Syrian Blogger Sentenced to Three Years in Jail

blind biker writes "The AP reports (via the Herald Tribune) of Tarek Bayassi, a 24-year old Syrian blogger sentenced to three years in jail for 'undermining the prestige of the state and weakening national morale.' The original sentence was six years but it was commuted on appeal. Apparently, this isn't an isolated case in Syria."

Comments

Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

If undermining the prestige of the state were punishable, Bush would have been in prison years ago...

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If undermining the prestige of the state were punishable in the US, Bush would have been in prison years ago..."

FYP.

Aren't you glad it's not, and that you don't live in Syria where it is punishable?

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but does he blog about his achievements?

Re:Prestige of the State?

[value_added]

Irregardless of that ...

Aaargh.

The choices are regardless or irrespective. Pick one.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

What!? I didn't do nothing!

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

In an article about Syria, the first post is a dig at Bush. Keep up the good work, slashdot.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Sobrique]

Or Guantanamo bay where things like legal constraints seem optional.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[psychodelicacy]

Of course, he wouldn't - the point is that the people in power are the state. Under such a system, Bush can't undermine the prestige of the state because Bush is the state. The people who would be in prison are all those who criticise Bush, despite the fact that, to many outside observers, they are the people who offer hope for their country.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Uncle Focker]

No, irregardless is a perfectly legitimate choice. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. You grammar Nazis are going to just have to accept the fact that the word is a legitimate part of the language now. You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[electrictroy]

In my opinion, anyone who doesn't speak the original tongue (example: Beoqulf) is not speaking true English. I'd even be willing to accept the language of circa 1400 (example: Chaucer), but no one seems to want to cooperate and use the proper grammar. I guess we need a "Department of the Language" similar to how the French Despotic government has, to decide what is acceptable and what is not allowed, and imprison anyone who dares use a non-approved word.

Alas noone listens to me. They just keep evolving the language with new "inkhorn" words.

Terrible. /end sarcasm

Re:Prestige of the State?

[superslacker87]

You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.

Proof positive: This same reply fifty years from now, when lolspeak has become the commonplace language of our time:

lolz, erreygrdles iz gud choiss, stoopid n00b. Frum da dicshunary:

i can has cut?

u grammer nazis r goin to jus has 2 accept teh fact dat teh werd iz legitimate part ov teh language nao. u can fight it all u wants but teh language iz goin 2 evolve whethr u liek it or not.WHETHR U LIEK IT OR NOT.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

And you will have to accept the fact that you will be viewed as an ignorant git every time you use it.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[shentino]

I find the above insightful, because you quoted something that touches on what it actually means to be a word.

ALL words start out in usage, and gradually get popular enough to be in the dictionary.

Like "blankie" and "cyberspace". They were "de facto" words, and then the dictionary people over at Webster made them words "per se" due to popular use.

It's just like an ISO standard, more or less. If the ISO (webster) publishes a standard, it is a standard "per se", whereas a "de facto" standard is simply one the world uses.

It's "de facto" if it's popular, and it's "per se" if some authoritative body says it is.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[value_added]

No, irregardless is a perfectly legitimate choice. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

I wonder whether in your over-eager need to consult the web, you managed to discover the meaning of dialectical, or what any of the il, in, ir, or im prefixes mean? Here's a hint: you don't need to know any Latin to know that insensitiveless clod doesn't mean what you think it means.

You grammar Nazis are ...

Ignoring the obvious bias on the part of someone who opts for inflammatory terms, how is making use of a tortured (dialectical, if you prefer) double-negative construct (in place of a perfectly ordinary word like "regardless") evolutionary? Seems to me if you're trying to be helpful, justifying a poor and obviously confusing choice of words ain't it.

Then again, if knowledge and self-improvement isn't for you, and deference is out of the question, drink your Gatorade and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. I'm sorry but you still fail. Proper grammar isn't just proving that a word is real. There are also style guidelines. You would have points taken off of any essay for using that word. For something to be a real word it only needs to be in use by more than 1 person. Just because something is a real word doesn't mean it's accepted. You have regard and regardless (without regard), so what exactly does irregardless mean? Without regardless? The fact that people are defending this usage is more than likely from some deep seated trauma of being mocked for using that word and now you feel the need to lash out. In other words, you made a mistake and now you're searching for some way to justify that mistake so you can keep pretending you're perfect.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse, at least it isn't about a man with a giant anus, how some random guy's record store is going out of business, or the various other shenanigans we see as FP.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[operagost]

Of course, he wouldn't - the point is that the people in power are the state.

Not in a republic.

The people who would be in prison are all those who criticise Bush, despite the fact that, to many outside observers, they are the people who offer hope for their country.

But they aren't in prison... which is the point that wooshed over your head. All this focusing on one man who will leave office in January is counterproductive, as it is every citizen's responsibility to keep his government in check. As George Washington said, government makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[operagost]

You forgot to tell us to "get thee offe myn lawne!"

Re:Prestige of the State?

[dotancohen]

It's just like an ISO standard, more or less. If the ISO (webster) publishes a standard, it is a standard "per se", whereas a "de facto" standard is simply one the world uses. I suppose that's why the defauls aspell that comes with Ubuntu has "Microsoft" as a word, but not "Ubuntu"?

Re:Prestige of the State?

[Anonymous Coward]

You grammar Nazis are going to just have to accept the fact that the word is a legitimate part of the language now. You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.

That simply ain't true, my nigga.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[psychodelicacy]

Sorry, I think it's you who has missed my point. What I was saying was that, if the US had the same system as Syria, then those people who claim that Bush would be in jeopardy for damaging the state's image are wrong, because Bush (as leader) would be the state. The initial assumption that we're imagining the US having the same system as Syria is, I think, what you've missed out on and what was behind my comment.

Could you try to be less aggressive when you think someone has missed something? If I really were too stupid to understand the original point, don't you think it would have been more helpful to explain kindly rather than making some sarcastic jibe?

Re:Prestige of the State?

[shutdown -p now]

Alright, if you agree that he should be followed by all the people who voted him in for the second time.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[RockDoctor]

If undermining the prestige of the state were punishable, Bush would have been in prison years ago...

Agreed, but ... which Bush?

And would one (or both) of them get day-release for attending the awards ceremony for lifetime services to comedy arts, viz : making a laughing stock out of their country, twice.

Re:Prestige of the State?

[MrNaz]

He doesn't drink Gatorade. He drinks Brawndo, because it's what plants crave.

Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704]

Why does this surprise anybody?

Since 1963 the country has been governed by the Baath Party; the head of state since 1970 has been a member of the Assad family. Syria's current president is Bashar al-Assad, son of Hafez al-Assad, who held office from 1970 until his death in 2000.[1]

...Upon assuming power, Hafez al-Assad moved quickly to create an organizational infrastructure for his government and to consolidate control.

Since when have any citizens of any dictatorship ever had freedom of speech? If he were Chinese his family would be paying for a bullet.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, US not much different folks; banned book == no freedom of speech. ( http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm )

and speaking of which, about the the writers's trial, no due process either, seems that a judge may rule that you are not allowed to mention the law on your defense, under penalty of jail time. :-|

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Crazy, I'm the anonymous coward below and the post doesnt appear unless i'm logged in. Crap Orwell. :-|

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21]

This book was "Previously banned" by the admission of the author. Right along with Lolita and others. It is banned no more. Don't forget about the Sedition Act when John Adams was President. Christ, it's not like anyone is claming that the US is perfect.

Find a freedom that is PRESENTLY being violated in the US to bitch about. It's not hard to do.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[jackharrer]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia.

If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war. Look at Lebanon and you'll understand. Whole middle east is like that. Don't just watch what they show on CNN as quite a big part of transmission is just lost during editing.

My brother-in-law is Syrian (albeit Christian, not Muslim) and I met his family many times. Situation there is more normal that you'd ever dreamed of. It's just that politics needs to be done in this way.

I don't agree with jailing of the poor bastard, but that's how it works there. I'd prefer less restrictive government, but that will not happen anytime soon.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

Good old Hafez also massacred 20,000 of his own people at Hama. Violations of human rights are nothing new to Syria, just ask the Lebanese.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Ok, ok, then he is still PRESENTLY incarcerated for the rest of his life because in his trial he was basically told to shut up and not defend himself. Repeatedly.

And my point is far from tossing shit on the American flag, like unfortunately is the mindset of today's naive 'it's all Bush's fault' generation, but that residents better start really breathing down congressmen's necks since they obviously can't be trusted to do their job unsupervised ( doh. :-) )

I truly hope America is once again a country for the people and their individual rights, that was the great thing about it.

Shit and I don't even live there! Talk about needing some hope for the world. :-)

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Otter]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US...If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war.

I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Latin America and East Asia, that only a sufficiently dictatorial rightist or leftist (depending on the speaker's own prejudices) could run a stable government.

In fact, it turns out that Mexicans, Koreans, Brazilians and Singaporeans are quite as capable of living in democracies as Western Europeans are.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Yes we are, thanks.

Although laws are a bit ackward, like if you 'disrespect' a public servant, you can go to jail, and freedom of speech isn't exactly well understood, since marching pacifically to legalize marijuana is not allowed while marching pacifically promoting fascism is...

Well, you get the picture, but at least we students aren't arrested and beat up by the cops 10% as much! \o/

p.s.: and civil war and anarchy are bad exactly why? The USA comes to mind, oh, if only that civil war hadn't happened, I might have a slave of my own today.... darn... :)

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21]

He is in jail not because he was told to shut up. He's in jail because the jury was improperly instructed. There have been many other cases like his where the question at hand (that there is no law creating the present state of the income tax) was brought up. The problem is that the government has decided that the improper instruction of the jury is proper. So appeals canâ(TM)t work so long as everyone in the bureaucratic chain actually agrees on something. Furthermore, this is not something that our Congressmen have power over, and I guarantee that they are not going to pass a new law banning income tax no matter how many people bitch. The most you could hope for is a real law creating the income tax.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[baldass_newbie]

I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Latin America and East Asia

They said the same thing about Germany and Japan before that. Little to differentiate Germany post-Weimer and Iraq, truth be told.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[theheadlessrabbit]

Singapore?

you are using Singapore, the country where they can fine you for not flushing a toilet in a public restroom, where possession of marijuana is punishable by death as an argument FOR people being able to live like we do in the Western world?

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[l-ascorbic]

It sounds unlikely, but Bashar isn't really to blame here. He was never meant to be president. His brother was groomed for the role, but died in a car accident. When Hafez died, Bashar was working as an eye doctor in London. He was rushed back to inherit a job he never wanted. After he took control he quickly put in place measures to liberalise the country, loosening restriction on freedom of speech among others. However, this didn't last long. it soon became clear that he was not the one with the power. The real leaders were the senior official of the Baath Party who had been put in place by his father. They clamped down and reversed his reforms.

While he is the one whose face is on posters on the side of every building and on the wall of every shop and home, he's not in charge. There's obviously a lot of brainwashing going on, but he really does seem to be very popular in Syria. A lot of this is bread and circuses: people generally have a good quality of life, so tend to ignore the politics.

In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people. It's sad to see stories like this, but there are signs of improvement in the regime. Even the fact that he had a trial and had his sentence reduced is a progress. It's unlikely he would have had that under Hafez. Despite the recent furore over the alleged nuclear reactor, there seems to be signs of progress towards peace with Israel. Only a couple of weeks ago, Turkey's president Erdogan was brokering talks about a possibly treaty. Time will tell.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[CowTipperGore]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia. If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war...Whole middle east is like that. Grotesque racism and ignorance is modded Interesting?

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Hognoxious]

It could be worse. They could have cameras in the streets and use them to fine people who run red lights. Imagine that!

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

He is in jail not because he was told to shut up. He's in jail because the jury was improperly instructed. There have been many other cases like his where the question at hand (that there is no law creating the present state of the income tax) was brought up. The problem is that the government has decided that the improper instruction of the jury is proper. So appeals canâ(TM)t work so long as everyone in the bureaucratic chain actually agrees on something. Furthermore, this is not something that our Congressmen have power over, and I guarantee that they are not going to pass a new law banning income tax no matter how many people bitch. The most you could hope for is a real law creating the income tax.

ya ya, but half the reason the jury was improperly instructed is that the defendant couldn't present his defense ( to the jury ) because he was told to shut up, so he is in jail because he was told to shut up; q.e.d.

That's serious malarkey there. Makes me head spin.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704]

Find a freedom that is PRESENTLY being violated in the US to bitch about. It's not hard to do.

Indeed. I've done it here and I did it back when I posted at K5*. But the fact remains that even though the politicians and cops and rich people would dearly love to get rid of that pesky Constitution (and at times have succeeded), we are no match for Syria when it comes to abusing human rights.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

"In fact, it turns out that Mexicans, Koreans, Brazilians and Singaporeans are quite as capable of living in democracies as Western Europeans are.

Have you ever been to Mexico or Brazil in anything other than a tourist capacity? So you'd actually know what you were talking about? I thought not.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[mapkinase]

"In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people." I testify to that. Everybody in my mosque is very nice, but Syrians stand out even on that background.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to remind ourselves that the only economically advanced and democratic country in the Middle East is Israel. The countries surrounding Israel should stop talking about destroying this government and more time learning from it.

    Nearly all the people in the Middle East are good and warm people, but they are plagued by disfunctional cultures and vicious backward governments. The tech community of the world needs to demand that OUR people be treated by OUR standards of civilized behavior by these vicious backward governments.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704]

If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war.

When you have a government that is not representative of the will of the populace you have to have strong government there or they will descend into anarchy and civil war. You do realise that the US had its own Civil War once?

Look what alcohol prohibition did to our nation. Look what the "war on [some] drugs" is doing to our inner cities today. When the will of the governed clashes with the will of the government, violence is always the outcome.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Singapore has one of the highest per capita execution rate of the world, Brazil has the highest GINI coefficient of the world. A democracy is more than having a parliament and an elected head of state. In 19th century when Western Europe social development was comparable with that of modern third world countries, European Governments were as authoritative as those of these modern countries.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Machtyn]

If I had mod points, I'd mod that insightful, heh.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

I live in Brazil, we just got upgraded to BBB- investment grade, the stock has been shooting upwards, the miserable people are getting a small government grant as incentive to keep their children in school. Compare that to our dictatorship and well, it really doesn't compare. Trust me, things may not be perfect, or even good, but we're better off. Interventionism sucks. Democracy sucks too, but everything else sucks even worse. :-|

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704]

Here, drink this arsenic. It isn't nearly as bad as drinking sulphuric acid!

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[MrMr]

Why not? 'Interesting' is not 'Good' or 'True'
For me this sort of ignorance is as interesting as a traffic accident.
(I admit however, that with the moderation the poster will probably think he has made an interesting remark, not that his mental condition exhibits an interesting pathology).
Btw. Modding this '+1 interesting' is inappropriate.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Funny, by your own argument, their people must be treated by their own 'disfunctional culture's' standards of behaviour.

The arrogance, o lord. :-)

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Knara]

Things can be interesting, even if not correct or pleasant.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Joe the Lesser]

Wow! I didn't realize it was a republican paradise!

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[CowTipperGore]

Things can be interesting, even if not correct or pleasant. Sure, but this isn't mythology or science fiction - it is everyday common ignorance and prejudice. Further, I would wager that the mods found the original post in agreement with their own ignorance, not simply interesting.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[alexborges]

Im not an american, but I admire a whole lot of the American Culture (and despise another whole lot of it, and I think most Americans agree with me on that stance). In particular, I remember a legal episode where some conservative punk got to ban some Beatnik books (Naked Lunch, for example), and that got to court, and Norman Mailer attended, and in the end the judge set the precedent that if any book in the U.S. has any kind of interesting information for a sizeable number of people related to the topics treated in that book, then it cannot be banned. Which is why Burroughs's books where then edited in the states, instead of france, where the first editions where made.

So i dont buy this stuff youre feeding.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Knara]

Tricky business there, attempting to divine the intent of a moderator. Shows a lot about your world outlook, though.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[l-ascorbic]

Indeed. Syria is the only place I've been to in the middle east where if someone comes up to you and offers you tea or wants a chat, it's not just because they want to sell you something. They really are that friendly. If you believed the US State Department you'd think they were all terrorists and fanatics. They're even friendly to Americans, Brits and Danes.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia.

So, what you're really saying is that Arabs have some innate inability to live in a democracy with human rights. They can only be governed by a harsh dictatorship.

If George Bush, Ariel Sharon or Daniel Pipes said that, the protesters would be lined up outside.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new - in the UK you will go to prison for merely SAYING or WRITING things which the government doesn't agree with - such as anti-muslim comments, anti-immigrant comments, or anti-gay comments.

Nice to see that those three MINORITY groups count for far more than the MAJORITY INDIGENOUS population who are having this shit IMPOSED on us. Democracy, anyone?

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

you are using Singapore, the country where they can fine you for not flushing a toilet in a public restroom, where possession of marijuana is punishable by death as an argument FOR people being able to live like we do in the Western world?

You've got the right idea but the wrong examples

Singapore's crimes against democracy/liberty:

• No free speech - there however is a "Speaker's Corner" where you can apply to give a speech
• No habeas corpus - active law allowing 'internal security' police to arrest with no cause
• No freedom of press
• Massive censorship
• National ID card for fully monitored citizens
• Mandatory conscription for males
• Males need an "exit permit" to leave the country. You go to jail for being outside the country beyond what your permit allows.

As for elections:

• Gerrymandering
• Denial of privileges to opposition wards
• Nepotism
• Harassment of opposition party members by ruling party

Singapore's democracy is a sham.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[mapkinase]

I have been to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It really depends on how busy is the place you are visiting. Makkah is much busier than Madina (during Hajj time), so one could expect nicer attitude in Madina.

In Madina, they do not have trash bins, somebody sees you wanting to get rid of the napkin and comes with the small trash collector on a stick. During Hajj, there are millions of people around Masjid an-Nabawwi (main mosque of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), yet the place is much cleaner than any similarly crouded place in the West. You basically can walk barefoot without disgust.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[MBGMorden]

The USA comes to mind, oh, if only that civil war hadn't happened, I might have a slave of my own today.... darn... :) A little off-topic, but the South was already moving towards ending slavery and most historians I've spoken with think it probably would have made the move on it's own within a few more decades (it wasn't just something in the water above the Mason-Dixon line that made people anti-slavery - it was a general changing world view on the subject).

The US Civil War was about secession (or rather, the right of a state to secede from the union), not directly slavery. The core of it was that Southern states tended to view them selves as belonging more to their State (so one was a Virginian or a North Carolinian before they were American). The Federal government to them was supposed to be a loose organization more analogous to the United Nations of today. It's existence was solely to provide a unified military defense and to facilitate interstate commerce. As such the southern states wanted the right to decide their own policies (of which slavery was indeed a major hot issue of the day). They also viewed it as their right to decline membership and go their separate ways if they felt so justified. The war was largely based on a disagreement in the interpretation of that relationship between the US and the individual states.

Slavery wasn't abolished until a year into the war and then ONLY in the Southern states (though at the time Lincoln didn't have control over them, so it was a bit toothless). Slavery in the North was still quite legal after the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery didn't end there until the 13th amendment passed after the war ended, 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Indeed, General Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave (though he set him free in 1859), and his wife owned four. Many other Union generals owned slaves too. Naturally slave ownership among the Southern leadership was quite common. On the other hand the VAST majority of the soldiers doing the actual fighting on either side did not own slaves at all (afterall, slaves cost a lot of money, and wars are often fought by the poor). In the eyes of the common soldier they were simply fighting to either keep their country from tearing apart or for their independence against an oppressive government, depending on which side they were on.

Not that I think slavery is good or anything (IMHO it's one of the greatest evils man can commit), but it just irks me sometimes when the American Civil War gets simplified into a no slavery vs slavery or good vs evil situation, when in reality it was far more complex.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

Syrian is a race?

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your score settings... they might be different when not logged in.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Freedom of religion - conform or we'll take your children away.

2. Freedom of the press - publish what you're told or you'll be kicked out of the White House press corps.

3. Freedom of speech - even discussing the option of totally replacing our government is a felony.

4. Freedom of movement - random searches on subways and buses anyone?

5. Right to privacy - warrants come pre-signed and blank these days. And what cops bother with them?

6. Right to bear arms - don't get me started.

Let me fix that for you: Find a freedom that presently -ISN'T- being violated in the US!

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Original Replica]

He's in jail because the jury was improperly instructed.

Not long ago I sat in the jury box and was instructed many things by the Judge. Most of those instruction were things we could not discuss, and how we should decide based on the judges interpretation of the law, not the wording of the law itself (which was not provided to us) I thought to myself: "If we have to follow all of these rules, what is the purpose of a jury other than to be a puppet for the judge?" Based on my experience as a juror, trial by jury in the US is a sham.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Anonymous Coward]

All generalizations are racist.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Wow, thanks for the detailed insight. I stand thoroughly corrected. :)

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

by all means, don't buy it. look it up yourself.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[mi]

Hm, US not much different folks

Awesome... Once again, the America's critics don't even realize, that they continue to live (and outside of prison), and criticize the government only because some of the things they say are simply not true...

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[mi]

Why does this surprise anybody?

It surprises some people, because the current (highly unpopular) Administration of the US has criticized Syria very harshly for, basically, being evil.

A substantial (and highly vocal) group of Americans consider the President himself to be the evil incarnate, and thus take his words and actions to mean the exact opposite. Just recently one of their major leaders even visited Syria — much to the delight of the country's dictatorship and in direct violation of the federal law...

Pelosi's followers must be dumbfounded (those, for whom this is not the permanent state), that anybody could be imprisoned for "undermining the prestige of the state and weakening national morale" anywhere outside of Bush's America (where they suffer daily persecutions in their fight for a better tomorrow), and especially in the friendly and peaceful Syria...

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[theheadlessrabbit]

South Korea also has national ID cards and manditory conscription for males.
While the press here isn't controlled by the state, much of it is very sesnationalized and biased, much like fox news.

by your logic, would South Korea's democracy be a sham, or does a country need to break all of your listed rules?

Im not trying to be snarky or rude here, I am genuinely interested in what level of control it takes before you consider a democracy to be a sham.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[shutdown -p now]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia. If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war.

I'm Russian. We didn't descend into anarchy and civil war in 90s, despite all the democracy. We did come quite close early on, but by late 90s, things were clearly improving. Of course, that's when the currently ruling "strong hand" elite stepped in and took over, using essentially the same arguments you do here. They've got an added bonus of claiming that the economic improvements that were already on their way can be attributed solely to their "strong hand" policy.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704]

You know, this confuses me about my own country. Partisan Democrats hate Republicans more than they hate their country's enemies, and likewise Partisan Republicans hate Democrats more than they hate their country's enemies.

Meanwhile most American voters split their votes. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but Bush managed to prove me wrong. IMO Bsh should be impeached, but OTOH I think McCain would be a bad president, but not nearly as bad as Obama or Hillary.

Never trust anyone with a political bumper sticker on their car.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21]

The defendant never has anything to do with how the jury is instructed. The jury is instructed by the judge based on the judge's interpretation of the law. Blame the judges in this case. Also note, jury nullification is not allowed. As Original_Replica stated, trial by jury in the US is a sham.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[WNight]

I think that was the point. Instead of picking up ancient history, bitch about something current - like the things you suggested. After all, it's not like there isn't a lot to pick from.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Wait a second, am I wrong or does each side present its case to the JURY, not the Judge, who then proceeds to decide your culpability?? If not then I'm completely ignorant... :-/

Now, if you are prevented from citing the law as your defense ( instructing, or letting the jury see your side of things ) what are you going to base your defense on? Bananas? ATM machines? Deodorant?

So the prosecution can instruct the jury ( presenting evidence against you ), and the Judge can instruct the jury, but you can't.

Just like that old Neuromancer PC game computer court, except in real life.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Well, if you serve as juror not knowing the its your prerrogative to ignore the instructions of the judge then you are being, at the very least, a very irresponsible citizen.

If the judge can in so much an inch directly direct the jury's behavior then you really need no jury.

quoting from 'http://www.ccguide.org.uk/jury.php' :

' The jury's power to reject bad law continues to be recognised, as for example, in 1972 when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that: the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." '

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Lol, and I had no idea I pulled that quote from the "Cannabis Campaigners' On Line Guide".

Go pot people! ;-)

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21]

Here's a simplified explanation of how trial by jury works. Before the trial, the judge explains to the jury what law the defendant is accused of breaking, and explains to them specifically that they are only to determine whether or not the defendant broke that law. He also instructs the jury on how to interpret that law. The jury is not given a copy of the written law to read for themselves. This is what is specifically ment when someone refers to the instruction of a jury.

THEN at the trial the prosecution makes their case to present the evidence that the defendant broke the law in question. THEN the defense makes their case for defense. This is not considered "instructing a jury". Interpretation of the law (or it's non-existence) is not allowed as a defense because only the judge is allowed to do this. If the case made it through a hearing, then the judge has decided that the law in question exists. Only in an appeal to a much higher court can the law itself come into question. And at this point, the final decision is being made by judges. Hope this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

No,no,no,no, if you think 'only the judge is allowed to interpret the law' then you don't live in a Constitutional lawful state. You don't live in Syria by any chance, do ya? ;-)

It's the jury's prerrogative to ignore the judge's instructions on the interpretation of the law

some links where I check up on my sedicious way of thinking before irresponsibly posting:

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
http://www.fija.org/
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/USvDougherty1972.htm ( US vs Dougherty 1972, Court of Appeals )

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21]

This is the last response I will make to this. I was a bit presumptuous to say that jury nullification is not allowed. However, it has a shaky position in the US justice system.

US vs Dougherty 1972, US Court of Appeals: This case upheld that a jury can nullify the law. It also found that the defense may not inform the jury of their power to nullify the law.

U.S. v. Krzyske 1988: The judge was asked by a jury member about jury nullification and was told by the judge "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant and the decision was upheld on appeal.

U.S. v. Thomas 1997, Second Circuit: "ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b)." (wikipedia)

It's a lot more complicated that you make it out to be.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[marco.antonio.costa]

Well, the 88 judge was lying to the jury because in his head he was probably thinking that since he's not obligated by law to inform them that they have the power to decide guilt or not guilt, he could very well just lie about it if asked. Wrong in my opinion, but I'm not a US Federal Judge.

About the 97 case: it's funny that 25 years later the Judge completely ignored earlier jurisprudence on the matter, and cites the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as if they could overturn the us bill of rights.

Besides, how are you ever going to get evidence that the jurors intent to nullify the law? Mind-reading? Eavesdropping on deliberation? Torture? Or when the first unexpected 'not guilty' veredict is read, the jury can be replaced since they're obviously intent on nullifying the law?

I disagree with your last line, I think it's less complicated than you make it to be. Taking a quick look in your past century of history, your government has been growing bigger, more powerful and more authoritarian. What makes you think it will arbitrarily stop at a certain point?

It was a stimulating discussion though, thanks for your arguments.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[wolfperson1]

You seem to be making the mistake of associating "strong" government with "restrictive" government. You can have a strong, democratic government. Strong simply means that the government has power to enforce the rule of law and provide services to the people. This in no way requires oppression. Truth be told, most people would argue that you need a "strong" government (using my definition) everywhere. Now, I was going to say something about your flippant Lebanon comment, but it would take far too long for me to go over the history and complexity of the situation. You can't simply "look" at Lebanon. The proper research required to actually understand what's going on would take hours and hours because to get a good picture, you need to start back before the civil war.

somebody should explain the court

[utnapistim]

Well ... somebody should probably explain the court that they did much more than the blogger, to undermine the prestige of the state (and to show the national morale as lacking), by simply convicting him.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[adpsimpson]

This is actually very insightful.

The point of free speech is more than just to allow anyone to say their bit. It includes the fact that reasoned and fair debate will do more to undermine any truly dangerous people than any system of censorship could.

There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.

Suppression of an ideology almost always does more to drive people towards it than free discussion.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[orzetto]

You and that court have a different appreciation of the term "Prestige": you think that a state has prestige when it respects human rights and allows freedom of speech. They think that prestige means that everybody is so scared of the state that no one dares to speak against it.

Anyway, in my country a journalist just got media-lynched because he pointed out that the new leader of the upper house of the Parliament was a business associate of convicted mafiosi. I suppose Power always has a way to get rid of inconvenient trouble-makers, every country in its own way.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[CubeRootOf]

The key here is that they undermined the prestige of the state with other states, not with thier own people.

The Goal of this court is to keep INTERNAL morale high. They don't care what we think of them. They are trying to keep thier message consistent within thier country.

Similar things were done here not so long ago, and just as publically, if not more so. Do you know what happened to folks who said that 'maybe communism isn't so bad?' during the 50's?

The guy wasn't shot, he wasn't maimed, his family wasn't killed, he was just put away for 3 years.

Thats progress.

And looking at where they are starting from - it is pretty damn good progress.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.

That might not be the best example for your case. For one, the BNP gets plenty of harassment from British law and other political groups. Secondly, the BNP seems to be GAINING support lately, not losing it, despite constant media attacks.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[CodeBuster]

They think that prestige means that everybody is so scared of the state that no one dares to speak against it. Then Bashar al-Assad and his cronies are believing their own propaganda. The definition of prestige, in the hard-power sense, is and always has been what even your external enemies will grudgingly acknowledge. Syria is a third-rate military power and their economy is below average at best. Their lack of prestige is the result of poor leadership, not people speaking their minds.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain something to me:

It doesn't seem much in doubt that the BNP is, at least, covertly racist. Then why is it that several members are decidedly non-white/Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Abdel_Gawad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Richardson_(politician)

Wierd, no?

Re:somebody should explain the court

[mapkinase]

The case of Syria is the case of the country run by secularist apostates. It is amazing how isolated Syria is. It is despised by Muslims for secularism and it is despised by the West for lack of democracy.

Despite their despise of the leadership, Muslims reluctantly side with Syria on the matter of resistance to Western neocolonialism in the form of globalization and democracy and to Western colonialism in the form of "Israel".

Neocons who chant "Syria next" in their thinky-tanky gatherings, should be warned by the case of Iraq, where the dismissal of the secularist autocrat leader opposing to the West lead to the weak country where practically every faction is opposing democracy and Western ideology in general and formally follows Wester ideological pressure only not to lose cash support from their masters.

In chess, this situation is called zugzwang - the necessity to make a move from a variety of choices each of them leading to the situation worse than present. The only difference here is that there is another choice - radical change in their neo- and plain vanilla colonialist policy by removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting "Israel".

Re:somebody should explain the court

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, the BNP seems to be GAINING support lately, not losing it, despite constant media attacks.

Nor suprising when foreign workers seem to take priority over local citizens when it comes to hospital waiting lists, school placements and council housing. At this end of the social ladder, it is unskilled people on low incomes who find themselves being overtaken.

Brand New Leather Jacket

Nothing Bloody Works

And even if you are educated, you are only likely to keep your job until a foreign worker applies for it. This has happened to British trained doctors being pushed out of the way by graduates from India. The same has happened to the IT industry, and even the UK games industry. Fortunately, in the latter case, the experienced programmers can set up their own companies.

And at the same time, private pension schemes have been raided, taxes are constantly rising to pay for translators in every government department.. Not forgetting Do-Not-Resusitate orders on elderly patients

At the same time, immigration is running at 700,000 people/year, only matched by an equivalent number of UK nationals leaving.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[qbzzt]

removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting "Israel".

How would removing US support from Israel (it's a real country you know, no need for quotation marks) improve Syria or Syrian-US relations?

1. The Syrian government would still be a dictatorship.

2. Dictators need a boogeyman, the bigger the better.

3. "The West" is still a bigger boogeyman than Israel by itself.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[0111 1110]

The only difference here is that there is another choice - radical change in their neo- and plain vanilla colonialist policy by removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting "Israel". What this has to do with the topic at hand I am not sure, but why does Syria care who some distant country (the US) wants to be allies with? Are Syria and Israel at war? Is Syria pissed because if Israel were not a US ally they would be easier to annex into a part of Syria? Israel is the only western style democracy in the middle east. The US would like to see more of those. Why should we not be supporting it? Can someone please explain to me where all this hatred for Israel is coming from. It's just a completely insignificant little stretch of desert. Yawn. It's not even like they have any oil. So what's the big deal? Also how would withdrawing support for Israel help Syria exactly?

Re:somebody should explain the court

[ChromeAeonium]

by removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting Israel. This is what you sound like here. If you can't see the similarities, watch the movie.

Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Israel!
Everyone: Blame Israel!
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Israel! Blame Israel!
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It's Israel's fault!
Sheila: Well, blame Israel!
Everyone: Blame Israel!
Sheila: It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since Israel came along!
Everyone: Blame Israel! Blame Israel!
Mapkinase: They're not even a real country anyway!
Everyone: We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!!!!

Re:somebody should explain the court

[mapkinase]

Well, it seems like you did not read my comment attentively. I was talking not only removing US support of "Israel" but also dropping neocolonialist export of democracy.

And the West is "boogeman" is only because of heavy handed push for democracy.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[mapkinase]

"What this has to do with the topic at hand I am not sure, " It has everything to do with the topic and its importance to you. Slashdot playing its role in the propaganda machine that convinces people in US that is ok to patronize other country on the subject of its government system.

"Are Syria and Israel at war? " Irrelevant question. "Israel" is the sole source of Middle East instability. Establishment of one single state that will accept Palestinian refuges in their original residencies is the only way the Middle East would be stabilized.

In short, the subject of the original article is essential part of a bigger picture.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[AK Marc]

And the West is "boogeman" is only because of heavy handed push for democracy.

And here I thought it was because we are filled with complete nutcases that have to enclose country names in quotes to marginalize them.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[Anonymous Coward]

"Israel" is the sole source of Middle East instability. Perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly Israel was the source of the Algerian civil war, the Egyptian invasion of Yemen, the Iran-Iraq War, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the ongoing Sudanese civil war.

Or am I a fool for thinking that someone who puts a country's name in quotation marks is worth having a discussion with?

Re:somebody should explain the court

[PastaLover]

Yay rampant xenofobia backed up by a multitude of half-truths. Welcome to modern Europe.

Everything old is new again

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Lese majesty has been a crime since Roman times. Remember, it's only treason if you lose (the revolution).

Re:Everything old is new again

[PJ The Womble]

Yes, it IS difficult to use accented characters on this site, isn't it?

Re:Everything old is new again

[Daimanta]

And remember, it's only righteous if you win(the coup).

Re:Everything old is new again

[Culture20]

When your keyboard and language doesn't use accented characters, yes. Yes it is.

Re:Everything old is new again

[PJ The Womble]

You shouldn't need a keyboard with accented characters, or a non-English locale. I'm just saying that this editor behaves strangely with Alt-numeric-keypad combinations, which one normally uses to produce non-English characters.

For instance, the character reproduced here as "Ã" (Alt-138) should be a lowercase 'e' with an "accent grave". It displays as the correct character in the editor, but not on the web page.

Though, thinking about it, this may be because I'm using a United Kingdom English keyboard driver, rather than the United States English one. Whà knÃws? And indeed, whà cares?

I feel the same way about bloggers

[Anonymous Coward]

And MySpace users should receive a death sentence.

Re:we do it differently here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if this message was generated by a markov chain or someone with severe autism.

Re:we do it differently here?

[VeNoM0619]

I would hate to be the grammar nazi who has to clean up that post...

I'm not any error Cham train!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Better story about Tariq Bayassi here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almarfaa.net%2F%3Fp%3D117

His "Free Tariq" site:
http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://ahmadblogs.net/freetariq

The problem I have with all of this is that we simply don't have very much evidence to go on as spectators. If someone was being brought up on trumped up charges, it would make a difference to me whether he was Fred Phelps or Fre Rogers. Justice should be blind, but sometimes taking the blindfold off and snuffing out truly vile people for the sake of the rest of us.

There isn't enough information at all about Tariq that is easily available, so we don't know if he was just bad mouthing Assad or if he was organizing assassination attempts on the President. Without context, I guess we should just cry for Free (as in Speech) Speech.

Re:I'm not any error Cham train!

[Dog-Cow]

You make it seem like organizing assassination attempts against Assad should be a crime.

Doublespeak?

[PJ The Womble]

There's obviously a couple of homonyms at work here... "prestige of the state" and "weakening national morale". Because here in the UK at least, our perception of what makes us prestigious is that we ARE free to comment on the state, and what weakens our national morale as much as anything is when the state is seen to exercise excessive power over the freedom of the population.

The President of Syria has worked very hard at creating an image of being a humble, quietly-spoken, Western-educated ex-ophthalmologist who's had power lavished upon him almost inadvertently. Well it's back to the drawing board for the Damascus spin-doctors now then!

Re:Doublespeak?

[CycleFreak]

Do you perhaps mean "oxymoron" rather than "homonym" ?

Re:Doublespeak?

[PJ The Womble]

No, I meant 'homonym'. As in: "In linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymy

An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, rather like "Charlton Athletic", "Hamilton Academicals" or "German Democratic Republic".

Weakening national morale

[esocid]

Well shit, if that were a crime here about half the population, myself included, would be guilty.
We're gonna fail! (Whatever you are thinking, just assume I mean that.)

Re:we do it differently here?

[Nathrael]

Good that I'm only a grammar nazi on German forums.

American jailed for setting up satellites

[br00tus]

Javed Iqbal is in a US jail for setting up satellites to watch al-Manar, Hezbollah's television station. Funny how Americans are so concerned about Syria but not what happens in their own country. Israel invaded and occupies part of Syria by the way, an occupation that the US supports to the tune of over a billion a year in military aid to Israel every year.

Of course, Hezbollah is a terrorist group...if you happen to live in a current or former British colony. Outside of that type of person, no other country considers Hezbollah to be such, except for Holland for some reason. They consider it to be representative of the Palestinians who were exiled from Palestine to Lebanon when the Zionists burned down their homes in Palestine and forced them.

But hey, why worry about Javed Iqbal rotting in an American jail when the US can point fingers at the lack of "freedom of speech" in a country under siege by the US and its Zionist neighbor, whom as I said, invaded and occupied part of their country, the Golan Heights.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Dog-Cow]

What Syrian territory has Israel invaded that was not done during a war started by Syria?

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard Arab response: Look over there! Jooooooz!!!

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[br00tus]

Anyone who says the Six-Day War was "started by Syria" is so steeped in Zionist delusion and propaganda, they're hopeless. Hell, Israel even attacked the US Navy during the Six Day war, and I am quite sure the Zionists in private discussion blame the US for that talking about how the US Navy "started it" by sending a signals intelligence ship anywhere near them. Of course, this kind of delusion is not one stated publicly.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Wolf3685]

China, mainland that is, considers Hezbollah a terrorist group. Japan does as well. Germany, and Austria do as well. Most of the former Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe do as well...last I remember Estonia was never part of the British Empire. Also...do you want another Nazi Germany to spring up and start another Holocaust? No one would give Jewish Refugees refuge, not even the US...it only makes sense for them to have a country to protect their rights to exist. Israel may be "Zionist", but in Saudi Arabia you cannot practice another religion on pain of death. At least there are Mosques in Israel. When was the last time you saw a Hindu Temple or a Christian Church in Iran?

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Not to be confused with Javid Iqbal or Javid Iqbal.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Wolf3685]

And you sir are a victim of prejudice propaganda as as well... What about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? Who started that, last I heard it was started by Arabs cause they don't like Jews...now why is it the Muslims don't like Jews?

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[halivar]

Okay, Br00tus... show us on the doll where the bad jooz touched you...

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

The Golan Heights were "occupied" in a war started by Syria and its allies, not Israel. Israel has then offered it back in return for peace and security arrangements (read up on the US-brokered peace talks in 1999 and 2000), but Syria has refused.

Far from being "exiled" from Palestine, many Palestinians left of their own accord, told by the Arabs that the Jews would be "driven into the sea" and that they could return later. Unfortunately for the Arabs, the Israelis didn't give in so easily. Additionally, 900,000 Jews fled Arab and Muslim countries, many leaving behind their property, but their "right of return" doesn't seem to rate a mention.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[urcreepyneighbor]

...when the Zionists burned down their homes in Palestine and forced them. Those damn Jews again, right?

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[ak3ldama]

I don't really think it is fair to mark this post as troll, however as others have stated it is also not fair to try to divert discussion away from what should be outcry against these Syrian actions. Also, you are wrong:

Funny how Americans are so concerned about Syria but not what happens in their own country.

Notice how in the article it said:

Civil libertarians also expressed alarm.
"It appears that the statute under which Mr. Iqbal is being prosecuted includes a First Amendment exemption that prevents the government from punishing people for importing news communications," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Such an exemption is constitutionally necessary, and the fact that the government is proceeding with the prosecution in spite of it raises serious questions about how free our marketplace of idea is."

There was outcry that Javed was charged ... and likely convicted. I tried googling for more information but found nothing as per a result. Hopefully he was treated fairly, though our current federal government is probably legally retarded.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[DrLang21]

I don't really think it is fair to mark this post as troll Correct. Flamebait would be a more appropriate mod.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it wasn't started by Syria. It was started by Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, who also had help from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

"Israel's official position is that the attack was an accident. Officials say they were assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, and that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified the Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Someone is steeped in delusion and propaganda, alright.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[br00tus]

This is simply not correct. China never declared Hezbollah to be a terrorist group. They never did so, and considering their foreign policy, it doesn't make sense that they would either. The only countries other than Holland that consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist group are current or former British colonies.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[katz]

Interesting how your post tries to turn story about Syrian a dictatorship into a soapbox from which to pontificate about something unrelated. What does Israel have to do with how Syria mistreats its own people? Leave it out of the picture.

- Roey

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Boronx]

Except that according to Liberty survivors, the ship was clearly identified as American yet the attackers came at them for some time and only broke off when *they* were identified.

Just because you don't have your head in the sand about Arab aggression doesn't mean you should have your head in the sand about the Israelis' willingness to kill Westerners to serve their ends. See the King David Hotel bombing for another prominent example.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

um, what does this have to do with Iran? and yes, Iran does have jews, christians and parsiis, kindly brush up on facts before quoting

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

MYTH

"During the 1967 War, Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty."

FACT

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, arrived in the area, 14 miles off the Sinai coast, as a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship doing the shelling and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

MYTH...

blablabla

FACT...

blablabla Junk copy-pasted verbatim from the "Jewish Virtual Library"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

A blatantly awful Jewish propaganda campaign launched by a neocon warmonger named Mitchell Bard, of the "American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise", a Likudnik spy ring network operating on American Jewish money disseminating some nasty racist Zionist propaganda.

Seriously, Jews. Try to be more original next time, ok? You'll live longer. All of us gentiles don't have brains made of human excrement, contrary to what your Talmud says.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[AK Marc]

Hell, Israel even attacked the US Navy during the Six Day war,

They did not attack the Navy. There was one ship that was fired upon. The ship fired upon was ordered to leave the area by the US Navy and did not. The ship was in the area of a reported shelling by an off-shore ship. The area was clear of US ships, according to the US - or so Israel was told. So they fired on a ship that couldn't be American. Oh, and some reports indicate that it didn't even have an identifying flag flying when the attacks started. That's not an "attack on the US Navy." That's an attack on a ship in a war zone that was reported to be engaged in the war. If they had been identified as US Navy before the attack, if the US Navy hadn't told Israel that the area was clear, if they weren't conducting intelligence operations in the middle of a war zone, , if they had left the war zone in a timely manner after the orders to do so had been issued (which reports say they never got), perhaps they wouldn't have been fired upon. To assign this as an Israli conspiracy to kill Americans and cover it up when Americans had multiple errors to place a warship in a war zone and misinform one side about its location seems to be pretty stupid to me.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Crazyswedishguy]

Actually... there are Christian churches in Iran... Christianity in Iran. In fact, according to Wikipedia [insert grain of salt here] there are Jews in Iran too, even represented in their parliament:

Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. (from Wikipedia)

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[rossz]

when the Zionists burned down their homes in Palestine and forced them.

I see you have read the "history according to hamas" book. I bet you believe the Jews use the blood of muslim babies to make matzah.

I've long ago given up on education close minded racist fools such as yourself. No amount of evidence that refutes your preconceived notions will ever convince you to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Re:American jailed for setting up satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the Israeli position is that it was a mistake. The US position is that it was a mistake too. For most people, this is enough.

More importantly, the USS Liberty incident doesn't have anything to do with how the Six Day War actually began, which is the topic of the post that br00tus responded to. Rather than saying why Syria and its allies didn't start it, he just brings up the USS Liberty. Typical strategy of someone who knows just how thin his argument is - i.e. change the topic, rather than respond to the points made.

Re:we do it differently here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hate to be the over critical arse that has to respond to that post...

Let's bomb 'em

[j_166]

That'll teach 'em about prestige of the state.

Seriously though, why do we care that some random blogger in a random dictatorship is jailed for blogging? I mean, its unfortunate, don't get me wrong, but its not entirely unexpected from Syria. I'd say the guy got off pretty lucky considering he still probably has his hands.

So either you're trying to say "Look how great the USA is: We can blog about anything we want without fear of going to jail, unlike Syria for example", or you're saying "Look how horrible Syria is, where you can't even blog about anything you want without fear of going to jail!".

If its the former, no duh, we already knew that. If its the latter, are you trying to get us to want to do something about it? and if so, what do you propose? that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?

What is it that this article is trying to tell us that we didn't know already?

Re:Let's bomb 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

...that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?

Technically, it's the bullets that are depleted uranium. The guns are plastic and steel.

I kid with my pedantry. I thought your post was insightful.

Re:Let's bomb 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it that this article is trying to tell us that we didn't know already? Assuming that everyone knows is silly. One man's old is another's new.

I didn't know. Now I do. Awareness is important, even if you can't do anything at that particular moment.

Re:Let's bomb 'em

[j_166]

You didn't know Syria was a dictatorship/horrible place? I'm curious, what exactly did you think was the meaning of "Axis of Evil"?

prestige?

[Lord Ender]

I was not aware that Syria had prestige.

Re:prestige?

[j_166]

Haven't you ever been to Syria? They keep it in a shoebox under the Prestige Minister's bed, and bring it out when they have company over.

Re:prestige?

[hansamurai]

I'd love to see their version of the Transported Man.

Re:prestige?

[Khaed]

They had enough to get themselves on the UN Human Rights Council.

Fragile Area

[FurtiveGlancer]

With Lebanon falling apart next door (Google Hamas and Lebanon), may the Syrian government have valid reasons for a crack down? One wonders exactly what he wrote on these "opposition sites" to earn the wrath of the government.

On the bright side, his sentence was commuted to only three years. He may survive that, depending on where the sentence is to be served.

Re:Fragile Area

[psychodelicacy]

Can there be "valid reasons" for a government to censor its citizens' speech? Certainly, undermining the prestige of the state doesn't seem even vaguely valid, as all it means is that you can be prosecuted for criticising the government. So, the people in power can reduce the chance of ever being out of power by simply making it illegal to want them to be out of power.

"Only three years"? Hang on, have I been writing a serious response to a sarcastic post here?

He had a trial, at least.

[glgraca]

At least they gave him a trial.

People are being freed from Guantamo after 6 years without ever even having being charged with anything. Can you imagine the torture of not even knowing when you are going to get out?

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Sobrique]

s/when/if/

Seriously, for all the horrible stuff that happens in Syria, the chronically bad state of play that is Guantanamo, indefinite detention without trial, and torture is pretty disgusting too. One does not excuse the other, but at least Syria isn't _pretending_ to be an elightened beacon of democracy and humanity.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[psychodelicacy]

What is the difference between having a trial under an unfair and rights-infringing legal system, and no trial at all? The former gives the illusion of a democratic and fair process, legitimising what is really no better than illegal detention.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[optimus2861]

Does anyone else think that one of these days, it would be nice to read an article and discussion about some other country's issue without having to read a gratuitous slam about some aspect of the United States which gets modded up to +5 mostly because it is a gratuitous slam about the United States?

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[MrMickS]

It may be a gratuitous slam on the United States but its a truthful one. The behaviour of the United Status regard Guantanamo has been a blight on its reputation, one that has soured its image across the world. Its a measure of how badly the image has been soured that its not possible to have a discussion of rights without the subject being raised. This might not be people's taste but its the reality of the situation.

What is the answer? I guess that if you are holding yourselves up as being the defender of the free world and calling 'evil' to account you have to make sure that you don't commit evil yourselves.

I realise that not all US citizens supported this state of affairs but enough of them voted to elect the George W Bush and again to re-elect him. Whilst you might not agree with the policies conducted they are being carried out in your name by your democratically elected government. As such you have to take the heat that goes with it. Fortunately you are free to protest against this and not be locked up.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[shma]

I doubt it's worse than the other forms of torture practised there.

Still, simply because the US has done worse doesn't mean that Syria should be excused for this kind of action.

By the way, does anyone know what he said that got him imprisoned? It would be a small, but significant, act of justice to see it reprinted here.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[0111 1110]

It may be a gratuitous slam on the United States but its a truthful one. The behaviour of the United Status regard Guantanamo has been a blight on its reputation, one that has soured its image across the world. So the fact that it is truthful is a justification to bring it up in every discussion? It may be truthful, but it is completely, utterly, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I highly doubt that Guantanamo has "soured" our image in any place which was not already anti-American. America has been a hated country for decades in most regions of the world. The blame that America is taking for virtually every problem in the world is nothing new. Let me know when a US citizen is placed in jail or killed for anything like a blog. In case you haven't noticed Bush is bashed every day on slashdot and even ACs have their IP logged so if Bush had the power and desire to take them down he certainly could. So the comparison is disingenuous.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Fortunately you are free to protest against
> this and not be locked up.

for the present....

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[AK Marc]

So the fact that it is truthful is a justification to bring it up in every discussion? It may be truthful, but it is completely, utterly, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The topic at hand is outrage over an unfair sentence. Gitmo is about outrage over the lack of a sentence, or even charges. Someone sitting in America condemning Syria should think of Gitmo before doing it. The post is an on-topic reminder that in Syria, you at least get a trial and a sentence. That's better than the US. That's directly relevant to all Americans commenting on this story.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[khallow]

I think the US has been too liberal in labeling Guantamo prisoners with the label, "enemy combatant", but being an enemy combatant is a case where one can be held within the confines of US (and as far as it exists, international law) without being charged with anything. It's not after all illegal merely to be at war with the US, but capturing and holding indefinitely enemy soldiers is a valid exercise of national interests.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Liquidrage]

Stop being truthful. Just hate Bush and the US and Guitmo like everyone else. Ignore that the people there (a vast majority anyways) were actively fighting against the US. There's no fun in that.

What the US should have done is released them right away so they could recapture them over and over

OK, sarcasm aside. I'm not a big fan of everything the US has done. But some very "liberal" people are blinded by Iraq. Iraq was the worlds embarassment. The world should never have let Saddam stay in power there. No apologies for going in. That doesn't mean I believe why where we're there. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have gone to other places and stopped maniac dictators. But Iraq should have been toppled long before the US went in. And it was all the free nations of the world that should have done it.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't such a long period between Saddam being a US ally and evil dictator, so maybe the rest of the world simply didn't have time to prepare.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[zenmaster666]

At least they gave him a trial. What happened with the Syrian Blogger is not justified by any means. Just because "People are being freed from Guantamo after 6 years without ever even having being charged with anything" doesn't mean putting this guy through a "sham" of a trial and sentencing him for 3 years is acceptable.
Comparing those two events is gross stupidity.

No one should be imprisoned for expressing one's views. Govt. control over what information citizens see is just as bad. Where will it stop? Who will decide whats appropriate?

These are disturbing events, should not be ignored or tolerated!!

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Liquidrage]

20 years is not too short a time. Don't make excuses to justify a the world standing by while scum like Saddam stayed in power. There are plenty of scum past and present that are embarassments to the world.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[optimus2861]

What is the answer? I guess that if you are holding yourselves up as being the defender of the free world and calling 'evil' to account you have to make sure that you don't commit evil yourselves. I guess I should've noted that I'm Canadian, not American, so the "you" is misplaced. I'd also like to know if there is any country, anywhere, that holds up to this "you must do no evil before you can criticize others" standard, because it seems to me on the one hand impossibly high, and on the other a disingenuous way to brush aside any relevant criticism. The United States may have its faults, but I'll still opt for it to lead the free world over any other country out there, and in most respects there's not even a close second.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Let me know when a US citizen is placed in jail or killed for anything like a blog.

The MPAA was granted an injunction against 2600 magazine over a link to DeCSS. Failure to remove the link would have resulted in contempt of court charges that would have led to fines and/or jail time. Censorship absolutely occurs in the US it is just for different reasons that Syria.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[SoulDrift]

I highly doubt that Guantanamo has "soured" our image in any place which was not already anti-American

I'm sorry, but speaking as an ex-pat American living overseas, I can tell you that Guantanamo Bay has soured the image of America in every goddamned place which was not already anti-American.

As a country they may still be on friendly terms with America, but every single one of them is ashamed of what we have become

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[PJ The Womble]

How much Karma is enough? You'll know when you reach Enlightenment.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like us bringing up then vote someone in who will stop doing the US doing it.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose, but once you start claiming that Americans have no moral right to criticize another country's politics because of their own, it's not far to say that they have no right to DO anything about it, either, for the same reasons. Which is exactly what those countries would love to have happen.

Obviously, there's a line where the hypocrisy argument becomes more/less compelling. I guess there's just disagreement on where it is for the U.S.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[eennaarbrak]

I absolutely agree! In logic (as in philosophy, not maths) its called the "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy. If it happens in the US, then that makes in OK in Syria ... somehow.

makes you appreciate home

[pak9rabid]

As bad as we all think things are getting in the free world, it's things like this that remind me it could be a helluva lot worse.

Re:makes you appreciate home

[aadvancedGIR]

However ridiculous the charges were, this guy had a trial, and could semi-sucessfully apeal, so yes, it's great to live in a country where anyone can be labelled "ennemy of the state" and be scretly detained without trial.

Re:makes you appreciate home

[Sobrique]

... it's things like this that remind me it could be a helluva lot worse.

I'm afraid it is.

For all we might deplore Syria's actions and legal system, at least this guy got a trial.

Re:we do it differently here?

[TheScienceKid]

You are amanfromMars and ICMFP

Power of a single blogger

[VincenzoRomano]

If a single blogger can "undermine the prestige of a state and weaken a national morale", that he or she should be sentenced by death, as he's too much power in that country.
Or maybe the case that that state has already a very low prestige and a very weak national morale that a single blogger can blow it away!

Actually I was surprised

[Shivetya]

he didn't just disappear or have an appointment with a bullet.

perhaps the fact what he did was so easily available saved his life.

I do have to wonder how some people here actually thinks the Syrian leadership is any shape or form actually embarrassed by their handling of it let alone concerned what you think about it. On the world stage nothing much more expected out of a country like this and they wouldn't care anyway.

This is one the of many countries that only exists because its not PC or financially expedient to fix.

Re:we do it differently here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hate to be the anonymous coward afraid to take responsibility for his actions... wait a minute here... INFINITE LOOP

Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork]

If its the former, no duh, we already knew that. If its the latter, are you trying to get us to want to do something about it? and if so, what do you propose? that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?

Free trade with Syria is the answer. The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Sanctions are a form of war, remember.

Of all ironies is that Bush, by invading Iraq, threw away the lessons of his own party. Republicans, for better or for worse, have been staunch free traders since Reagan and it is that commitment to free trade around the globe that has caused nations to adopt more open societies, not American bombers. Have a strong defense, but for god's sake, don't start any wars and try and sell people stuff. It's a simple game plan, and Republicans were so good at it. But, after Afghanistan they just got too cocky and thought we could knock off Iraq. I almost want to go back in time and throttle William Kristol, and say "no, no, no, it is not time to have a benevolent American Empire!"

But, we just have to get back to the original game plan. Don't lecture the likes of Syria. Sell them stuff.

While we are at it, get rid of all of this USA PATRIOT nonsense.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[j_166]

So true. We seemed to be doing better when people were just hating on McDonald's instead of the fact that we're punching them in the metaphorical balls.

I mean, I can kind of see where the likes of Bush and Bill Kristol are coming from: Liberate the people and they'll buy more of our stuff. Nice theory, but its flawed because A.) You can't liberate people unless they think its their own idea, ie they have to liberate themselves, and B.) There's way more people to liberate in this world than we have soldiers to liberate them, so it will naturally quickly get to the point where we're spending more on liberation than we are taking in selling stuff to the liberated. And I would add C.) After you liberate them, you have to follow through.

Shortcuts get taken, people inevitably get screwed. That's exactly what happened in Afghanistan. No follow through. A billion dollars to get the Soviets out and we balked when it came time to build schools. Our mistake was thinking that what they needed was to kick out the Soviets, when we didn't address what the hell the Soviets were doing there in the first place: pushing over an easily pushed over country with no infrastructure to speak of. Probably either for the opium or the pipeline connection to countries that matter, or both.

I'm not a political scientist by the way, this is just the way I've observed how the world works. I'm quite open to modifications to that thinking.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[theheadlessrabbit]

The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Just look at how open China has become...

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork]

Just look at how open China has become..

China is a lot more open than it was before. I mean, China may have a great firewall, but other regimes do not have an internet at all. Plus, you have to realize that there are plenty of Chinese people on the other end of a phone call or even meeting in person with western business partners. Is China as free as we would like, no? But, then, when Western Europe was in the same economic level as China, we were all serfs and slavery was legal.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork]

And I would add C.) After you liberate them, you have to follow through.

I couldn't agree more. If we are going to do "liberation" missions, then, we need to address what the US military lacks. They don't have the ability to plop in an instant infrastructure. Sadr and other militia organizers got popular in Iraq just because they organized soup kitchens. What if our soldiers could plop in semi-trailers with generators, water treatment, instant schools, and heck yeah, get corporate america to kick in and have semi-trailer sized McDonald's, Taco Bells, and more. Who wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people more if, in the immediate postwar, we're passing out double QPCs, when Sadr just has some kind of crappy soup? Who wins the hearts and minds more when GI's drop a trailer generator off of a C-130 or a helicopter right into a village where militia leaders are trying to organize. Occupation is all about, who bribes the villagers the best.

If we had had that kind of vision and planning, then, we would probably not even in be in Iraq by now.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[j_166]

Hell, put a platoon of marines to guard a platoon of engineers (do engineers come in platoons?) to run the stuff out of the village trailers for a year, and now we're talking scalable cost-effective liberation.

Double down as disaster recovery for the likes of Myanmar and NOLA (replacing marines with Nat'l guard domestically). Screw the UN, countries would be lining up around the block to be our friends.

Yeah, I know it would never be that simple, and it would be a hard sell to J. Q. Taxpayer because it doesn't involve spectacular explosions, but I think those are mostly implementation details.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[marco.antonio.costa]

I agree, away with NAFTA, ALCA, the WTO, Mercosul and protectionism. :-)

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[marco.antonio.costa]

I meant FTAA not ALCA, sorry bout that. :-)

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork]

Double down as disaster recovery for the likes of Myanmar and NOLA (replacing marines with Nat'l guard domestically). Screw the UN, countries would be lining up around the block to be our friends.

Exactly. We need to make our post invasion so good that countries will -want- to be invaded.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[blind biker]

Free trade with Syria is the answer. The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Sanctions are a form of war, remember. I don't know that it's working so great in the case of China, Egypt or Russia. There's a very intensive/lively free trade with those countries, and yet there is no free media.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

The same economic level.

Truly, brilliant analysis.

Frankly if that was all I had to say I would have conserved the calories in my fingers. Maybe pondered some things.

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[EmagGeek]

The USA simply needs to have more tact.

Tact, defined, is simply the ability to tell someone to go to hell in a way that makes them look forward to the trip :)

Re:Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork]

The USA simply needs to have more tact.

The USA has not had that since FDR. To get it, what we need is a really, really rich Democrat.

The Internet is Syria's business.

[Anonymous Coward]

..sorry

Gag Rule

[boris111]

Don't forget the Gag Rule used by congress to stop discussion on slavery for 13 years.

It is very humbling

[Presto Vivace]

to read about people with this sort of courage.

Re:we do it differently here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can has batshit crazy?

huh?

[Presto Vivace]

Just because Syria has the power to do this does not make it right.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pun on "serious business". Not a very funny one, mind you.

Cancer Sprinkles In The Land of The Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of Speech, is your voice heard? "Cancer Sprinkle" if you're outspoken enough, suddenly you come down with cancer, wait a minute, that guy in the coffee shop did look rather interested in me..

NO CARRIER

Singapore is a Family Dictatorship

[FriendlyLurker]

though Indirect succession. Singapore also supports regime in Myanmar (Burma). They usually site racial tensions between Malay, Indian and ruling Chinese class as reason for continuing the dictatorship. "Elections" are held for appearances sake, but while I was living there they seized assets of any opposition politician that looked like they would come close to winning a seat, usually on phony charges like "libel" or such. If some area did manage to elect a representative not approved by the state, then that neighborhood basically kisses goodbye to certain public services, infrastructure upgrades (like MRT tube stations etc). Like withholding rice in neighbouring Indonesia, but for a modern country.

But don't worry, like many others around the world it is a US approved dictatorship.

Politics in Syria is like a ghost

[yuri2001]

I was always interested in syrian politics. I've been there last year.

I have walked (yes, by foot) from Damas to Alep and it's really a beautiful and welcoming country. Their sense of hospitality is the best I've come across so far. I walked hundreds of kilometers across the country without being controlled, in fact, I didn't even see the army and hardly the Police. I was expecting much more military presense in a state that is supposed to be so much controled.

Also, I had great long conversations with a lot of syrians about almost any subject, their only taboo is the world "Israel" that you shouldn't pronouce at any time. They use the word "Occupied Palestine" instead. Otherwise, I've been talking about politics and economics and most people are informed and open minded.

There is one thing to take into consideration : the dictatorship is mostly ethnically based. The elite who holds the economical and political power comes from the Alaouite tribe/chiism wich represents 10% of the syrian population.

For example, in the syrian Army, an alaouite lieutenant might overrule a non alaouite captain's order.

No, it looks like he didn't

[hassanchop]

I wonder whether in your over-eager need to consult the web, you managed to discover the meaning of dialectical

Doesn't look like it, but he did find the meaning of "irregardless", which as it turns out, is a real word.

knowledge and self-improvement isn't for you...

Yeah, I can't believe after he claimed a word wasn't a real word, that he continued o argue the point after finding out he was wrong.

Oh wait, that was you.

Re:No, it looks like he didn't

[MrNaz]

Actually, it specifically states in his post's dictionary quote that while the word exists, it is widely scorned due to its obviously erroneous construction, and urges the reader to use "regardless" instead. Given this, I think it can be concluded that anyone using the word should expect to be treated like the partially literate fool that they sound like.

Singapore? Not a dictatorship?

[joe_n_bloe]

In what way exactly is Singapore a democracy?

Good Thing It Wasn't A U.S. Supported Country

[gateur]

If the same thing happened in any number of U.S. supported countries, he'd be dead now, and nobody in the U.S. would have read about it. Check out some of what goes on in Saudi Arabia. And don't forget that Israel regularly 'accidentally' kills reporters for exposing their crimes against the Palestinians.

Why do we let this happen?

[Jrabbit05]

In Cory Doctorow's latest book Little Brother the protagonist uses a hyper secure linux distro called ParanoidLinux. A few ircers from #boingboing have decided we want to see a real ParanoidLinux. It provides a chaff of fake clear text to thwart any wire taps, it uses TOR for regular communication and can obviously be rather secure internally using an encrypted userspace. We are still forming our goals and if your interested hop on our irc #paranoidlinux @ irc.freenode.net Disclaimer: I am part of the project (duh)