The Iranian Revolution Lives!!

AlJazeera has posted a 47-minute video of the ongoing struggle in Iran, "Letters from Iran".

It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.

Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?

While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"

This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.

So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?

Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast".  Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.

It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".

It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.

Our Supreme Leader Ayatollah Dick Cheney has spoken

Dick Cheney is once again blasting the Obama administration for investigating torture practices; Cheney vehemently maintains that torturing prisoners has protected the nation. See
"Dick Cheney's Version".

Why are these people prisoners? Because they are terrorists? Who says they are terrorists? Dick Cheney.

This sounds spookily like Iran. Why are people in prison? Because they are acting as foreign agents? Who says they are foreign agents? The government of iran.

Even though the trials in Iran are show trials, at least the prisoners are getting a trial. In the land of freedom and justice we haven't even had show trials for the people the government calls terrorists. Why not? It will jeopardize national security? Who says so? Dick Cheney.

At least it's not yet a crime in the U.S. to question the wisdom of our self-appointed Supreme Leader.

The apologists of torture are torturing us

Commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, "The Torture Debate, Continued", Washington Post, 2009-05-15 (Reprinted in Star Tribune, 2009-05-19) keep painting a scary scenario on how torture would prevent a terrorist attack, "the ticking time bomb" scenario.

In this scenario the authorities "know" there is a plot to do some dastardly deed, they have captured a suspect that they believe is involved in the plot, they believe they can only get details about the plot by torturing the suspect, and when the suspect reveals these details, they will be able to successfully foil the plot.

Like Krauthammer, they offer a real example in which they claim torture worked.

Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on any part of this scenario.

Some in the Clinton administration knew that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. but didn't know exactly what. This information was given to the Bush administration and not followed up at high levels. See "Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified" and "Know thine enemy".

Some flight schools were suspicious of some of their students, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui, and reported them to the FBI. The local FBI office acted on these suspicions, but the Washington office denied permission to search Moussaoui's computer. It is uncertain how much Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plot, but earlier action may have led to other Al Qaeda members.

Suppose Moussaoui had been tortured in order to reveal more details of the 9/11 plot. First, how much did he really know about that specific plot? Second, since he changed his story so many times, admitting guilt and denying guilt, could anything he said be believed? If he was to be part of the 9/11 plot, would he have admitted sufficient details under torture to foil the plot.

Years ago I heard a story about a Norwegian resistance member who was captured by the Germans. They knew he was involved with others and wanted to know their whereabouts. His interrogator drove a screwdriver into his knee and twisted, repeatedly. Despite the great pain, the Norwegian held out until he knew his friends, who were escaping Norway before being caught, were safely at sea.

So, for torture to successfully foil a plot, you have to know the plot exists, you have to know a captured suspect really knows sufficient details about the plot, and you have to be sure that he will reveal, under torture, sufficient details about the plot in a timely fashion. That is a very slender thread to hang the security of the nation on.

The tortuous justification of torture

One story making the rounds is that the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) led to the prevention of an attack on Los Angeles. Therefore torture works and saves American lives.

The problem is that the time sequence is all wrong. The plot was foiled in February 2002, KSM was not captured until March 2003. See "The 'torture prevented a west coast 9/11' lie", Jed Lewison, Daily Kos, 2009-04-23.

Now, if you think this interpretation of the time sequence is a "liberal plot" to discredit the Bush Administration, see President George W. Bush give the same sequence.

See also "The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate", The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009-04-29.

If our government can torture foreigners...

...what's to stop it from torturing us?

Reflection on reading "Torture Retorts" in the New York Times "Opiniator", 2009-04-22.

It has happened here!

"Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Torture Appeal", New York Times, Oct. 10, 2007

The case of Khaled el-Masri who claims to have been illegally detained and tortured by the United States government has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The grounds, it would reveal state secrets. Who decided el-Masri was a terrorist suspect? The Federal government. Who decided state secrets would be revealed? The Federal government.

Whatever happened to checks and balances? This sound eerily like It can't happen here by Sinclair Lewis.

In other words, who decides who a terrorist is? George Bush. Who decides the evidence can't be revealed? George Bush. This is the guy who says he is bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.

See also Review of It can't happen here and What do I have to hide? Plenty!