Saturday, February 05, 2005

The BBC and Moral Stupidity

Yesterday I was listening to NPR on my drive home and heard an interview by Melissa Block of the BBC's Frances Harrison about the reaction in Tehran to statements made by Secretary Rice. One of the things Rice had mentioned was that the human rights record of the Iranian regime was abysmal. Ms Block then asked Ms. Harrison about the Iranian response. Ms. Harrison may have answered this way due to not having heard any response yet from the Iranians, but I am speculating here. The point is that she speculated herself on what the general response might be. She replied to the question by saying that she thought the general response would be: Who is the United States to criticize us? Look at their abuses at Abu Ghraib, or Guantanimo etc. Now, this is fine as far as it goes since she is only speculating on what the Iranians would say. She should have followed up though by pointing out how ridiculous their saying such a thing would be. Why should she have followed up with such a disclaimer? Two reasons: One, a reporter should point out when an argument is made which is clearly nonsensical. Two, such a statement as she made is in fact, clearly nonsensical. I fully admit and apologize to my readers here who find all of this rather obvious, but my point is that a veteran reportrix from the BBC doesn't find it so. Let us lay it out very simply: Abuses were committed at Abu Ghraib. These abuses were committed by criminals who have in due course been prosecuted. Here is how The Scotsman put it:
A SOLDIER convicted in connection with the Iraqi abuse court martial was described at the trial yesterday as "a bit of a nutter" who loved violence so much that he was ordered to undergo psychiatric counseling.
I have heard of no abuses at Guantanimo Bay, but have full faith that if crimes come to light they will be similarly pursued. Now let us compare the case of Iran with a couple of cases: First, the case of
Atefeh Rajabi who was acting about like an average American teen. as described by the Women's Freedom Forum
A 16 year old girl hanged in public in the city center of Neka, North of Tehran. The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage. In court, she told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims
Second, the case of Kaveh Habibi-Nejad from Indymedia.

14-year-old boy ‘flogged to death’ in Iran

Iran Focus News 26 Nov 2004 00:22 GMT
Another child allowed to be 'punished' to death.
14-year-old boy ‘flogged to death’ in Iran: Thursday 25 Nov 2004 Tehran - New information has come to light over the sudden death of a 14-year-old schoolboy in western Iran, who died after being flogged for “eating in public” during the holy Islamic month of Ramadan. Kaveh Habibi-Nejad died Nov. 12 and was buried in the cemetery of the Kurdish city of Sanadaj on Nov. 13, according to his death certificate.
Both of these outrages are typical in Iran. Also typical is that they were done by the authorities. The perpetrators of these acts are not considered criminals by the government of Iran, they are in fact part of the government of Iran. What kind of moral idiot compares the criminals of one country with the officials of another and looks for equivalence between the two? The BBC's Frances Harrison, for one. Who Else? I don't think it would be hard to find more. dbp


Anonymous said...

Maybe this would have been a better example,,583192,00.html

Anonymous said...

Sorry try it now link

dbp said...

SOA has long been a whipping boy for the left. The purpose of the school is in fact to create more professionalism in the military forces of latin america. This should decrease incidents of murder, torture & etc.