If a report today is accurate, Khamenei has created a “Removal Committee” authorized to target anyone deemed to oppose his leadership: IRCG officers, journalists, political activists and (later) Ahmadinejad’s faction. The alleged “CIA source inside the IRCG” could be any party who might benefit from disinformation (Mossad, Ahmadinejad). However, since three things give it reasonable plausibility–present circumstances, specific details and the regime’s known and proven past patterns of behavior, that claim deserves attention if only to rebut. It lists two specific and recent events as factual:
–Four IRCG commanders (all between the ages of 50 to 55) have died mysteriesly and untimely deaths in the past four days.
–Another Guard member from the Guards’ Air Force unit in Mashhad was recently secretly hanged in prison.
Disinformation, coincidences and conspiracies do happen. I’m wary of conspiracy theories (a prime source of disinformation) because at least 99 out of 100 such theories are bunk. Any nut case can make one up, then insist that the “it must be a fact since you can’t prove otherwise.” Because it is impossible to prove the negative, real world trials put the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt–not beyond total doubt. Even the law of gravity must be revised the moment we let go of a pen and it fails to drop. On the otherr hand, a “not guilty” verdict does not necessarily mean the defendant was “found innocent.” It simply means the jurors felt the evidence was insufficient to prove guilty. Thus, as in the infamous OJ Simpson case, the public will remain entitled to its strong suspicions.
THE PEOPLE OF IRAN VS. THE SAYYID KHAMENEI & THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC
In this trial, the jurors (readers) must add into account the obvious and usually illegal advantages enjoyed by the defendant, which would never be the case in a real trial. In essence, Khamenei “owns” the judge and investigating police. Khamenei as dictator can restrict evidence, search warrants, subpoenas, interrogations, etc. and jail anyone lawyer who complains. Prosecution friendly witnesses can be “made unavailable” by one means or another. Having such advantages, the defendant hardly merits full “benefit of the doubt” from the public. Nor sure a unanimous verdict be required if we are to compensate for illegal advantages.
Eespite all the unusual advantages enjoyed by the accused, there seems to be at least enough evidence to warrant an impartial investigation (we will never see one) and a grand jury indictment (a ruling that there is sufficient evidence to justify the expense of a trial). The readers must decide, taking into account Khamenei’s illegal advantages, whether there is reasonable evidence to convict.
My next sub post, which will take time to write, examines what we know for certain and what is reasonable to surmise. Meanwhile here is a link to the source. You may find some of the subsequent comments at that site amusing.
