Slashdot Mirror


Sharp Rise In Jailing of Online Journalists; Iran May Just Kill Them

bckspc writes "The Committee to Protect Journalists has published their annual census of journalists in prison. Of the 136 reporters in prison around the world on December 1, 'At least 68 bloggers, Web-based reporters, and online editors are imprisoned, constituting half of all journalists now in jail.' Print was next with 51 cases. Also, 'Freelancers now make up nearly 45 percent of all journalists jailed worldwide, a dramatic recent increase that reflects the evolution of the global news business.' China, Iran, Cuba, Eritrea, and Burma were the top 5 jailers of journalists." rmdstudio writes, too, with word that after the last few days' protest there, largely organized online, the government of Iran is considering the death penalty for bloggers and webmasters whose reports offend it.

20 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a thought by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One good step towards making imprisonment and mistreatment of journalists a big international no-no would be for all the major countries to openly ban their intelligence agencies (the CIA, MI6, etc.) from using operatives posing as journalists, or hiring journalists for intelligence gathering purposes. One of the arguments a lot of these oppressive governments use when they imprison journalists is that these journalists are actually spies. And in at least some cases, they probably actually ARE spies (particularly with freelancers and bloggers with no connection to reputable news organizations). It would be nice if we could at least have the CIA come out openly and bluntly and say to the world community "We don't do this, under any circumstances" the next time some petty tyrant claims that the journalists he's caught are working for the CIA. As it is, anyone wandering into a foreign country and asking questions, journalist or not, is going to be wearing a big target on their chest that says "Possible intelligence operative." The tyrant wouldn't care if we denied it, but it would do a lot to encourage the world community to go to bat for more journalists if they had some sort of assurance that the sanctions they were imposing were on behalf of actual legitimate journalists, not James Bond wannabes with fake press credentials.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Here's a thought by Kugala · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what better cover for a spy than a profession that cannot be used as cover for spies?

    2. Re:Here's a thought by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We’ll do that just as soon as Muslim terrorists stop hiding in hospitals and mosques.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Here's a thought by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and male terrorists veiled like Musliim women...a favorite tactic.

    4. Re:Here's a thought by iron+spartan · · Score: 5, Informative

      That isn't as effective as you would think. Body language is a huge give away. Women in a burqa with a full veil are very submissive, they look down at almost all times when in public. Men trying to pass as women in a burqa have a hard time copying this. Woman may look up, but if you make eye contact, the look down in a hurry and will not look up again. Men have a tendency to not only look up, but to glare if eye contact is made. Its a dead giveaway.

      And we caught one insurgent who's beard started poking out from under the veil.

  2. Iran can't take much more of this by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's going to be a large, violent revolution soon.

    1. Re:Iran can't take much more of this by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Iran can't take much more of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet our President wants to extend a hand to this regime. What's wrong with that picture?

      Nothing, this neutralize Iran leaders best weapon: Blame internal troubles on Western powers to squash any protest.

      For once we are smarter then the bad guys and not playing their game.

    3. Re:Iran can't take much more of this by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Communicating != extending a hand to.

      Obama is naive enough to think that a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations is one that can be negotiated with in good faith. He stood mute while they violently crushed their own people a few months ago. The worst part of it all is that he has absolutely nothing to show for his efforts. Iran continues to march towards nuclear capability. They've taken his measure and found him lacking.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Iran can't take much more of this by ojustgiveitup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha! That's for the last part where you implied that Iran has shown a hottinanny of interest *who* is in the White House. Actually I guess that goes for the whole thing. The idea that Iran's current political direction has anything to do with the less-than-a-year-old presidency is disingenuously revisionist at best.

      Can we both admit that "communicating" and "extending a hand to" are both woefully simplistic reductions of a complicated diplomatic process, and neither of them really mean anything? Yes, I would have liked Obama to publicly denounce the post-election crack-down, but I also think the administration's assessment that it would be detrimental to the movement was correct. The main propaganda tool used by Iran during that time was that they were putting down violent protests instigated by western powers intent on putting them out of business. That propaganda is more obviously a lie if we stay out of the fray - that may not have mattered to the protesters back then, but it does matter for every protest afterward (like the ones right now). How would speaking up have helped the protesters at that point anyhow? Unless we were willing to back up the words militarily, they would have only been detrimental to the movement. We were not then and are not now prepared to face off with the government Iran in a fight that is, at the end of the day, basically the people of Iran's problem.

    5. Re:Iran can't take much more of this by gtall · · Score: 5, Funny

      The best thing Obama could do to whack the Iranian regime is to *leak* Khamenei is secretly working with Washington. Add in a few complimentary intimations that Khamenei has a secret great respect for Israel and Jews in general. It would drive Ahmadinejad nuts. As soon as the shit hit the fan, the State Department should deny any knowledge and loudly claim the CIA has not been in contact with the Basji no matter what SOME in Iran might think; the secret investigation of CIA activities in Iran by DoD has no bearing on this problem. They could also mention there is also no truth to the rumor that Israel sold the Basji their blackjack batons and that no Basji have secretly converted to Christianity...to the CIA's knowledge. Also, that to the U.S.'s knowledge, the plots by the Revolutionary Guard to take out the ruling theocracy because they are not Muslim enough should be discounted as not being far enough along to justify serious comment. The black market the Revolutionary Guard runs isn't generating enough money yet for these sorts of plots to succeed since not enough of the Army has been bought off yet.

  3. Re:Pile it on by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If McCain / Palin had won the election, I might agree with you.

    I don't even think that McCain would have gone into Iran. You'll note that Bush didn't. Iran can't win a war against the United States but they can make it sufficiently expensive to deter us from undertaking such a venture unless our back is truly against the wall. They can creditably threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. Could they keep it closed indefinitely against the US Navy? Not likely. But closing it for even a few days would send the global price of oil through the roof and bring enormous diplomatic pressure down on the United States.

    I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Good thing that the US would never ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Iraq (in U.S. custody): 1
    Ibrahim Jassam, freelance

    Imprisoned: September 2, 2008

    Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces during a raid on his home in Mahmoodiya, south of Baghdad, Reuters reported. At the time of the arrest, a U.S. military spokesman told CPJ that the journalist was deemed “a threat to the security of Iraq and coalition forces.”

    In November 2008, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him, Reuters reported. U.S. military authorities rejected the court order, saying that he “continued to pose a serious threat to the security and stability of Iraq.”

    The military has disclosed no evidence against Jassam, and he has never been charged with a crime.

    U.S. troops have detained dozens of journalists—mostly Iraqis—since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, CPJ research found. In at least 12 cases, journalists were held for prolonged periods without charge or due process. In all other cases, the journalists were freed without charges ever being substantiated.

  5. Re:Here's an idea by Nathrael · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't do it because both the US and the UK (the only states who'd have the balls to consider something like that) have (largely) cut bilateral diplomatic relationships with Iran, and neither operate an embassy in said dictatorship, and Iran does not operate embassies in the US or the UK.

    --
    A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
  6. Re:Pile it on by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well if you want to take things out of context and hold them up as something meaningful, I'm pretty sure I heard Obama talking about "spreading the wealth around" and how an entire class of people "cling" to their guns and religion.

    I didn't like McCain 2.0 very much but if you think he's "eager" for any sort of war then I don't think you understand him very well.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Re:Eritrea? by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur, a place where mass genocide has been going on- in fact, where as many as half a million civilians may have been slaughtered so far. Eritrea is one of the nations that has been accused of supporting the Darfur rebels fighting against the Sudanese government, but has since moved into a mediating position over the crisis.

    To be fair though, part the reason you probably hadn't heard about it is because the world's media was mostly too busy covering middle east stuff like Israel's war with Lebanon. Apparently Israel killing 1000 odd Lebanese, many of which were Hezbollah militans and Hezbollah killing 130 Israelis, many of which were soldiers is somehow so much bigger a tragedy than the 10s of thousands of African civilians that were brutally raped, mutilated and murdered around the same time. For some reason, the tragedy in Darfur and the hundreds of thousands of dead, the hundreds of thousands raped and mutilated and the millions displaced just don't get the attention of the media like a good old fashioned suicide bombing in downtown Baghdad or a verbal spat between the US and Iran.

    So yeah, Eritrea is an African nation with some quite close ties to the Darfur conflict. In it's short existence as a sovereign nation (since 1993 iirc) it's also managed to get itself in fights with Ethiopia, Yemen and possibly even Somalia I believe. It's relatively pro-Western, but not blindly so as there was some fuss about them allowing some militant in that the US claimed had Al Qaeda ties. It borders the red sea towards the North Eastern end of Africa.

  8. A parallel sharp rise by BhaKi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see a sharp rise in "country X is evil" stories.

    --
    The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
  9. Re:Here's an idea by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, jail the diplomats.

    Then we need to get in contact with Tehran. Hmmm... How to do that?

    You know, what we should do is ask Tehran to send people over who speak our language and understand our culture. It'd be such a nice gesture that we should probably give them a place to stay. Maybe they can be put up in the former Iranian embassy. They have lots of tea and a mosque there. Heaps of Persian literature and discount phones to Tehran too.

    We can negotiate with the people in this embassy for the release of the dipolmats. They can call Tehran and set up meetings and stuff.

    Perfect solution.

  10. Dont start a post by being a dick. by Petersko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "That's probably because you don't pay much attention to the world. If you had, you may have heard of this African country called Sudan, and a particularly a region in it called Darfur..."

    I've been glued to world news for most of the last five years and I had to look up Eritrea. I've also never heard of it before.

    You might have made an excellent point after this phrase, or provided some details, but when I read the first line I thought to myself, "Condescending dick." So I never read the rest of your post.

  11. I'm not sure you have it right by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I've read of the Koran, being a Muslim is an intensely self-centered act of surrender to God, in which no government or authority on earth can interfere with. You surrender your perceived control of your self and submit to God's will directly without an intercessor (Jesus or Mohammed or the Pope) because Islam is supposed to be based on the faith of Abraham, which is the progenitor to Judaism and Christianity. Historically, Mohammed never intended for a priesthood to arise (I'm basing this off Karen Armstrong's work, don't have a direct citation for you). He was emphatic that he was not to be worshipped, and the immediate founders of the ummah were not to be worshipped as well.

    It appears to me that what you're referring to (regarding Islam and the state and how a Muslim can't be a muslim unless they are part of a nation state or something - you're very vague on that) is how Arab culture subsumed Islam and turned it into a political empire. Islam as politics and Islam as religion are two completely different animals, and the same can definitely be said for Christianity and Judaism. The muslim laws (shariah) you're referring to, are the collections of decisions made by later priests based on their interpretations of the Koran and given the weight of law. But they are not actually in the Koran, and they are subject to cultural interpretation and political whims. You would do better to study the Moors of Spain to see what a proper Islamic society was. As for the child-rapist thing, I would remind you that back then, it was customary for girls that young to wed men in Arab, Jewish, and even Christian culture. Hell, up until the beginning of the last century we had American Christian men marrying 12 and 13 year olds. So you're trying to pull a straw man argument there.

    Your points, when you're attacking the political culture of Islam as defined by a state, are mostly valid. But you are making an error in combining Islam as political culture and Islam as religion. Unfortunately, I will concede to you that most people, many Muslims (and Christians, and Jews) make the same mistake. We are only human after all, and definitely not perfect

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.