Mass Arrests of Journalists Follow Iran Elections

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by the fact that no less than 23 journalists have been arrested in Iran in the week following the elections, making Iran one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. Online activists are trying to counter this trend by giving advice for helping Iranian protesters. One problem is that Iranian leaders are trying to delegitimize the reform movement by pretending that the reformers are puppets of foreign powers, so special discretion is required for anyone wanting to help the Iranian people."

Comments

Re:Surprised

[MyLongNickName]

This does not confirm that the elections were a farce. It simply confirms that Iran is not a liberal democracy. If the elections were fair and a protest erupted, there would have been a similar clampdown.

Frankly, I don't know who to believe. The past 30 years of American history has taught me not to take my government's word at face value, and journalism isn't much better. I don't think anyone outside of Iran knows the truth.

What does it take to topple regime?

[javacowboy]

I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious about what the historical precedent is for regimes to be overthrown since it doesn't seem to happen.

My Russian friend used the colloquialism "every country is three meals away from a revolution" to describe the threshold for revolution, to make the case that nobody missed three meals during the Great Depression but did before the Russian Revolution.

I also read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which Heinlein asserted that revolutions are never started or run by ordinary people, but by well organized political factions.

There's also 1984, in which Orwell points out that revolutions always involve the middle class, and the proletariat never drives revolutions.

There's also the wild card of alleged CIA involvement, which was behind the Orange (Ukraine) and Rose (Georgia) revolutions.

All of these tidbits of information aren't helping me to predict the outcome of the latest situation in Iran. What's driving the protests other than the election results? Will the revolutionaries succeed?

Re:What does it take to topple regime?

[jollyreaper]

My Russian friend used the colloquialism "every country is three meals away from a revolution" to describe the threshold for revolution, to make the case that nobody missed three meals during the Great Depression but did before the Russian Revolution.

I also read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which Heinlein asserted that revolutions are never started or run by ordinary people, but by well organized political factions.

There's also 1984, in which Orwell points out that revolutions always involve the middle class, and the proletariat never drives revolutions.

There's also the wild card of alleged CIA involvement, which was behind the Orange (Ukraine) and Rose (Georgia) revolutions.

The thing to remember is that these are the observations of writers. They may be true or they may not, being printed is no more proof of one than the other.

If you look at the American Revolution, it was organized and financed by a faction within the elite and most privileged class of society. The colonies had not been around long enough to have as firm a tradition of aristocracy as in England so most of the American aristocrats were new to their wealth, having earned it themselves rather than inheriting rank and position from father and he from his father before him. So there was a great belief in America that the intelligent and hard-working could win their place in society, that a common man could prove his merit. Of course, there was also scorn of the common man who did not prove his virtue and remained common.

With the French Revolution, by all accounts it did start as a spontaneous uprising and leadership positions were hewn out violently in the same fashion one would expect if a few thousand people were thrown together and dumped into an isolated wilderness.

The other thing we've seen historically is that a conspiracy might form to kick down the door to the halls of power but they lose control of the beast they created and different people gain control of it.

History seems to be a record not so much of grand conspiracies cunningly executed but people of greed and avarice settings events in motion that can sometimes turn out quite contrary to their expectations. WWII in Europe never would have happened if Hitler had not worked so diligently to bring it about but the results ran somewhat contrary to his expectations.

Re:Surprised

[SkyDude]

I don't think anyone outside of Iran knows the truth.

Iranians living in the US know the truth. Seek out what they have to say on Google.

By the way, you may think the US government is FOS, but take note of the language used on many of the protester's signs. They're in English, and I don't think they are necessarily looking for attention from the Brits.

Having worked with a former Iranian several years ago, I can tell you only what he told me - there can be terrible consequences if someone speaks out against the ruling mullahs. I, for one, would like to see this upheaval undermine the bastards that are ruling that otherwise magnificent country, populated by smart hard working people.

Re:You got to hand it to them

[Attila Dimedici]

The deadline set up by the Constitution as to when the Electoral College meets.
If the Supreme Court had not intervened there are several possible outcomes:
1. Florida Legislature appoints an Electoral College delegation (Constitutionally permissible). Result: Florida's electoral votes go to George W. Bush. George W. Bush is President
2. Florida does not send any delegates to the Electoral College. Result: Neither Candidate has the necessary electoral votes, the outcome is decided by the U.S House of Representatives. George W. Bush is President (the House of Representatives was majority Republican at the time).
There may be one or two other possible outcomes, but they all result in George W. Bush being inaugurated on Jan 20, 2001.

Re:Surprised

[Hatta]

This does not confirm that the elections were a farce. It simply confirms that Iran is not a liberal democracy. If the elections were fair and a protest erupted, there would have been a similar clampdown.

At least they had protests. We had two extremely suspect elections in a row, and US citizens did nothing. It's pretty pathetic to think that Iranians expect more democratic results from their elections than we do.