RIGHTS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Justice under god
15-Dec-2007
Justice must correspond to the necessities of our time. The penal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not in compliance with our society’s expectations. Our Iranian norms of morality and Islamic jurisprudence can never be in harmony. To describe how this penal system was mechanically grafted on our society, we must go back to the first years after the revolution of 1979 in Iran to see how the IRI steadily developed ever greater repression, with an increase both in the number of executions and in violence in general throughout the country.
Immediately after the February 1979 revolution, Revolutionary Courts were set up to prosecute agents of the Pahlavi regime. People were tried retroactively for acts which did not constitute penal offences at the time they were committed. Since 1979, according to the statements of opposition groups, 3,350 persons have been executed, more than 2,000 of them since the dismissal of President Bani Sadr, i.e. from June to October 1981.
Accused persons have been put on trial with no previous warning of the charges and no opportunity to prepare a defence, to engage a lawyer or to bring witnesses in their defence. They were condemned to death without any rights of appeal, whether within the law or under clemency and summarily executed. Those not condemned to death were in peril of double jeopardy. An example was General Nazemi who was condemned to 15 years imprisonment, but a few months later was retried on the same charges, condemned to death and executed; this was in violation of all international norms, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a party (1). Death sentences have been accompanied by flogging or carried out by stoning.
Having dealt with the former officials of the Shah’s regime, the courts began to concentrate on people accused of moral transgressions and of being “counter-revolutionaries” (i.e. anyone opposed to the Khomeini regime). The charges included “corruption on earth” and “waging war against God, his Prophet, his Imam and representatives of the Imam”. This policy followed the line of action which Ayatollah Khomeini emphasised in a speech in the Feyzieh Islamic Institute of Learning: “It is a day to day programme of identifying the opponents of Islam, our struggle against them shall become more intense” (2). And so it did.
The repression discarded rule of any law. Examples of this arbitrary rule were as follows:
--many prisoners under the Shah’s regime were released in February 1979, only to be re-imprisoned, if not executed. Such was the case of Reza Saadati, an MOK member (MOK or the People’s Mojahdin Organisation of Iran is an Islamic opposition group). Mr. Saadati was first sentenced to ten years imprisonment, and then shot after a second, secret trial;
--ethnic minorities (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Turkamens, and Baluchis) have seen their demand for a greater degree of self-government met with repression. Cases of massacres, imprisonment and executions have been widely reported; religious groups banned by Islam have been increasingly harassed under the IRI. The Baha’is, who numbered about one half million in Iran before the revolution, faced charges such as promotion of prostitution, cooperation with Zionism, spying for imperialist powers, corruption on earth and warring against God. Thousands have lost their homes and possessions, thousands have been dismissed from their jobs and many of them have been executed by revolutionary firing squads;
-- the main opposition groups after the overthrow of the Shah (democratic groups, moderate Islamic groups, the MOK and left-wing opposition) were not only been denied the right to share power in post-revolutionary Iran, but were severely repressed. Not a week has passed without arrests and executions of many of their members;
-- writers, poets and artists are particularly harassed. The first Islamic Revolutionary Judge, Sheik Sadegh Khalkhali, an infamous psychopath, did not hesitate to demand the execution of intellectuals such as Chamlou, a famous Iranian author who was well-known for his non-adherence to any political party and his non-involvement in any political activities. Khalkhali was responsible for many arbitrary executions. According to Judge Abdolkarim Ardibili, President of the Supreme Court, many defence lawyers were arrested, imprisoned and in at least one case, executed;
--those who faced firing squads included women and youths. It was reported Time Magazine on September 20, 1981 that 150 youngsters were shot in a mass execution on September 4(3). In a statement, Tehran’s revolutionary prosecutor, Assadollah Lajevardi declared on June 1981: “Of course, even a 9-year old can be executed if it has been proved to the court that he or she is grown enough”(4). It was reported that 13-year-old children had been shot. Lajevardi continued, “Counter-revolutionary activities, included the distribution of leaflets, incitement of innocent youths to subversion, and participation in demonstrations (charges often leading to death sentences)”. Following this declaration, in a campaign to muzzle dissent in the schools, the IRI arrested teenagers. The number of students barred from school was estimated at over 70,000 in the first two years after the revolution; (5)
--cases of torture and ill-treatment have been regularly reported. The IRI sought to justify these measures as necessary to repress attacks made by terrorists. Undoubtedly, the attack against the Islamic Republic Party (IRP) on June 28, 1981 (killing 74 of the party’s officials and leading Ayatollah Beheshti) and the bombing on August 30, 1981 (killing President Mohammad Ali Radjai and Prime Minister Mohammad Bahonar) were turning points in the escalation of violence and the IRI’s increasing repression. The regime demanded that people help the Judicial Body in arresting counter- revolutionaries, even if they were their own relatives;
-- on August 12, 1981, IRI’s Foreign Ministry ordered Iranian embassies and missions to draw up a list of Baha’is, counter-revolutionaries and “so-called students” living in their jurisdiction. It also prohibited the renewal of their passports and ordered instead issuance of a “transit-paper”, valid only for a return journey to Iran (6);
--lawyers’ defending political prisoners was difficult, and after the two above-mentioned terror attacks on the IRI President and Prime Minister became impossible. Indeed, according to statements by higher judicial officials, the defence of offenders would be contrary to Islamic laws, in that the defender is an accessory to the accused person’s crimes. This was borne out by a report that a qualified lawyer, Mr. Mohsen Jahandar, had been accused of defending prisoners before Revolutionary Committees, condemned to death and shot before a firing squad at about the end of August, 1981;
--the Revolutionary Tribunals turned to trying cases which were not within their jurisdiction as defined in their penal system, including charges of homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, simple theft and drinking alcohol. Sentences of death by firing squad or by stoning were imposed for homosexuality, prostitution and adultery; the cutting off of a hand for simple theft.
The IRI not only misused its own jurisdiction, but justified violence in the streets on the highest authority. On September 19, 1981, in an address broadcast on radio and television, Ayatollah Moussavi, Revolutionary Procurator General, stated that “to kill the people who stand against this regime and its just Imam (Khomeini) is a prescribed duty according to Islamic laws. If they are captured, our men will not let them eat and sleep for a few months. The trial of these people is in the streets. I also order the city prosecutors to do the same; otherwise they themselves will be punished” (8).
On the same day, Ayatollah Mohammadi Gillani, the Ghazi Shara’ of Tehran (Tehran’s Islamic Judge), stated at a press conference in Evin Prison, “Islam permits people engaged in armed demonstrations in the streets to be captured, stood against the wall of the street and shot”.
The highlight of repression begins with the Bill of Retribution, a series of articles degrading the worth of a man's life to100 camels or 200 cows and that of a woman to half of the man's, 50 camels or 100 cows. It was the beginning of judicial violation of all standards of Human Rights.
In January, 1981, the Bill of Retribution was submitted to Parliament, mandating stoning, amputation of limbs and gouging out of eyes as punishments. This bill was developed by the Supreme Leader’s Judicial Council. In some cities, the clergy did not wait for legal sanction but had already begun to practice Islamic Justice on their own.
Public response was initially muted by disbelief, which gave way to a horrified outcry. Progressive analyses of the Bill were circulated. Organisations of religious minorities, women and other democratic people demonstrated at the Department of Justice and at Parliament but were met with silence. Then, in September 1981, the Bill was passed.
The Bill assumes that the human body and its parts are convertible into money. The idea of receiving blood money is based on this kind of assumption. Here the class nature of this bill is revealed; it serves only the rich. Only they can afford to pay fines for their crimes in lieu of physical punishment. The following descriptions show how this barbaric bill can return our society to the Dark Ages:
--the Bill ignores that the goal of punishment is the rehabilitation of the individual and society. It defines punishment as individual retaliation. The social aspect of crimes is completely neglected so that punishment becomes a right of the next of kin, or the private plaintiff. This symbolises a return to a tribal age when feuds were the custom (ARTICLE 7);
--in this bill, the value of a woman is assumed to be half that of a man. In a case of voluntary manslaughter, her testimony has no value. In the case of the murder of a woman by a man, the family of the woman must pay the murderer half of his blood money before retaliating. Otherwise there will be no punishment; he merely has to pay the blood money of the woman, which is half that of a man; (ARTICLE 5)
--murder committed in the line of duty still demands retaliation, thus, if a commander orders his soldier or police officer to kill someone, the one who was compelled to follow the orders of the commander can be sentenced to death, while the commander will be only sentenced to imprisonment; (ARTICLE 4)
--according to the Bill, it is permissible to kill one’s child. In other words, if the father or paternal grandfather murders his child, even if the child is fifty years old, he will be exempt from retaliation; (ARTICLE 6)
--according to the Bill, people can be killed for insulting the prophet or the saints and the murderer will be exempt from the punishment. (ARTICLE23)
--this Article is a tool for the suppression of all those who politically or ideologically oppose the IRI;
--according to the Bill, if a person is sentenced to several penalties, all the penalties will be carried out. For example, if the penalty includes whipping and stoning to death, the assailant will be whipped first and then stoned to death; (ARTICLE 110)
--the Bill, in many of its articles, discriminates against the non-Muslim citizens of Iran, relegating their rights to half or even less than those of Muslim citizens. (ARTICLES 100, 151)
--according to the Bill, a man can murder his wife and her companion in the case of adultery. He will not be punished;
--the code does not provide any punishment in case of murder of an individual who is mentally ill;
--the sentence for consuming alcohol for the first time is whipping. However, the third time that a person is accused of drinking alcohol; he will be sentenced to death;
The Bill of Retribution states that all the penalties should be implemented in public. The Islamic Judge should notify the public of the time of the event. It is necessary that at least three Muslims be present during the ceremonies;
--in all cases, guilt is proven through confession or the testimony of witnesses. It is enough for two Islamic Committee members or Revolutionary Guards to falsely testify against a person to endanger his life;
--by emphasising confession as a means of proving guilt, the Bill paves the way for torturing individuals in order to force them to confess;
--according to the Bill, married men and women will be stoned to death for adultery. The sentence will be implemented with full medieval ceremony. (ARTICLE 100)
The Bill describes the penalty as follows: “The man up to his waist and the woman up to her chest will be placed in a ditch and then stoned. The stones should neither be too big nor too small. ”Big stones kill too quickly.
It is important to note that the Bill, in many cases, is in conflict with the Constitution that was ratified by the same ruling organs! The Bill explicitly violates: Article 14 of the Constitution, which obliges the government and its Muslim citizens to deal fairly with non-Muslim citizens and to observe their Constitutional rights; Article 19, which states that Iranian people of any tribe or sect have equal rights, and that colour, race, language, gender, will not be reasons for withholding privileges; and Article 20 which guarantees all Iranian citizens, both men and women, equality under the Constitution.
References:
1) Human Rights Violations in the Republic of Iran, Chicago, 11, May 1980.
2) Imam Khomeini, „The revolutionary line”, Great Islamic Library.
3) Time Magazine, 20, September 1981.
4) International Herald Tribune, 30, September 1981
5) Giam Iran newspaper, Tehran, 28, June 1981.
6) ICJ Review No.26, p.23.
7) See ICJ Review No.25, at p.21.
8) Kayhan newspaper, Tehran, 20, September 1981.
| Recently by Jahanshah Rashidian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Journée Internationale des Femmes | - | Mar 08, 2010 |
| Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery | 13 | Feb 04, 2010 |
| Iran Fails United Opposition | 5 | Jan 20, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
We Iranians need to decide
by Anonymous½ (not verified) on Sun Dec 16, 2007 01:06 AM PSTWe Iranians need to decide whether we want to give up our identity and culture and substitue it with arabo/islamic culture. It looks like the occupation of Arabs have come full circle and we are a defeated civilizations by Arabs and will never recover from this invasion...
To Anonymous789
by kurdish warrior (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:01 PM PSTOffcourse the Iranian people have suffered. And they are still suffering. I bet you are from up town Tehran who is not intouch with reality. I bet you never been in Kurdistan province nor Baluchistan or even in southern such as Khuzestan. Don’t get me wrong but if you have been there you would know that the people of those regions are suppressed every day. I'm not trying to point on one group specifically, most Iranian no matter their ethnicity are suppressed by this fascist regime. And one more thing I ain't MKO supporter but I believe in Unity, whether if you are monarchy, MKO, KDP-I, Baluchestanfront, democrats or conservative.
To : Mr Rashidian
by David ET on Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:44 PM PSTThank you for taking the time to prepare and write such an informative article.
The Original "Whores"
by Naazokbin (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 07:55 PM PSTSpeaking of "whores" again? Read this and find out who the original "whores" were.
THE BAKHTIAR GOVERNMENT
Iran Table of Contents
//countrystudies.us/iran/
Once installed as prime minister, Bakhtiar took several measures designed to appeal to elements in the opposition movement. He lifted restrictions on the press; the newspapers, on strike since November, resumed publication. He set free remaining political prisoners and promised the dissolution of SAVAK, the lifting of martial law, and free elections. He announced Iran's withdrawal from CENTO, canceled US$7 billion worth of arms orders from the United States, and announced Iran would no longer sell oil to South Africa or Israel. Although Bakhtiar won the qualified support of moderate clerics like Shariatmadari, his measures did not win him the support of Khomeini and the main opposition elements, who were now committed to the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a new political order. The National Front, with which Bakhtiar had been associated for nearly thirty years, expelled him from the movement. Khomeini declared Bakhtiar's government illegal. Bazargan, in Khomeini's name, persuaded the oil workers to pump enough oil to ease domestic hardship, however, and some normalcy returned to the bazaar in the wake of Bakhtiar's appointment. But strikes in both the public and the private sector and large-scale demonstrations against the government continued. When, on January 29, 1979, Khomeini called for a street "referendum" on the monarchy and the Bakhtiar government, there was a massive turnout.
Bakhtiar sought unsuccessfully to persuade Khomeini to postpone his return to Iran until conditions in the country were normalized. Khomeini refused to receive a member of the regency council Bakhtiar sent as an emissary to Paris and after some hesitation rejected Bakhtiar's offer to come to Paris personally for consultations. Bakhtiar's attempt to prevent Khomeini's imminent return by closing the Mehrabad Airport at Tehran on January 26, 1979, proved to be only a stopgap measure.
Khomeini arrived in Tehran from Paris on February 1, 1979, received a rapturous welcome from millions of Iranians, and announced he would "smash in the mouth of the Bakhtiar government." He labeled the government illegal and called for the strikes and demonstrations to continue. A girls' secondary school at which Khomeini established his headquarters in Tehran became the center of opposition activity. A multitude of decisions, and the coordination of the opposition movement, were handled here by what came to be known as the komiteh-ye Imam, or the Imam's committee. On February 5, Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of a provisional government. Although Bazargan did not immediately announce a cabinet, the move reinforced the conditions of dual authority that increasingly came to characterize the closing days of the Pahlavi monarchy. In many large urban centers local komitehs (revolutionary committees) had assumed responsibility for municipal functions, including neighborhood security and the distribution of such basic necessities as fuel oil. Government ministries and such services as the customs and the posts remained largely paralyzed. Bakhtiar's cabinet ministers proved unable to assert their authority or, in many instances, even to enter their offices. The loyalty of the armed forces was being seriously eroded by months of confrontation with the people on the streets. There were instances of troops who refused to fire on the crowds, and desertions were rising. In late January, air force technicians at the Khatami Air Base in Esfahan became involved in a confrontation with their officers. In his statements, Khomeini had attempted to win the army rank and file over to the side of the opposition. Following Khomeini's arrival in Tehran, clandestine contacts took place between Khomeini's representatives and a number of military commanders. These contacts were encouraged by United States ambassador William Sullivan, who had no confidence in the Bakhtiar government, thought the triumph of the Khomeini forces inevitable, and believed future stability in Iran could be assured only if an accommodation could be reached between the armed forces and the Khomeini camp. Contacts between the military chiefs and the Khomeini camp were also being encouraged by United States general Robert E. Huyser, who had arrived in Tehran on January 4, 1979, as President Carter's special emissary. Huyser's assignment was to keep the Iranian army intact, to encourage the military to maintain support for the Bakhtiar government, and to prepare the army for a takeover, should that become necessary. Huyser began a round of almost daily meetings with the service chiefs of the army, navy, and air force, plus heads of the National Police and the Gendarmerie who were sometimes joined by the chief of SAVAK. He dissuaded those so inclined from attempting a coup immediately upon Khomeini's return to Iran, but he failed to get the commanders to take any other concerted action. He left Iran on February 3, before the final confrontation between the army and the revolutionary forces.
On February 8, uniformed airmen appeared at Khomeini's home and publicly pledged their allegiance to him. On February 9, air force technicians at the Doshan Tappeh Air Base outside Tehran mutinied. Units of the Imperial Guard failed to put down the insurrection. The next day, the arsenal was opened, and weapons were distributed to crowds outside the air base. The government announced a curfew beginning in the afternoon, but the curfew was universally ignored. Over the next twenty-four hours, revolutionaries seized police barracks, prisons, and buildings. On February 11, twenty-two senior military commanders met and announced that the armed forces would observe neutrality in the confrontation between the government and the people. The army's withdrawal from the streets was tantamount to a withdrawal of support for the Bakhtiar government and acted as a trigger for a general uprising. By late afternoon on February 12, Bakhtiar was in hiding, and key points throughout the capital were in rebel hands. The Pahlavi monarchy had collapsed.
Source: U.S. Library of Congress
The question is: Why was it okay for the members of the Khomeini camp to go to bed with "imperialists" and it is bad for the opposition to do so?
Re: And that is why IRI needs to go.....
by Anonymous789 (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 07:54 PM PSTNo Mr. "Warrior", no more wars, and "revolutions". Iranians have suffered enough, things are just starting to get better. We don't need any more mad people from either side (likes of Ghaffari from the IRI side and likes of Rajavi from the anti IRI side) to take charge.
Do you remember Ghaffari, event them most pro IRI people are ashamed of him..
I am not going to even start on likes of Rajavi and Alireza Jafarzadeh. As the writer of this article said in one of his postings several weeks ago, MKO should dissolve itself.
And that is why IRI needs to go.....
by kurdish warrior (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 07:05 PM PSTWe all know what this regime stands for. It's brutality against its own people. Discrimination against different religious groups, ethnic groups and so on...The author does highlight these points. Unfortunately until most of us, stop the hate, grow up, and get united no matter their belief, groups and agenda, the mullahs will be in power for another decade to come.
Thank you J.R. All who have
by Seagull (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 07:01 PM PSTThank you J.R.
All who have suffered in silence appreciate that you have given them a voice. And all those who are
busy making accusasions in vain, fearing that others are tarnishing their religion, whereas it is their very own action, will soon realized that you are indeed a well wisher.
good will to man
Pro-IRI Very Silent
by Anonymous2266 (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 05:03 PM PSTObviously the usual pro-IRI on this site has nothing to say other than attack the author or try to create distraction from the subject. This bill is a documented undisputable embarrassment for the IRI. Only a psychotic lunatic bunch would write such a bill. What barberic attrocities comitted in the name of God and religion. We must permanently post this article here and everywhere for all to see what the IRI stands for. This bill is a very convincing evidence of their baberic activities.
Thank you very much Mr. Rashidian.
MKO: A Whore for Hire
by Yek Irani (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 04:34 PM PSTMany people justify the killing of Iranians by MKO like this: “IRI made them do it”. This is not the case. The main reason for the killing of Iranian by MKO was because of the psychotic state of their leaders (Rajavi and friends). These psychos wanted total control Iran. When they could not get it, they beat on the nation through terrorism. These psychos sent thousands of Iranians (both pro and against IRI) to their deaths. Had MKO taken control of Iran, they would have been 100 times worse than the IRI. MKO would have been like Khmer Rouge and their psycho leader is no different than Cambodia’s Pol Pot.
IRI made them do it scenario is not correct. Just look where MKO Cult went and what they did after they were driven out of Iran. They joined hand with one of the most ruthless persons on Earth (Saddam Hussein). They even attacked Iran by their tanks, again causing the death of thousands of innocent Iranians. As the present, MKO has become a whore for hire.
Jahanshah you are not consistent
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 04:11 PM PSTJahanshah, Although I agree with quit a few of your points in this article I find your post below (R: Rosie T) not consistent with your recent post in masoudA's article, 'Allied Invasion of Iran' (//iranian.com/main/2007/allied-inavsion-iran comment 20398).
There you almost go along with this war monger guy. I can accept that you have changed your view if you tell me so, but you can't convince me that you are consistent.
Not a Bahai
by Teach (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 03:15 PM PSTWe must come to the side of our countrymen and women, irrespective of their private beliefs. Hating bahai's simply because they are bahais will put us in line with the criminals of I.R. If a person commits crime, he/she should be viewed as criminal irrespective of their personal beliefs. And what is it that moslems have done for us iranians that bahai's have not done. moslem mullas have committed more crimes against iranians than any other iranian of any other persuasion and for the longest. moslem mullas are the true enemies of iranians, period. I have only seen bahais object to crimes against innocent bahais in iran, and in that regard, I (a non-bahai) am totally with them, except that I am for ANY innocent person (I don't give a damn about his/her religion) that is harmed by I.R. and there are many people of any religion in that camp, especially moslems and bahais. So, my educated, western-seen (donya dideh) hamvatans, i beg you to grow up and do not be a bigot like mullas except towards those who have committed crimes against all of iranians without discrimination, i.e., mulla thugs with bloody hands. We will not have a prosperous iran anytime soon until we wish it to be equally for ALL iranians and iranian lovers. May god bless the long standing diversity of iran with which we have lived so peacefully (compared to the civilized west!) for thousands of years. Let's respect our long-standing tradition and follow it.
Why does the IRI still rule let alone live?
by Ampbreia (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 01:39 PM PSTThe Iranian people got tired of the Shah's tyranny (which was nothing compared to the mullah's) and they got rid of him. Why can't they do so with the Islamic Regime? Why on earth do they think peaceful protests against the IRI are even worth the effort? Why are the mullahs and their henchmen not exterminated like the nest of poissonous vipers that they are? Why do the Iranian people put up with them? I don't understand....
To: bahai nabashid
by Saeed Kafili (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 01:11 PM PST"everyone in Iran hates both of you", you declare.
I am a non-Bahai Iranian, and live in Iran.
I, for one,without speaking for everyone, don't hate Bahais.
Why does everyone feels entitled to speak on behalf of "everyone in Iran"??
Ahmad "Baha"i...
by Rosie T. on Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:34 PM PSTyou called the author of this article a "hooker" meaning a prostitute for documenting attrocities committed across the board by the IRI inflicted upon Shahis, leftists, religious people, common thieves, whoever. wherever. And now you speak of OTHERS' "words of hate."
Normally one says "Practice what you preach" but in your case the advice must be to stop preaching IMMEDIATELY and look DEEP within before you practice or preach ANYTHING.
ANYTHING at all...
You are quite simply...ridiculous....
Regards,
Robin Jayne Goldsmith
REPLY : JUSTICE?
by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:33 PM PSTI wounder how can a person get believers, when she/he puts all logic aseid and writes what her7his emotions afford. why nobody has ever written a word about Justice in USA? Is it because every body is convinced Justice under the great satan? Impossible. so why talk about it. Now please acknowledge the following:
Dollar, yen or Euro?
On December 8, Chinese and French news services reported that Iran had stopped billing its oil exports in dollars.
IMPORTANT:
Americans might never hear this news as the independence of the US media was destroyed in the 1990s when Rupert Murdoch persuaded the Clinton administration and the quislings in Congress to allow the US media to be monopolized by a few mega-corporations.
Iran's oil minister, Gholam Hossein Nozari, declared: "The dollar is an unreliable currency in regards to its devaluation and the loss oil exporters have endured from this trend."
Iran has proposed to OPEC that the US dollar no longer be used by any oil exporting countries. As the oil emirates and the Saudis have already decided to reduce their holdings of US dollars, the US might actually find itself having to pay for its energy imports in euros or yen.
Venezuela's Chavez, survivor of a US-led coup against him and a likely target of a US assassination attempt, might follow the Iranian lead. Also, Russia's Putin, who is fed up with the US government's efforts to encircle Russia militarily, will be tempted to add Russia's oil exports to the symbolic assault on the dollar.
The assault is symbolic, because the dollar is not the reserve currency due to oil exports being billed in dollars. It's the other way around. Oil exports are billed in dollars, because the dollar is the reserve currency.
What is important to the dollar's value and its role as reserve currency is whether foreigners continue to consider dollar-denominated assets sufficiently attractive to absorb the constant flow of red ink from US trade and budget deficits. If Iran and other countries do not want dollars, they can exchange them for other currencies regardless of the currency in which oil is billed.
Indeed, the evidence is that foreigners are not finding dollar-denominated assets sufficiently attractive. The dollar has declined dramatically during the Bush regime regardless of the fact that oil is billed in dollars. Iran is dropping dollars in response to the dollar's loss of value. This is a market response to a depreciating currency, not a punitive action by Iran to sink the dollar.
Oil bills are only a small part of the problem. Oil minister Nozari's statement about the loss suffered by oil exporters applies to all exporters of all products.
A quarter century ago US oil imports accounted for the US trade deficit. The concerns expressed over the years about "energy dependence" accustomed Americans to think of trade problems only in terms of oil. The desire to gain "energy independence" has led to such foolish policies as subsidies for ethanol, the main effect of which is to drive up food prices and further ravage the poor.
Today oil imports comprise a small part of the US trade deficit. During the decades when Americans were fixated on "the energy deficit," the US became three to four times more dependent on foreign made manufactures. America's trade deficit in manufactured goods, including advanced technology products, dwarfs the US energy deficit.
For example, the US trade deficit with China is more than twice the size of the US trade deficit with OPEC. The US deficit with Japan is about the size of the US deficit with OPEC. With an overall US trade deficit of more than $800 billion, the deficit with OPEC only comprises one-eighth.
If abandonment of the dollar by oil exporters is not the cause of the dollar's woes, what is?
There are two reasons for the dollar's demise. One is the practice of American corporations offshoring their production for US consumers. When US corporations move to foreign countries their production of goods and services for American consumers, they convert US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) into imports. US production declines, US jobs and skill pools are destroyed, and the trade deficit increases. Foreign GDP, employment, and exports rise.
US corporations that offshore their production for US markets account for a larger share of the US trade deficit than does the OPEC energy deficit. Half or more of the US trade deficit with China consists of the offshored production of US firms. In 2006, the US trade deficit with China was $233 billion, half of which is $116.5 billion or $10 billion more than the US deficit with OPEC.
The other reason for the dollar's demise is the ignorance and nonchalance of "libertarian free market free trade economists" about offshoring and the trade deficit.
There is a great deal to be said in behalf of free markets and free trade. However, for many economists free trade has become an ideology, and they have ceased to think.
Such economists have become insouciant shills for the offshoring interests that fund their research and institutes. Their interests are tied together with those of the offshoring corporations.
Free trade economists have made three massive errors: (1) they confuse labor arbitrage across international borders with free trade when nothing in fact is being traded, (2) they have forgot the two necessary conditions in order for the classic theory of free trade, which rests on the principle of comparative advantage, to be valid, and (3) they are ignorant of the latest work in trade theory, which shows that free trade theory was never correct even when the conditions on which it is based were prevalent.
When a US firm moves its output abroad, the firm is arbitraging labor (and taxes, regulation, etc.) across international borders in pursuit of absolute advantage, not in pursuit of comparative advantage at home. When the US firm brings its offshored goods and services to the US to be marketed, those goods and services count as imports.
David Ricardo based comparative advantage on two necessary conditions: One is that a country's capital seek comparative advantage at home and not seek absolute advantage abroad. The other is that countries have different relative cost ratios of producing tradable goods. Under the Ricardian conditions, offshoring is prohibited.
Today capital is as internationally mobile as traded goods, and knowledge-based production functions have the same relative cost ratios regardless of the country of location. The famous Ricardian conditions for free trade are not present in today's world.
In the most important development in trade theory in 200 years, the distinguished mathematician Ralph Gomory and the distinguished economist and former president of the American Economics Association, William Baumol, have shown that the case for free trade was invalid even when the Ricardian conditions were present in the world. Their book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests, first presented as lectures at the London School of Economics, was published in 2000 by MIT Press.
While free trade economists hold on to their doctrine-turned-ideology, the US dollar and the American economy are dying.
One of the great lies of the offshoring interests is that US manufacturing is in trouble because of poor US education and a shortage of US scientists and engineers. Pundits such as Thomas Friedman have helped to spread this ignorance until it has become a dogma. Recently, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt lent his weight to this falsehood. (See "The US No Longer Drives Global Economic Growth," Manufacturing & Technology News, Nov. 30, 2007.)
The fact of the matter is that the offshoring of US engineering and R&D jobs and the importation of foreign engineers and scientists on work visas have combined with educational subsidies to produce a surplus of American scientists and engineers, many of whom are unable to find jobs when they graduate from university or become casualties of offshoring and H-1b visas.
Corporate interests continue to lobby Congress for more foreign workers, claiming a non-existent shortage of trained Americans, even as the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology concludes that real salary growth for American scientists and engineers has been flat or declining for the past 10 years.
The "long trend of strong US demand for scientific and technical specialists" has come to an end with no signs of revival.
What economist has ever heard of a labor shortage resulting in flat or declining pay?
There is no more of a shortage of US scientists and engineers than there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The US media has no investigative capability and serves up the lies that serve short-term corporate and political interests. If it were not for the Internet that provides Americans with access to foreign news sources, Americans would live in a world of perfect disinformation.
Offshoring interests and economic dogmas have combined to create a false picture of America's economic position. While the ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled, Americans are being told that they have never had it better.
Just a few mega corporations are representing America. Does a american citizen have any right to say and to write what she7he thinks? Of course YES BUT ONLY if she7he thinks as is perscribed to her/him. is that the kind of justice the iranians - i mean the ones who live in IRI, have founded it and will defend and protect it - wish to have? i mean there is a lot daubt about it. they will apparently that kind of freedom and democracy and justic which they are enjoing it since nearly 30 years. lwets suppose the writer of God`Justice gets more believers. what happens then? as some may wish the bushy bushy sends his condolence to get the most beloved President of IRI Mr. Ahmadinejad to get him to Guantanamo. well how many other iranians will follow? Lets not forget that the farmer Perserkaiser - the most last one - and his Kingfather had to leave Iran on behalf of order of strangers and no other iranian went with him. only some thier families!Greeting
Islamic Gift
by Gilani (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:18 PM PST"Since 1979, according to the statements of opposition groups, 3,350 persons have been executed, more than 2,000 of them since the dismissal of President Bani Sadr, i.e. from June to October 1981."
Dear JR,
Am I correct in my reading that Iranian opposition groups claim that the Islamic Republic has only executed 3350 individuals? Sir, I can easily come up with the list of 200 people that I knew by the age of 24 when I left Iran who were executed by savage Islamist thugs. In fact, MKO published a book in 1980s where they have enlisted the name of Iranian fallen soldiers who fell victim to the savagery of Islamic Republic and IR’s kaseef backward religion. I think the number of people who were executed by IR since 1979 should be somewhere between 50,000 to 100,000. I think MKO's number is somewhere between 90,000 to 110,000 individuals. hope someone with more knowledge on the subject can validate the number for us.
Best wishes,
M.F.
To: Tahirih
by Ahmad Bahai (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:01 PM PSTTahirih
First thanks for your clarification about zionists and bahais. As I indicated in my post, it was just a guess on my part. I don't still know the real reason.
As for you, if you set aside your hate, you would probably come across better an dmore understandable. I am not sure if people want to read or listen to words of hate anymore. We have enough of that going around in US media and by its government
A/B
To ahmad bahai
by Tahirih (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:48 AM PSTBahais do not lobby against palestinians or Iranians they lobby against persecution of bahais in Iran .They lobby to prevent barbaric acts like killing Mona Mahmodnejad and 9 of her female companions in 1983,in Shiraz.She was only 16 years old and a teacher of bahai children classes.For open minded readers of this site please go to www.monasdream.com and read for yourself.
We do not lobby against any other thing,if you are right give the readers a site to go and investigate insted of just empty accusations!
About my English I do not even reply to your ignorant remark.
We are not against Muslims,our ancestores and lots of our families are Muslim .We are peace loving ,humanitarian people who believe in unity of mankind.
I hope God forgive you and your kind for attrocities that you did in his name.
Ahmad Bahai = bario guy
by Assad Agha (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:43 AM PSTThis asshole uses different names in different articles. He uses the name "bario guy" in the blog on Hookers and Mojahedeens. I am sorry, but he is the Iranian version of a "Nigger".
To Tahirih
by Ahmad Bahai (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:02 AM PSTI am not sure with your half baked English (like mine) what you are trying to say. My name is Bahai. Why does it bother you?
As for equating Zionists and Bahais, I am not sure. My guess is that it is not because Bahaollah is burried in Haifa, but because Bahai's lobby in US congress is always in line with zionsist there. They are both intent at demoralizing and demonizing iranains, Palestinians, and generally Muslims, etc. You don't need to be a genious to be able to equate them.
A/B
Thank you Mr Rashidian
by Tahirih (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:20 AM PSTI forgot to thank Mr Rashidian for an article which brings hope to my heart .It did make me feel that there are open minded well intention Iranian out there.Please continue to write to defend humanity.As for ahmad bahai(supposedly your real name!)I am tired of you vampiers calling bahais zionist.The resting place of Imam Hossein is in Iraq,does it make you true proud iranian! an Arab sympatizer?Bahaullah was exilled in 1860s to Palestine Israel formed in 1948, you do the math??
I am telling you God has spoken and your time is running out!
To: Rosie T.
by Ahmad Bahai (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:44 AM PSTRosie,
Obviously you are not Iranian. Otherwise you would know that Bahai as a last name is not unusual in Iran -- neve been unusual. As I said Bahai is my name and I am proud of my iranian heritage. I know that anti-IRI and zionsists would like to pick at anything to make IRI look bad. But not with my name ....
This well written article exposes barbaric Islam
by ((Anonymous)) (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:41 AM PSTThanks for well written article Mr. Rashidian. You are a true Iranian and your enemies are brutal Islamists.
This article exposes barbaric Islam in this round of their barbaric attempt to Islamize Iran and its continual assault against people of Iran.
Islamic Republic of Iran and MKO are the same in nature. They both are cult and mafia type organizations, backward, barbaric and savage, anti-Iran, anti-Iranians. Their aims are to genocide Iranians and Iranian culture.
Stop the genocide of Iranians and Iranian culture.
To Ahmad Bahai
by Rosie T. on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:32 AM PSTI am asking whether you are Bahai because if Bahai is your real last name, it is almost definite that your ancestor who chose the patronym was a Bahai. And I have tirelessly defended Bahais on this website against accusations similar to yours against the present author, accusing the Bahai of being agents of every conceivable organization or government in the world that is not IRI. So if your name really is Bahai you should think about the hardships your ancestors endured.
If Bahai is not your real name you should stop using it, as the Bahai poster below suggested. The author of this article, though not religious, writes in the spirit of the best of the Bahai faith. He is concerned with the oneness of humanity. And instead of supporting him, you're attacking him.
I hope that eclarifies why I asked if you are a Bahai.
To: Rosie T -- Didn't I tell you .....
by JR's Monshi (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:19 AM PSTRosie,
Didn't I tell you that the writer of this article will say anything you want him to .... Surprise ....Surprise ....
Crimes were committed against OUR youth
by Face it (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:15 AM PSTA lot of our youth were executed only because of suspicion of being in MKO. Some were executed for being an MKO member but really had not done anything besides "yelling" in the hot days of revolution. Please read the book by Maria Nemat for examples. Crime and punishment simply did not match those days. A lot of MKO sympathizers did not know the true nature of MKO at the time and joined them out of naivety. They did NOT deserve to die. Please be respectful towards those poor souls. A vast majority of them had committed no crime against anyone. They were simply our young hamvatans, although naive. I.R. should be condemned and kept responsible for all the crimes that they committed out of proportion in the past 30 years, against iranians and iranian youth in particular.
P.S. I never liked MKO; but I believe punishment should fit the crime. Most of the executed committed no crime at all.
JR: that is what I thought
by Rosie T. on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:13 AM PSTThank you for your statement. I will surely cut and paste it in future to respond to allegations against you.
Thank you also for your clarification about sanctions. I am glad that you are so specific about delineating them. I will read those blogs more carefully and reconsider the issue.
I hope you understand that when I characterized you as a "centrist" I was thinking along a European model as opposed to an American one where the discussion is so hopelessly skewed in favor of the right that Bill Clinton is practically considered Che Guevara...and so a "centrist" is de facto a "right winger" in the States.
Perhaps a "moderate" would have been a better word. In any case, it's not for me to judge...I was just trying to explain that you are NOT an EXTREMIST. And also I don't care much about semantics. I only care about what a person DOES. Essentially I see your work--that is your writings--as humanitarian.
Ahmad bahai is not a Bahai and it is not his real name either!
by Tahirih (not verified) on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:10 AM PSTI am kind of new to this site,and it is intersting that I can recognize the smell of garbage so soon.This person can not be a bahai because bahai's are humanistic and the writers article is all about unity and defending all the groups that are being wronged by IRI.This spine less IRI agent is calling himself ahmad bahai and then attacking the writerto kill two birds with one stone.Hojatieh foul smell is coming from his words.You can abuse bahais in iran but you can not stop our voice here God has spoken and your time is runnig out!
well documented
by Mazloom on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:09 AM PSTI find this article to be well researched and documented. There are specific references to the so called “ghanon’e ghesas”, which opened the door to many human rights violations in Iran. I believe the people who do not agree with the merits of this article should articulate their views about the content of this article instead of attacking the writer himself. To me it would not make any difference whether the author was or is a member of MKO. In my opinion what is specifically describe here is an unbiased view of a patriotic countryman who considers justice to be above all ideologies.
R: Rosie.
by Jahanshah Rashidian on Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:03 AM PSTI have already condemned Bush administration for its unchained liberalism, for its Iraqi invasion, for its world hegemony and lack of respect for democracy and sovereignty of other nations. I have also rejected any military attack or sanctions on basics of Iranian people—see my previous posts What I proposed in many articles is a series of political and judicial sanctions towards IRI’ seniors, as the only perpetrators, by the highest international political and judicial bodies—The U.N / The Hague Court/ EU Council…People can have their faith in privacy, but not imposed on the institutions. This is the reason I believe in democracy and secularism, also as a guarantee for religion freedom.
I personally do not believe in the accuracy, morality, divinity, and necessity of any religion, especially of Islam, but accept as democrat coexistence of all religious and ethnical groups as long as one of them does not call for intolerance.
I have been for the past three decades in France and Germany. I have never been in Kurdistan, Iraq or any part of this region for any reason. Now, I live as a German citizen a normal life.As student in80th, I was closed to leftist groups in France, but never to the MOK or any religious group. I have always condemned the MOK cult—see my posts on the site.Today, I am not a political activist and am not affiliated to any Iranian opposition groups and have no ambition for it, but, as a freelance writer, what is wrong if I share my ideas with others? I only defend democracy, secularism, and Human Rights. In certain scientific and philosophic realms, I am even not atheist.
These internet critics would automatically condemn every opposition voice by labelling him or her “MOK / CIA… member”.