uncredible on its face that it
1. says nothing about Iran and
2. renders your rhetorical question about Arab nations will comment entirely moot.
Let's leave aside your argument that maybe we should grant some credibility to the report bc a "prison judge" confirmed it.
The photo was published on August 28. Now a mere 8 days later the lady has been "sentenced" to 99 lashes for this?
Okay, how many sentences can you list in any country in any time time that were handed down 8 days after the crime?
Obviously what we have here is the son trying to keep the international spotlight on his poor mother. Shouldn't that possiblity at least have been mentioned by your source if it was going to report this absurd multiple hearsay as news?
A while ago I posted about the stoning of women under Islam, and I was how much of an aberation it was. Thank God I was wrong. It seems her current sentence in 99 lashes for having a picture without a head scarf. That sure would put a crimp on this board.
I wonder if the Turkish or Egyptian or Jordian or Syrian government is going to say how bad this is. Holding my breath.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.260c2246a5c77075ff7ab46b021e9239.371&show_article=1
So it will be a total of 198 lashes if she receives the new sentence of lashing as I seem to recall she already got 99 before.
Murder and adultery are what she is was charged with and convicted of. Why all of the publicity? Suppose she is guilty? I don't like capital punishment Iranian style or any other style. Why would the Iranians single this woman out for persecution?
bc they are so honest, knowledgable, and reliable.
You see, in Iran, whenever a new penalty is imposed, they always tell the other prisoners. And that's why the son decided that once these jailbirds told him about the lashing he would giver interviews to several foreign media outlets.
Of course, as your link points out, the son received confirmation of the sentence from a "prison judge." So we can count on the jail birds, right?
Only problem Phil is that there are no "prison judges" in Iranian prisons- sort of like our legal system. But I'll admit that I have no knowledge of how the "Arab prisons" in Iran are staffed so maybe they do have prison judges there.
Finally, the photo of the woman with the scarf - that wasn't the lady in question anyway.
But thanks for reporting this as news. By the way, you have a phone call from the National Enquirer which just so happens to need an ace international reporter.
And the left believes every God damn story out of Gitmo. And defense attorney across the U.S. give credit to every complaint by a chilld molester in Corcoran.
You do something amazing in two consecutive sentences. You say there are no "prison judges in Iranian prisons. Then the next sentence you say you don't know how they are staffed. That really makes sense.
You should also realize that many times things will be lost in translations dealing with legal (and other technical) matters. If I recall, appellate courts in France don't reverse judgments, they break them. Notaries in Mexico are not the same as notaries here. If someone said a notary did something there, it may not make sense if you are thinking U.S. law. The Civil Code if France is very different from the Civil Code in CA.
Bottom line is you don't know what a "prison judge" is, or whether it exists, so you just discredit it.
And then the Old Bottom Line of those who can't refute an argument. Just attack the source and make fun of it.
Guess what. I never have read it, but sometimes the N. Enquirer beat the MSM. Lewinsky and Edwards will testify.
But hey maybe the son called the "prison judge" and he indeed confirmed the sentence.
Judges in Iran are so helpful. They just love to hear from families of prisoners to discuss sentences, sort of like our judges over here. All you've got to do is call them on the phone.
Which reminds me, I need to call the judge about this traffic ticket I've been contesting. Do you think he'd mind a call on Sunday?
-- Modified on 9/5/2010 8:59:05 AM
You admit you know nothing about the Iranian legal system and prison system. I assume you know nothing about the internal administartive workings of Iranian prisons. Nor do I.
But you ridicule someone who calls "the prison judge," not knowing what that is. You make two silly assumptions: 1) that "judge" means the same thing in their system as ours; 2) that a lay person speaking in possibly a foreign language will accurately describe the legal name of the person he dealt with.
Hey, even in our socieity "judge" means different things in different states. The "judges" on the Ninth Circuit, an appellate court, go by the name of the "judges" in the trial court in state, and the "Justices" in the intermediate court of appeal in state don't correspond to the federal, since the "justices" in the federal are the Supreme.
Likewise, the Supreme court in NY is the lowest court, unlike CA where it is the highest court. The NY "court of appeal" is the highest, unlike CA where it is the mid-level.
BUT, you assume that "judge" in the Iranian system is the same as here, so a prison judge doesn't exist.
But of course, you admitted that you know nothing about the system. Just that it is silly what the person said about it.
Finally, Which post in particular are you referring me to? Kind of a long thread. Anything specific?
Judges in Iran are so helpful. They just love to hear from families of prisoners to discuss sentences, sort of like our judges over here. All you've got to do is call them on the phone.
Which reminds me, I need to call the judge about this traffic ticket I've been contesting. Do you think he'd mind a call on Sunday?
-- Modified on 9/5/2010 8:59:05 AM
even the Wayback Machine has failed me this time ,I guess I will have to spell it out:
1. I was not arguing as to whether the lady was sentenced to 99 lashes or not. I have no information on that. I was chiding you for accepting uncritically a web "news report" that by its own terms defied any notion of credibility. At the very least, you should have cited in your post that the "news report" came from the son who was relying on info from released inmates.
2. You seem to have completely missed the distinction between Iranian prisons and "Arab prisons in Iran."
I admit to having no knowlege of "Arab prisons in Iran"
bc there are none as I chided you about the last time you mentioned "Arab prisons in Iran." The link took you to that exact post.
3. I understand that you recognize the distinction between Arabs and Persians but you perhaps you should recognize that you are a little careless in keeping that distinction in your posts.
Priapus was simply being helpful in his tutorial for you bc your posts tend to treat Arabs and Persians as the same.
4. As to whether "I know nothing about the Iranian legal system," I am sorry you have found my many past posts about the Iranian legal system to be so uninformative. When we first discussed the stoning issue, I posted that I did not understand how the lady could be condemned to stoning bc of the specific Iranian laws and the moratorium that I discussed.
I am casual in some types of speech, such as this forum. The picky pettyfogging of my other life wearies me, and sometimes I just say things without the exactitude that a brief in the Ninth Circuit, or even superior court, would require.
I go through life excusing others of similar mistakes. In 30 years of law, I have never corrected anyone who used "robbery" for "burglary," or "libel" for "slander." In non-legal matters as well, I rarely focus on that sort of mistake. I prefer to address the intended merits, rather than they mental typo.
However, I think my general meanings are pretty clear for anyone except those looking to avoid the subject by nit picking.
If I were to say that the Arab judicial systems are pretty horrific, and use Iran or Midnight Express as an example, it would be loose and inaccurate writing. But if the only comment that someone can make is "Iran and Turnekhy aren't Arab," then that kind of conceedes the rest. Yes, the judicial system in Egypt, and other real Arabic countries suck, as does the system in non-"arab," but Moslem nations, including Iran.
But if the only response is "Iran isn't Arab," it doesn't say much for the merits of the argument
uncredible on its face that it
1. says nothing about Iran and
2. renders your rhetorical question about Arab nations will comment entirely moot.
Let's leave aside your argument that maybe we should grant some credibility to the report bc a "prison judge" confirmed it.
The photo was published on August 28. Now a mere 8 days later the lady has been "sentenced" to 99 lashes for this?
Okay, how many sentences can you list in any country in any time time that were handed down 8 days after the crime?
Obviously what we have here is the son trying to keep the international spotlight on his poor mother. Shouldn't that possiblity at least have been mentioned by your source if it was going to report this absurd multiple hearsay as news?
Why is it so incredible? It is a widely known fact that some fundamentalists support this type of "rough justice." It is known that it goes on. It is known that Iran has engaged in this type of justice before. When the reports originally came out, and they were originally published in the mainstream press, all Iran said was it was considering modifying the sentence. What do you think they were talking about? How about $100 and time served. Was that your interpetation for this "minor" offense?
What is so shockingly out of sync with what is known that makes this so incredible? (Or "un"credible to use your term.)
Likewise, there are and have been a lot of countries where the time from sentence to punishment is very short. I read an article a while ago about some executions in China. Ain't no CA with a 25 year appeal.
Again, you have no idea of criminal procedure and time lines in Iranian legal system. You have no idea of what initial showing must be made on an appeal, if any. (Some legal systems require an initial showing to proceed on appeal. Not to shocking. Not very different from the Ninth Circuit COA requirement.) But with no knowlege, you just assume it is impossible.
Finally, yes, there is a self-interest in the story. (Every god damn story in every paper in the world is hearsay and is usually multiple levels of hearsay.)
Can you honestly say with a straight face that you discount every story you read that is self-serving? Did you laugh at every story coming out of Gitmo, saying it was self-serving? Did you scoff at the reports of misconduct by Tea Party people, saying it was self-serving? You only object to self-serving, when you dislike the self it is serving. Otherwise, it is fine for your standards.
Yeah, if my mom were about to be stoned or whipped, I sure as hell would try to keep the spotlight on her. And that is wrong because....?
This is so consistent with so many other things. You admit you know little about the specifics of the system. What is so incredible?
-- Modified on 9/5/2010 3:15:01 PM
What was your point? I thought it was "the Islamic legal systems are unfair and harsh" But now I am not sure what the point was.
while another lawyer says he called colleagues at the court and it is not all clear that any sentence or lashing was imposed. A Iranian official has gone on record as saying no.
The first lawyer's source - that same jailbird.
It is fascinating to see how journalistic standards have deteriorated from the old two independent sources days of the Washington Post. Tonight I heard CNN say flatly the woman has already been lashed - their source- that first lawyer who talked with the jailbird.
As to the Gitmo stories that you keep bringing up, if you review my posts about Gitmo you'll find they are based on the habeas corpus where we have an opinion from the judge. Same with the California prison posts.
Now you may ultimately prove to be correct that the lady has indeed been sentenced and whipped in a five day period.
But if you go back to your original link, it is bit disingenuous for you to ask "why is it uncredible?" for all of the reasons I hae explained to you.
No. You didn't say why it was incredible in the first post. You started impliedly saying that sources in prison are not credible, when that is not the case. Many allegations start with prison complaints. The California prison cass all started because prisoners complained. Thus the source is the same as here - prisoners - but you just dismiss it before it can be developed.
Second, in saying it was incredible, you based it on your admitted lack of knowledge of the Iranian prison system.
My point was the contradiction between your assertion "there are no 'prison judges,' " and your admission you "have no knowledge of how the "Arab prisons" in Iran are staffed so maybe they do have prison judges there."
Finally, you never addressed the fact that it is consistent with many standards in that part of the world.
In short, you never answered the things I pointed out.
Again, the double standard of the left makes my mind numb. Did you complain as loudly about lack of journalistic standards when Dan Rather ran with a story his experts told him was questionable. Did you complain as loudly with the bogus Duke La Crosse team. There have been scores of MSN reporting instances far worse, and I don't recall complaints.
The first lawyer's source - that same jailbird.
It is fascinating to see how journalistic standards have deteriorated from the old two independent sources days of the Washington Post. Tonight I heard CNN say flatly the woman has already been lashed - their source- that first lawyer who talked with the jailbird.
As to the Gitmo stories that you keep bringing up, if you review my posts about Gitmo you'll find they are based on the habeas corpus where we have an opinion from the judge. Same with the California prison posts.
Now you may ultimately prove to be correct that the lady has indeed been sentenced and whipped in a five day period.
But if you go back to your original link, it is bit disingenuous for you to ask "why is it uncredible?" for all of the reasons I hae explained to you.
here's a quick tutorial : Iranians are not Arabs.
They are Persians. Arabs speak Arabic. Iranians
speak Farsi. While Arabs & Pesians share the same
religion, majority of Arabs are Sunni, while majority of Persians are Shia.
If you follow the news, you'd realize, for number of reasons, Iran is at odds with great deal of the Arab world, therefore, Arab media wouldn't even comment on this case. Religion has nothing to do with it. Same goes for the Turks.
Btw, Turks are neither Arabic NOR Persian.
I, like you, loathe repressive regimes, but getting your news sources from Breitbart ?!--Dude, you are falling off a right-wing cliff.
Btw, it's spelled "aberration" & "Jordanian"
-- Modified on 9/5/2010 6:58:44 AM
-- Modified on 9/5/2010 8:14:48 AM
I know Iranians aren't Arabs. Neither are Turks. I don't think I said they were. I know there are divisions in the religion. (I've been to Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon, so I know the differences.
The fact that there are divisions in a larger culture does not prohibit comment from one to the other. Believe it or not, there are religious and linguistical differences between the US and parts of Europe, but when they were snuffing Tookie in CA, half of Europe was going bongos.
Also, there are differences between parts of the US and any of the Islamic countries you mentioned, but they seem free to comment on internal policies of the US. Just the other day, some Islamic country protested the planned Koran burning - WHICH I DON'T LIKE.
If they can protest things in the US, they can protest things in the fellow Islamic nations.
In fact, what you say doesn't make sense. I know Iran is at odds with much of the Islamic world. But if that is the case, they why is that other part of the Islamic world so hesitant to condemn this particular action. After all, it does reflect on the large culture which they share.
Maybe it is because so many of the Sunni nations also treat women like shit, so maybe this is something they don't disapprove of. (OOOOPS - Sorry. Since you are being Editor, I should say, "maybe this is someth of which they don't disapprove." Happy?
most of the Muslim world if not all treat women pretty bad. This includes Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia almost everywhere. In the western world it was customary for a bride to supply her intended a dowry. Tradition states that the brides family wanted to insure she would be taken care of after marriage.
In the Muslim world the man buys his wife like a cow. She is property. And in the strict sense of the Muslim law you may do with her as you wish with few limits. It is a brutal religion.
seemed to be focused on some imagined camaraderie between mid eastern Muslim states. BTW there are Christians in some of the states that Phil mentioned. Phil seems to be in the middle of an "ass fact failure" LMAO
All religions are created by men to dominate others thinking, limit their freedom, and exercise their will.
Show me a single Abrahamic religion created by man that hasn't caused destruction and mayhem in the name of one God or another.
As much as I agree with you about the evils of religion, you can't deny it exists, anymore than it's followers can deny the harm they have caused "in Gods name". Of course that doesn't keep them (or you) from trying.
Facts are, religion is an unpleasant fact of life for those of us who "don't believe", but disavowing it's existence isn't going to make it go away.
anonymousfun do you always fly of the handle and make statement like this without thinking. Don't tell me you think. I would say it is a fact that Religion exist.
Otherwise you need to send a PM to TER and have them change the name of the Board to just Politics. My god were are debating something that dosen't even exist. If things continue on we may get to free lunch, free beer or free providers for all.
-- Modified on 9/6/2010 2:39:33 PM
I don't imagine a camaraderie, but there is a family, clam, sect, religion mentality. Yes, there are a hell of a lot of Moslems who side with Moslems of different sects. A lot of Shia will side with Sunni when the dispute is against a Christian or Jew.
I know there are Christians in a lot of those countries. I have been to four where they have active Christian churches. What the F is the point of saying that. They are still Islamic countries with a minority of Christians.
Again, you drop back into your label of "ass fact" without mentioning what fact was not true.
Bark, pups. Running dogs of communism were always happy to side with oppressive regimes. Bark Pups
It has a nice ring to it , right Phil?
motherfuckers that kill on sight. Gotta watch out for those buddhists. Lmao.