[Peace-discussion] Re: [usgp-dx] Fwd: Human rights in Iran

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:18:29 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080105030103060802070908
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin Zehr wrote:

> > If by "recognize" you mean that the GPUS should publicly
> > pontificate against human rights abuses in other countries that are
> >  in the literal or metaphorical gun sights of the US gov't., then,
> > absolutely--with very few exceptions--I don't want the GPUS to
> > "recognize" those abuses.
>
>  Regarding the turn of the phrase "human rights" in Iran, it is worth
>  looking at something other than a rewritten and revised history of
>  Iran and look at the criminal record of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
>  I speak in the context of documented records of the executions of
>  secular, progressive and revolutionary political leadership at the
>  behest of Ayatollah Khomeini. I speak of the murder of 10, 000 Kurds
>  in a jihad declared by the Ayatollah Khomeini. I speak in regards to
>  the use of religious courts and religious laws in the persecution of
>  a variety of individuals with lifestyles that are outlawed.

I was already well aware of this history.

>  You speak as though repression is not a characteristic of governments
>  that needs to be opposed regardless of current American policies.

Not at all. Repression, to varying degrees, is a characteristic's of all 
governments and should be opposed. However, there is a specific context 
for opposition of the repression of governments that are targeted by the 
United States--"the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today," 
to quote the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--and folks who really care 
about human rights have an obligation not to take action that are likely 
to actually promote greater abuses. It's a simple concept.

>  You accuse individuals who promote a consistent standard of
>  international conduct by all nations, leaders and governments of the
>  world as "cruise missile left".

As Emerson noted "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little 
minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." 
Promoting a "consistent standard of international conduct" that takes no 
account of the military and political context is not only foolish but 
tantamount to complicity in murder.

Some such promoters of a "consistent standard" certainly are part of the 
"cruise missile left." Do you deny the truth of Edward S. Herman's 
analysis on this point? Did/would you support the American attack on 
Serbia and invasion of Kosovo in the name of human rights?

>  There are other Iranian people who "recognize" the crimes of the
>  Islamist theocrats in power and are not prepared to dole them out
>  sympathy for their legally sanctioned crimes.

Who said anything about doling out sympathy? The idea is not to support 
or propagate the arguments for an attack on the country by the US, which 
will certainly not help human rights in Iran, as the record of 
Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrates.

>  It is a mistake to think that defending national rights against US
>  occupation and military intervention is the same thing as justifying
>  the actions of a criminal government.

Just who is justifying "the actions of a criminal government"? Further, 
my argument has little to nothing to do with "defending national rights 
against US occupation and military intervention."

>  It is mistake to compare the national sovereignty of a country such
>  as Iran without referring to the rights of oppressed nations such as
>  the Kurds to self-determination. It is a mistake to think that those
>  seeking democratic rights in their nation of origin have no right to
>  organize and redress their grievances because of what the current
>  position of the US Dept. of State is on such activity. It is a
>  mistake to deny the criminal activities of a government against its
>  own people and the potential threat that a government causes to the
>  peace of the world solely on the basis of the policies of the current
>  US President.

Okay, perhaps, you're confusing me with someone else because I've never 
done or suggested any of these things.

>
>  Censorship, revisionism and selective editing will never increase the
>  credibility Greens or any others with American voters. Just because
>  YOU say "The best thing Greens can do to promote global human rights
>  is to work to stop the war machine based here", that does not make it
>  true that we have to excuse, support, condone or glorify governments
>  who blatantly deny their people their fundamental rights and
>  liberties.

I am dead set against Greens who "excuse, support, condone or glorify 
governments who blatantly deny their people their fundamental rights and 
liberties". As it turns out, the most notable case where I know this to 
happen is with regard to Israel, see e.g. "Pro-Israel Activists in the 
Green Party" <http://www.greencommons.org/node/291>

Michelle J. Kinnucan
GPAX, GPMI

--------------080105030103060802070908
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
 <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Martin Zehr wrote: 
 
&gt;&gt; If by "recognize" you mean
that the GPUS should publicly 
&gt;&gt; pontificate against human rights abuses in other countries
that are 
&gt;&gt;&nbsp; in the literal or metaphorical gun sights of the US gov't.,
then, 
&gt;&gt; absolutely--with very few exceptions--I don't want the GPUS to
 
&gt;&gt; "recognize" those abuses. 
&gt; 
&gt; Regarding the turn of the phrase "human rights" in Iran, it is
worth 
&gt; looking at something other than a rewritten and revised history of 
&gt; Iran and look at the criminal record of the Islamic Republic of
Iran. 
&gt; I speak in the context of documented records of the executions of 
&gt; secular, progressive and revolutionary political leadership at the 
&gt; behest of Ayatollah Khomeini. I speak of the murder of 10, 000
Kurds 
&gt; in a jihad declared by the Ayatollah Khomeini. I speak in regards
to 
&gt; the use of religious courts and religious laws in the persecution
of 
&gt; a variety of individuals with lifestyles that are outlawed. 
 
I was already well aware of this history. 
 
&gt; You speak as though repression is
not a characteristic of governments 
&gt; that needs to be opposed regardless of current American policies. 
 
Not at all. Repression, to varying degrees, is a characteristic's of
all governments and should be opposed. However, there is a specific
context for opposition of the repression of governments that are
targeted by the United States--"the greatest purveyor of violence in
the world today," to quote the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--and
folks who really care about human rights have an obligation not to take
action that are likely to actually promote greater abuses. It's a
simple concept. 
 
&gt; You accuse individuals who promote
a consistent standard of 
&gt; international conduct by all nations, leaders and governments of
the 
&gt; world as "cruise missile left". 
 
As Emerson noted "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Promoting a "consistent standard of international conduct" that takes
no account of the military and political context is not only foolish
but tantamount to complicity in murder. 
 
Some such promoters of a "consistent standard" certainly are part of
the "cruise missile left." Do you deny the truth of Edward S. Herman's
analysis on this point? Did/would you support the American attack on
Serbia and invasion of Kosovo in the name of human rights? 
 
&gt; There are other Iranian people who
"recognize" the crimes of the 
&gt; Islamist theocrats in power and are not prepared to dole them out 
&gt; sympathy for their legally sanctioned crimes. 
 
Who said anything about doling out sympathy? The idea is not to support
or propagate the arguments for an attack on the country by the US,
which will certainly not help human rights in Iran, as the record of
Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrates. 
 
&gt; It is a mistake to think that
defending national rights against US 
&gt; occupation and military intervention is the same thing as
justifying 
&gt; the actions of a criminal government. 
 
Just who is justifying "the actions of a criminal government"? Further,
my argument has little to nothing to do with "defending national rights
against US occupation and military intervention." 
 
&gt; It is mistake to compare the
national sovereignty of a country such 
&gt; as Iran without referring to the rights of oppressed nations such
as 
&gt; the Kurds to self-determination. It is a mistake to think that
those 
&gt; seeking democratic rights in their nation of origin have no right
to 
&gt; organize and redress their grievances because of what the current 
&gt; position of the US Dept. of State is on such activity. It is a 
&gt; mistake to deny the criminal activities of a government against its 
&gt; own people and the potential threat that a government causes to the 
&gt; peace of the world solely on the basis of the policies of the
current 
&gt; US President. 
 
Okay, perhaps, you're confusing me with someone else because I've never
done or suggested any of these things. 
 
&gt; 
&gt; Censorship, revisionism and selective editing will never increase
the 
&gt;&nbsp; credibility Greens or any others with American voters. Just
because 
&gt; YOU say "The best thing Greens can do to promote global human
rights 
&gt; is to work to stop the war machine based here", that does not make
it 
&gt; true that we have to excuse, support, condone or glorify
governments 
&gt; who blatantly deny their people their fundamental rights and 
&gt; liberties. 
 
I am dead set against Greens who "excuse, support, condone or glorify
governments who blatantly deny their people their fundamental rights
and liberties". As it turns out, the most notable case where I know
this to happen is with regard to Israel, see e.g. "Pro-Israel Activists
in the Green Party" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.greencommons.org/node/291">&lt;http://www.greencommons.org/node/291&gt;</a> 
 
Michelle J. Kinnucan 
GPAX, GPMI 
</body>
</html>

--------------080105030103060802070908--