Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

US sanctions Iran’s court system over execution of wrestler, other alleged abuses

We anarchists must necessarily work to oppose all governments everywhere while at the same time opposing overarching systems of imperialism. The way we do that is through building global networks of oppositional subcultures predicated on the principle of self-determination and voluntary association for all.

By Rich Edson

FOX News

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will announce Thursday afternoon sanctions against Judge Seyyed Mahmoud Sadati, Branch 1 of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz and Adelabad Prison for their involvement in the trial, imprisonment and execution of Navid Afkari, said a U.S. official. Afkari was a wrestler arrested in 2018 for participating in protests. He was accused of murder, tortured and executed Sept. 12, according to a U.S. official.

“These so-called ‘revolutionary courts’ are not what anyone in the United States would recognize as a court. Their purpose is to maintain the regime’s stranglehold on power and put Iranians who seek freedom into prison—or even to order their execution,” said Elliott Abrams, US Special Representative for Iran. “They take orders for their verdicts from the ayatollahs and they make a mockery of justice.”



2 replies »

  1. This is a good use for my AP (Assassination Politics, ) idea.

    The Iranian judge in this case, and anyone else associated with the killing of this person, needs to be killed. But, we hesitate if the American Federal government does that, because of countless past abuses, too numerous to relate here.

    We are right to hesitate about WHO does the killing, but let’s not mix up that with hesitation about the fact of the judge’s killing.

    AP would allow us, even anyone, to pay a few dollars even pennies, towards killing the judge, and others, and leave the US Federal Government completely out of the issue.

  2. “At the beginning of this segment, Krystal refers to Hillary Clinton as “Hitlerly.” ”

    I’ve been doing that for a few years. And I think the analogy is at least apt.

    Adolf Hitler, despite what he later did, was only guilty of a single “beer hall putsch” in 1923, when he ran for the office of Chancellor in 1933, and was eventually chosen as a compromise. (He didn’t receive a majority of the votes. Maybe a plurality?)

    Instead, “Hitlery” Clinton was guilty of violations of the Federal Records Act, for failing to arrange with the National Archives for backing up her private server with its government business.
    More seriously, she was guilty of the Espionage Act for allowing classified information to remain on her unapproved server.

    She had been given an approved email address for classified communication at the beginning of her time in office in 2009. She chose to never use it. This proves malicious intent: She MUST have been aware that she would be dealing with classified communication as a part of her job. Had she made an effort to use that approved email system, but occasionally accidently backslid into using her secret server, that might have been consistent with innocent error. But that’s not what she did. By NEVER using the approved-classified email, she instantly signalled an intent to ALWAYS break the law.

    So, when her supported voted for her in 2016, they were voting for a person they knew (or should have known) to be an intentional criminal.

    She’s also defended as having not committed any crime in relation to the Benghazi incident. That’s a strawman. I don’t accuse her of a “crime”, rather, she and others committed extreme negligence for having done NOTHING to improve the security of the Benghazi facility on the critical 9/11 anniversary date of 9/11/2012.

    Osama Bin Laden had been killed in May 2011, but that was too soon for Al Quaeda to do anything on the 9/11/2011 date. (In fact, later information indicated that those plotters entered Libya about 9/11/2011, planning the eventual attack for 9/11/2012.)

    Within a week of the 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack, I wondered why the US military hadn’t been ordered to send an AC-130 gunship to rotate over the Mediterranean, roughly equidistant between Tripoli and Benghazi, which would have amounted to a 20-minute flight delay, to protect whichever facility would be attacked. Sure, the military couldn’t be expected to protect EVERY possible target, but Benghazi and Tripoli were probably #1 and #2 on the list: They were in virtually anarchic (or, at least, poly-archic?) regions.

    I am not aware that the numerous Congressional hearings in subsequent months ever addressed this matter. I think those hearings tended to be artificially limited to answering the question, “The attack just happened a moment ago. What should have been done differently?”

    That’s wrong. I would have asked: “You had 1.3 years to prepare for this kind of attack. What should you have done?”

    Those are entirely different questions.

Leave a Reply to jim bell Cancel reply