idea what “bad mojo” means, as Anarch said, so perhaps he/she could expand on it. The reason Viet Cong isn’t used anymore is because Vietnam has been unified and they are no longer insurgents, they run the country. I wouldn’t use that term to describe the current regime. As for the term Chicom, wikipedia called it “somewhat derogatory” as a nickname for the communist party.
What is the point of this post? It isn’t news.
When webloggers are jailed for listing grievances against their government, I believe it is news, lily.
Are you part of the drumbeat, Charles, to get us all puffed up so we can justify another military action?
Believe what you want to believe. I oppose an Iraqi style invasion of Iran, but there will come a point when Iran will be on the cusp of having an atomic bomb. The agreement the Iranians made with Britain-Germany-France is so chock full of loopholes that it’s worthless. Unless we can get an agreement with real teeth in it, we’re going to come a hard choice. This piece encapsulates my views on Iran and what we should do.
And being Islamic doesn’t make them worse, either.
Terrorism should be fought by going after the terrorists, not nations that are only guilty by association of similar religion.
The issue isn’t whether Iran is Islamic. Many nations are. It’s whether we can abide by a regime that sponsors and harbors terrorists that also happens to have an atomic bomb.
Charles is a Bush lackey and just wants an excuse for war. The U.S. created this problem. The U.S. is just as bad as Iran anyway.
Well done, jimtim, mindreading and a smear in one short sentence. If you believe the U.S. is just as bad as Iran, I see no prospects of a rational discussion coming from you.
I have no idea what “bad mojo” means, as Anarch said, so perhaps he/she could expand on it.
“Bad mojo” here just means that it’s, well, both derogatory and dated. It’d be like referring to the inhabitants of Guangzhou as “Red Chinese”; you’d sound like a bad 1950s panic reel and you should expect to be taken as seriously. The referent for the party is just CCP nowadays, or Beijing if you’re referring to the political hub a la “Washington”.
ChasI suggested that the news worthiness of the story was not in viewing this as an example of a totalitarian government in action, but, as d+ug pointed out, as an interesting window into the struggle between moderates and hard-liners in Iran. You would like to use it as a condemnation of the Iran regime. Perhaps your view is correct, but if it were true, it would be surprising that she could blog about it, right?
As far as putting totalitarian in the same sentence as the US, I’m sorry that I didn’t make it clear that I don’t think that the US is a totalitarian government. I’ll try to be bit more clear for you next time. I’m also pleased that it will only take a cessation of censorship of weblogs to get out of your totalitarian column. I blog, therefore I’m free? Please tell that to the Saudis.
As for Chicoms:
I explained that it originally referred to the Chinese Communist Forces in Korea. This brings up the whole notion of yellow hordes overrunning the West. I have pointed out it is a 50’s vintage term. I showed you the kind of sites that use it, such as WorldNet Daily and f**kfrance.com, and I would think that is not the kind of company you would like to keep. As for it being short for something, one doesn’t use Jap for Japanese. I have been very careful not to draw any conclusions about why you used it. Tossing in emotive words to make your point is not helpful.
You would like to use it as a condemnation of the Iran regime.
You are mindreading, LJ, because I didn’t demonize or condemn. Farzami’s story was pretty straightforward and I added very little editorial commentary. Not that I haven’t more directly criticized the Iranian regime on other occasions. In this case, their bullying behavior spoke volumes about their intolerance for dissent. I left you to draw your own conclusions about what is taking place there. Curious that many responses had more to do with divining what my intentions are. Generally, I am critical of any regime that curtails freedom, Saudi Arabia and Nepal included.
As for the use of “Chicom”, I had no idea that anyone would take offense to the term or that it would cause an “emotive response”. The use of “Japs” is clearly derogatory and racist, and I didn’t think that “Chicom” fell into that category.
I’m also pleased that it will only take a cessation of censorship of weblogs to get out of your totalitarian column.
Ugh.
Apologies for being too sharp here Chas. You are right, you didn’t use it as a condemnation, though that first line comes awfully close. Sebastian was the one who suggested “Sounds like the classic totalitarian “admit you are an enemy of the state” situation to me.” so I’m sorry that you got caught in my addressing that point.
I’m also sorry if I sounded like I was ‘tut-tutting’ about the use of chicoms, but sometimes it is more rude to suggest that someone doesn’t realize some of the implications of the words that they use.
As for divining your intentions, I’m assuming that you want to place a conservative viewpoint in front of what you perceive to be a liberal audience. Thus, if the liberals here don’t tell you exactly where we have problems with what you write, the exercise is meaningless.
As always, thanks for the time you put in to posting here.
No need for apologies, LJ. We’re just a having a spirited conversation.
Thus, if the liberals here don’t tell you exactly where we have problems with what you write, the exercise is meaningless.
I have no problem with liberals pointing out problems with actual words written. I do have problems when some liberals choose not to read the lines but try to interpret what is between them.
I thought Iran is a republican theocracy?
or a theocratic republic?