Iranian police clash with up to 3,000 protesters

[Turborama]

Source: AP

Witnesses in Iran say police have clashed with up to 3,000 protesters near a mosque in north Tehran.

They say security forces fired tear gas to disperse the crowd, and some demonstrators fought back, chanting: "Where is my vote?"

Witnesses at the scene tell The Associated Press that some protesters claimed they suffered broken arms or legs in Sunday's clashes around the Ghoba Mosque.

They say some young demonstrators screamed at police and then attacked them after the officers allegedly beat an elderly woman.

The reports could not immediately be independently verified because of tight restrictions imposed on journalists in Iran.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election_566

---

The CNN article that was originally posted: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/28/iran.demonstration/index.html

[peacetalksforall]

1. Who wrote this xxxx? Oh right CNN - take a look at this second sentence.

"The gathering is officially meant to honor Mohammad Beheshti, who was killed in a bombing on this date 28 years ago. It follows two weeks of protests against the official results of the June 12 presidential elections, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won. "

Won? Should have been written- 'whose win is being contested on the streets'

I hate CNN.

It's just like saying George Bush won. The general public is too apathetic to do much in this country. Theft is in here. Accepted, signed, sealed, delivered, believed in like the Bible.

[Turborama]

3. I've updated it, the CNN story was the only one available at the time

I agree with your comments about their sloppiness, there's no excuse.

[merwin]

5. He did win. That is what the riots are about...

That his win was due to a rigged election.

The official Iranian result is that he won the election. To say otherwise would be biased. He won the same way every dictator wins.

It seems like you want CNN to insert bias into the article by stating that the election was rigged, of which there is no physical evidence that I know of (even though everyone knows it was rigged).

Anything further than what thet wrote would be introducing evidence that do not exist yet, meaning it becomes an opinion/commentary piece ratherthan a news report.

It's the same as a court case where a key piece of evidence is not allowed, leaving everyone knwing the person is guilty, but unable to be convicted.

[peacetalksforall]

6. No. I did not imply that I wanted CNN to say it was rigged. It appears he

didn't win, he took it.

This is what CNN said:
"The gathering is officially meant to honor Mohammad Beheshti, who was killed in a bombing on this date 28 years ago. It follows two weeks of protests against the official results of the June 12 presidential elections, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won. "

AND I said:

"Won? Should have been written- 'whose win is being contested on the streets'

The way CNN says won has an official, legitimate declaration. It should have been written with some sort of 'unending' because it is not over.

I offered one way, there are others.

I repeat - it appears he DID NOT WIN. It might be too subtle for you, it's not for me. We know how CNN treated the Bush win - twice.

I am sick and tired of authoratative pretense and lies by corporcratic news.

[merwin]

Facts: They had an election. He was declared the winner. There are protests against the results.

Those are all facts. He won the election. Whether or not the election was rigged is the reason the protests are going on.

Can anyone show hard evidence that he "DID NOT WIN"? Until they can, it would be completely irresponsible for CNN to allude to that. I guess they could write that there is speculation that the election results were rigged, but that is also inserting an opinion. Aside from that, to be non-biased they would have to also insert a comment from the opposition.

[peacetalksforall]

15. I absolutely DO NOT AGREE with you. There are ways to word it to

say that the Iranian rulers win is being contested. If CNN can'y handle some plain English caveats they they can only be taken as supportive as promoters which is exactly what they did for Buish. Twice. It's exactly the way the press handlged the intetween elections, also.

I cannot assume anything but propaganda or shading when it comes to CNN. I try to see both sides. I draw the line.

It one sentences is not a huge deal by itself, but all the manipulations add up.

You haven't convinced me - sorry to report.

[Turborama]

8. What peacetalksforall said

CNN did insert bias into the report by saying he definitively won. I guess your definition of 'win' is different from mine.

[merwin]

10. They said he won. They never said definitevly won.

Try taking a step back from the current situation and look at what I am trying to say. I will preface this by saying that I do not think that the vote count was accurate and I do think the election was rigged.

On to the analogy...

Take a sporting event, for example. One team who should have gotten torn apart ends up winning the game. Up until the point where the cheating is uncovered and the other team is declared the winner, the one who ended up with the most points at the end of the game is the winner.

On the flipside, take the coleman/franken election. It has yet to be certified. In that case, it would be ok to put a caveat at the end regarding the disputed status of the election, and use language in the article that states that the outcome has yet to be determined.

Honestly, it's not a hard concept to grasp. Under the laws of Iran, however screwed up they might be, he did win the election. Hence, the reason the riots are happening in the first place. If the laws allowed for a fair and independent vote count, and that took place, there would be no riots.

You might want to pull out a dictionary before you go and redefine the definition of "win"... "to finish first in a contest". Correct me if I'm wrong, but he did finish first in the official vote tally.

Unless the election is overturned, he will continue to be the winner. Even if the demonstrations succeed in their goal of forceful regime change, he still will continue to be the winner of the election. Just as Bush won the election in 2000 even after it was proven statistically that he wouldn't have won if all votes were counted. To say otherwise is to replace a fact with an opinion, no matter how much truth there is to the argument. Besides, as I stated before, there wouldn't have been riots if the election certification process had been delayed for a fair recount.

[Turborama]

12. Your analogy proves the point we've been making

From what I understand of electoral rules, results can't be 'finally certified' until the 'recounts' have been completed...



Getting back on the tightrope, though, Obama said he still believes "that ultimately it's up to the Iranian people to make decisions about who their leaders are going to be." Iranian authorities have still not finally certified the results of the election -- which showed Ahmadinejad winning by a 2-1 margin, despite an apparent wave of support for Mousavi as the vote drew closer. The government has admitted that dozens of cities reported turnout that was higher than the number of eligible voters, but officials insist that had no impact on the outcome. An appeal is still pending, but by some time next week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Guardian Council are likely to certify Ahmadinejad's alleged victory.

From: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/06/26/ahmadinejad/

The Guardian Council started the recount today:

Iran starts partial recount of disputed vote - TV


TEHRAN (Reuters) - A partial recount of Iran's disputed June 12 presidential election began on Monday, al-Alam state television reported.

Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, had offered to recount a random 10 percent of the votes. But defeated opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi has rejected this, saying the whole election should be annulled.

Recounting had started in 22 Tehran districts as well as in provinces, al-Alam said.

Official results released a day after the June 12 election showed hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, sparking days of street protests by supporters of Mousavi, who says the vote was rigged.

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40658820090629

ETA: Saying he "won" without a caveat is definitive.

[merwin]

14. I stand corrected on that point, however CNN has already updated their article.

On a side note, in the Reuters article you quoted, it states "The 12-member Guardian Council is to give its final verdict on the election and this could happen later Monday. It has repeatedly ruled out annulling the vote, saying it has found no major irregularites."

Funny that Reuters forgot to spell check the article. I'm not quite sure what an irregularite is... possibly someone who's religion includes incontinence? :)

On a serious note, even the article you provided states that the official results show that he won by a landslide, not changing the substance of my argument. I stand by my previous statement of "On the flipside, take the coleman/franken election. It has yet to be certified. In that case, it would be ok to put a caveat at the end regarding the disputed status of the election, and use language in the article that states that the outcome has yet to be determined."

Franken won the election until determined otherwise. It's the difference of "guilty" and "guilty pending appeal" in the reporting of a trial. Either way the was found guilty, and that fact won't change unless the appeal overturns it. It's more accurate to use "pending appeal", but not necessary.

All of this is a moot point, since CNN has updated their article to be more clear, adding in exactly the caveat that I was talking about, along with specifically including both points of view, as I had also critiqued in a previous post.

The current wording is:
"Ahmadinejad won the disputed election by a margin of two-to-one over Moussavi, his nearest rival, according to official results. Moussavi and Karroubi said the results were rigged and have called for the vote to be annulled."

On a final note, my original response was directed more at the post that CNN had a hidden agenda behind the wording. I never intended to get into a debate about the definition of "win". CNN updating the article seems to show that the intent was not malicious in any way, as I doubt that any of us caused the change in wording. The most likely cause for the change was an editor being notified that the wording was somewhat ambiguous, and it was corrected. I do loathe that online articles have corrections silently applied without any note as to the original content. It's much easier to let sloppy work pass through when you can just update the article. That's kind of par for the course with online news, however.

[Warpy]

2. Twitter is reporting the cops attacked the crowd

with batons and tear gas. There is no video yet so there's no corroboration.

The more vicious they get against peaceful protesters, the more they lose. Gandhi was right.

The only question is how soon Khamenei will be packing his bags and casting about the Middle East for a suitable retirement home.

[janx]

4. I wish he would, but the government there seems hell bent

on beating and shooting unarmed protesters.

[ohio2007]

7. There was a permit to allow an assembly at that site and at that time

The theocrats approved the freedom of assembly permit so the protest was given a divine OK.


I'm sure the plain clothes theocrat thugs gathered enough information at the protest to keep them gainfully employed throughout the upcomming week.

Thats what the reason for granting the permit imo

[Turborama]

9. Al Jazeera English: Iranian police 'beat protesters'

Iranian security forces have used tear gas and batons to disperse about 3,000 protesters after they gathered in northern Tehran, witnesses say.

The demonstration outside the Ghoba mosque on Sunday saw the first unrest in four days.

Authorities had allowed the gathering to go ahead as it had officially been called to mark a bombing in 1981 that killed 70 people. But police broke up the crowds after they began chanting "Where is my vote?" and "Ya Hussein, Mir Hossein", linking Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate, to the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

Indiscriminate assault

A student, who called himself Mohammed, told Al Jazeera that about 500 riot police and pro-government militia attacked the protesters on Sunday. "It is no different if you are a woman or a man or children, they are just beating us ... they don't care if you are saying anything or just standing they just beat us," he said by phone from Tehran.

More: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009628192214829335.html

-- --- --

Iran's constitution:

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html">3-The Rights of the People

Article 27

Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.

-- --- --

Is "linking Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate, to the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad" detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam? Does the Q'ran say linking a modern day politician to Mohammad's grandson is haram?

[Alamuti Lotus]

11. exploiting the martyrdom of Shahid Beheshti as just another excuse to riot is a low move

[Turborama]

13. Got an article where it shows they went there with the intention to 'riot'?

Have a look at the post above yours, they were exercising their constitutional right to protest. A consitutional right which has been denied them by their Supreme Leader, hardly surprising they took this opportunity to congregate together for a peaceful protest: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=330489&mesg_id=330581