Jakarata Post Tuesday, September 12, 2006
| Quote: |
Student could face six years for insulting President
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The prosecution asked the West Jakarta District Court on Monday to sentence a student to six years in prison for insulting President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla during a protest in June.
Prosecutor Agung Ardyanto said Fahrur "Paunk" Rohman, 20, a student at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University, insulted the head of state in a speech during a protest organized by the Alliance of People's Movements and the Try Soeharto Movement. The protest took place on the campus of National University in West Jakarta.
"The defendant violated the Criminal Code by insulting the head of state," he told the court.
Agung also accused Paunk of distributing insulting posters and flyers during the protest.
The prosecutor said the posters depicted the President and Vice President, with the words "No Trust", "Down" and "We can't take it anymore".
He said the flyers contained the words, "SBY-JK have failed and betrayed reform. Down with SBY-JK right now." |
Can you believe this? Indonesia, fledgling democracy, darling of USA and Australia in their war on terrorism.
But when an Indonesian citizen faces 6 years jail becaus he say's the president "Cannnot be trusted" " Down with the president" and "we(the public) cannot take it (poverty and hardship) anymore" the USA and Australia do not say one word against this total travesty of justice.
May the USA and Australia both fall into tyranny and injustice for their lack of morality.
They both lick Indonesian A*s to try and keep Indonesia in the "War On Terrorism" but they totaly ignore human rights abuses within Indonesia.
I write this at the risk of being deported if it were to be found who wrote this, but I just don't care.
You mostly live in free countries and you take it totaly for granted and you don't even speak out against the injustice in the world, let alone risk your future or prosperity.
Come on, this world is full of hipocrysy and mainly so that the rich western countrieds can maintain their superior position.
And don't you dare say that I am an Indonesian or other minority complainer,
I am a westerner who is sick of the eastern Bu**sh** and the Western hipocrysy. and what do you propose we do about it? the US sets an example, as you personally pointed out.. then you get mad at our country when your own leaders don't do as you wish?
sure, we could invade Indonesia and set up a puppet regime based on democracy.. but something tells me that wouldn't make you very happy, either
but it sounds to me like this is a case where you don't like your own country's laws.. "The defendant violated the Criminal Code".. how is this our fault? the problem is actually that your country doesn't have the right to free speech.. perhaps that's something you need to change without blaming the US first
It's totally oppose to human rights. Everybody has the right to say against govt. if doesn't like the activity or action. I don't know how the criminal code is violated if anybody say against the govt. ... very sad ...
Indonesia is in a delicate position with numerous extremist groups. The US wants to encourage them to continue to fight against it.
The US turned a blind eye to Saddam's chemical attack upon thousands of Kurds during the Iraq/Iran war, and yet this surprises you?
The only realistic option the US has is to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture outweighs one individual's persecution.
I'm not saying that the US shouldn't quietly try to help make changes for the better, but to publicly condemn an ally would be foolish and needlessly damaging. Especially, as you point out, Indonesia is heading in the right (democratic, anti-terrorist) direction.
It is not the real democracy. In a democracy society, people should have rights to speech what they think, even what they believe. Also, if the chief doesn't have any charity to citizen's opinion, how can he do well in governing the country? I think the answer is quite easy. Hope there's some improvement in the future.
| JoeFriday wrote: |
and what do you propose we do about it? the US sets an example, as you personally pointed out.. then you get mad at our country when your own leaders don't do as you wish?
|
is it possible that the US government and Indonesia have strong economic ties?? Is it possible that the US government and the Australian government are "in bed" with the indonesian government with the goal of making lots of money???
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/indonesia/indonesia_brief.html
what do I propose we do about it??
stop supporting such companies that feel that the regime of indonesia which supports such violations of civil rights is a safe business environment. why give your money to people that believe that it is better to turn a blind eye and make a dollar, than it is to make a moral stand.
good luckIf the U.S. steps in, all we'll get is grief from the rest of the world. If we try to help with the starving in Sudan, the world will come up with some bulls**t excuse to hate us even more. I could go on with the list, but I think you get my idea.
Soulfire has it exactly right.. an excellent example of this is Iraq... 5 years ago it was a horrible place for the average person to live.. under Saddam's rule, it was a place where political murder, rape, honor killings, and childrens prisons were commonplace.. well over 100,000 people were killed by Saddam over 10 years.. education was very basic, and denied from many people.. womens' rights mostly didn't exist
the United States came in and changed all that.. people there now live with a sense of hope rather than a sense of despair.. schools are all open and for both sexes rather than just males.. businesses are thriving
but what do you read about in the news every day? the Great Satan (America) is an occupier who should leave.. and that's the way we always get treated.. the 'victims' in other countries cry "you are obligated to help us!" (why, I have no idea).. and that lasts right up until the very instant that you feel you don't need us to carry you anymore.. at that point the cries for help become accusations.. "get away from us!"
basically, you're all a bunch of bi-polar countries that ask for everything and give back nothing.. and yet we keep helping you, and you keep blaming us
I love how the human rights factor gets tossed around on every side of the argument. My personal belief is that the US being the superpower that it is should get involved when human rights disasters occur. Iraq being one of those, I think we had the right to enter just to remove Saddam and keep that disaster from continuing.
The sad thing is, some of us Americans think American lives are worth more than everyone elses. So you watch as the leftist news machine is going to jump all over the fact that the number of American lives lost in Iraq is about to surpass the number that died in 911. I for one, think it's well worth it to possibly save another 100,000 Kurds from needlessly dying.
BUt the Demos think that Americans are the superior race and we are dying for no reason. Should we ever get involved in the Sudan, they would surely come up with a reason why it's all wrong (except in the case that a demo was president). Anyways, that's my two.
| JoeFriday wrote: |
Soulfire has it exactly right.. an excellent example of this is Iraq... 5 years ago it was a horrible place for the average person to live.. under Saddam's rule, it was a place where political murder, rape, honor killings, and childrens prisons were commonplace.. well over 100,000 people were killed by Saddam over 10 years.. education was very basic, and denied from many people.. womens' rights mostly didn't exist. the United States came in and changed all that.. people there now live with a sense of hope rather than a sense of despair.. schools are all open and for both sexes rather than just males.. businesses are thriving
|
I think you may have been watching too many GW Bush TV talks. This could be taken straight from the propoganda manual. It is soo wrong that it will take me a while to correct so please bear with me. (references at the footer). Before I start it might help to get times and dates straight.
Here is a link to a timeline of Iraq since 1990 which might be useful http://camres.frih.net/resources/iraqtimeline.htm
And here is a selection of timelines showing different phases of Iraq over the last 20 years. http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/iraq-timeline.htm
5 years ago, yes, Iraq was fairly nasty place. That was mostly a result of the 10 year sanctions regime against the country which is also responsible for the deaths of up to half a million children(1). It was not, however, the lawless sexist hellhole you portray, or anything like it.
The breakdown in Iraqi civil society started when the sanctions did(2). Before that the picture was slightly different to the one you paint.
Women's Rights and Safety
Honour killing and rape figures are not available for Saddam era Iraq, so much is anecdotal. What is known is that both were a problem in the North (Kurdish) because of the tribal nature of the inhabitants and their often brutal traditions. Saddam actually tried to address this by passing several laws that made the education of women mandatory, guaranteed womern employment in order to allow them to gain financial independance from the abuser and increased jail terms for both rape and honour killing. Saddam was not really much of a muslim before the Gulf War and Iraq was a particularly secular state compared with it's neighbours. It's treatment of women was actually note-worthy because it was MUCH BETTER than the surrounding ME countries and an exemplar for the region.(3)
Women had an equal rights constitution (1970) and statutory rights to education, health services, political freedom and the right to run for office and a whole long list of other areas. Iraq was, in this regard, the most advanced of all the countries in the region.
What appears to be absolutely beyond question is that rape has escalated hugely post-invasion and it is thought that honour killings have also risen dramatically over this period.(4)
The reasons are easy to see - post-Saddam Iraq is a much more fundamentalist country than before. Far from making womens life better, the invasion and, before that the sanctions, has made women much worse off in every conceivable way.(5) Your characterisation of this is not just wrong, it is 180 degrees wrong.
Gassing the Kurds
I think the figure could be much more. The important point on this one is the timeline. The main period was 1983-1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. The US was, at this time, determined that Iraq did not loose the war. Iraq was getting huge volumes of arms from France and some from the UK. The US had an arms embargo at this time so the US filtered arms into Iraq via Jordan, Saudi, Kuwait and Egypt.(6)
In late 1983 George Shultz (Sec of State) got an intellgence report outlining the Iraqis use of chemical weapons against the Iranians on an almost daily basis. A month later Rumsfelt meets Saddam and they shake hands on a deal to supply Iraq with 'goods' and 'services'. A few days later the first shipment of 'dual use' technology goes out to Iraq from the US. In July 84 the CIA start giving Saddam satellite information to target the chemical weapons more accurately on Irani positions. Over the next 2 years the US licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq including 21 strains of a particularly nasty strain of Anthrax. In March 86 the US and UK blocked 5 attempts by the UN security council to condem the Iraqi use of chemical weapons and on 21st that month the US is the only country that does not sign the security council statement condeming Iraqs use of these weapons. The next month the US approve the export of weapons grade botulin to Iraq.(7)
I could go on and cover the 1988 shipment of chemicals used specifically in mustard gas but there is no need. The point, I hope, is clear - the US knew that he was gasing both Kurds and Iranians and not only blocked attempts to condemn it in the UN but even sold him the stuff to make more. This was when I first became involved in Iraq as a protester against Saddam and chemical warfare.
Education
Again your picture is actually backwards. Post sanctions Iraq has the best education system in the region.(
It boasted 100% primary school enrollment. Women (despture what you claim) were educated just like men. The Baathists were largely from working-class backgrounds and were determined that education be a priority. They modernised and increased largely the number and quality of schools in the country. It also increased Higher Education rates by about 300% during the same period and started to build 4 regional universities to expand the access to HE which was largely only available in Baghdad until then.
During the 90s as sanctions took hold the building program was abandoned and schools started to fall into disrepair.
Torture and human rights
Since the invasion the country has deteriorated rapidly into a state of near civil war. The militias which stepped into the vacuum after the invasion are now entrenched and in some cases have found themselves in government.
Torture is now widely believed to be much more prevalent that during the Saddam era.(9)
Alawi has recently stated that the same is true of human rights abuses in general.(10)
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
(2) http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/iraq-timeline.htm
(3) http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
(4) http://www.vday.org/contents/vcampaigns/spotlight/iraq/owfi
(5) http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE14310320042004
(6) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
(6) http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iraq#Education_under_the_Baathist_regime_before_the_1990s
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html
(9) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A809-2004Nov20.html
(10) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
What really get's my goat is the way that people are now emphasising what a monster Saddam was (I was doing this in the 80s when nobody apart from a few human rights protestors was remotely interested).
All of Saddam's worst attrocities were carried out with full US knowledge and the worst of them were done with US help.
Yes, I despise him for the torturing killing sadistic monster he was. I also despise Bush (and Blair) for exactly the same reason. Saddam is no longer able to torture and kill his people. It is a shame the same cannot be said for the US and UK.
The unreported story is that Saddam implemented many social reforms in Iraq that were way ahead of the rest of the region and these included provisions for the poorest, the minorities, and women.
Your portayal of the state of the country now vs under Saddam is a lot like the one Bush has tried to portray - very misleading.
Regards
ChrisI'm just happy to live in Canada ... no such things exist.
But yeah some crazy people ( a large minority) can do some horribles things here too ...
| JoeFriday wrote: |
and what do you propose we do about it? the US sets an example, as you personally pointed out.. then you get mad at our country when your own leaders don't do as you wish?
sure, we could invade Indonesia and set up a puppet regime based on democracy.. but something tells me that wouldn't make you very happy, either
but it sounds to me like this is a case where you don't like your own country's laws.. "The defendant violated the Criminal Code".. how is this our fault? the problem is actually that your country doesn't have the right to free speech.. perhaps that's something you need to change without blaming the US first |
Firstly, what makes you think Indonesia is "my country"?
It isn't, I am not Indonesian.
Secondly America and Australia have been interfereing here since the second world war. They chose to intefere to prevent the spread of communism in the area. To suit their own interests. They helped set up the dictator who ruled Indonesia for the next 32 years.
And yes I do get mad at countries or people whose actions and moral integrity vary to suit their current rquirements.
If they were criticising Indonesian human rights up untill the war on terrorism they should not about face and ignore violations now just to try and win friends from the government here. That is hipocricy.
Very well put Bikermansorry Bikerman, but I don't find the WaPo to be a credible source regarding Iraq.. they have shown a very clear anti-Bush bias, as have several of your other sources
as you claim I read pro-Bush 'propaganda', it's clear that you read the opposing rags
still, I doubt you'll get much argument about my statements from the corpses scattered around Iraq in the mass graves left by Saddam.. or from the victims of Uday and Qusay's rape rooms.. or the husbands of those women, some 'collected' during their wedding receptions
but then, I'm not terribly interested in your opinion.. I'm much more interested in the opinion of judge Mohammed al-Uraibiy..I wonder if he'll think that Saddam is such a great guy, as you say
| JoeFriday wrote: |
sorry Bikerman, but I don't find the WaPo to be a credible source regarding Iraq.. they have shown a very clear anti-Bush bias, as have several of your other sources
as you claim I read pro-Bush 'propaganda', it's clear that you read the opposing rags....
|
Hmm, so you dont like the Washington Post? Are you gone discredit all the other sources Bikerman listed? A quick look at them showed a few that I think most would think pretty impartial...
Either way, I would be interested in seeing you dispute the info presented. | JoeFriday wrote: |
sorry Bikerman, but I don't find the WaPo to be a credible source regarding Iraq.. they have shown a very clear anti-Bush bias, as have several of your other sources
as you claim I read pro-Bush 'propaganda', it's clear that you read the opposing rags
still, I doubt you'll get much argument about my statements from the corpses scattered around Iraq in the mass graves left by Saddam.. or from the victims of Uday and Qusay's rape rooms.. or the husbands of those women, some 'collected' during their wedding receptions
but then, I'm not terribly interested in your opinion.. I'm much more interested in the opinion of judge Mohammed al-Uraibiy..I wonder if he'll think that Saddam is such a great guy, as you say |
So, to summarise,
1) You don't like one of my sources. To help, I'll summarise them :
(1) Wikki...not notably political in the main.
(2) AFC - Quaker homesite
(3) Human Rights Watch (charity specialising in human rights abuses)
(4) VDAY - campaign set up to combat violence against women.
(5) Amnesty International
(6) Washington Post
(7) Iran Chamber Society - Scholarly guide and comment on Iran
( Guardian Newspaper (UK) - left of centre 'quality broadsheet.'
(9) Observer (UK) middle of the road 'quality broadsheet.'
I don't think it's a particularly biased set of sources but I am always sensitive to the possibility so please point out which ones in particular give you problems.
2) You assume that I have an anti-Bush agenda (I don't - I have made similar statements about previous administrations of both persuasions).
3) Anecdotal emotive prose is not a substitute for logical debate backed with source material
4) To state that I say Saddam is a great guy, is the worst type of personalised attack and, as is clear from what I wrote, not only a distortion but a complete reversal of truth. What I said was : | Quote: |
| What really get's my goat is the way that people are now emphasising what a monster Saddam was (I was doing this in the 80s when nobody apart from a few human rights protestors was remotely interested). |
and | Quote: |
| Yes, I despise him for the torturing killing sadistic monster he was |
If you want to debate, fine. What is wrong with my picture of Iraq ? Are the figures wrong ? Are all the sources biased or corrupt ?
If you just want to make unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks then I don't really see any point continuing..
Chris | Quote: |
paul_indo:
They both lick Indonesian A*s to try and keep Indonesia in the "War On Terrorism" but they totaly ignore human rights abuses within Indonesia.
|
first this is a little funny story that you said US and Australia have to LICK!!! the Indonesia's 'AASS' HOLE to keep fighting on Terrorist.
US or maybe Australia maybe ask Indo to fight the Terrrorist, that's just reasonable since US is having problem with the terrorist
But they will never ever have to be 'licker' for that to Indo.
second you link the 'disconnected' issue between US and case in Indonesia. it doesn't make any sense and sound disconnected.
then you said again:
| Quote: |
Secondly America and Australia have been interfereing here since the second world war. They chose to intefere to prevent the spread of communism in the area. To suit their own interests. They helped set up the dictator who ruled Indonesia for the next 32 years.
|
do you have any prove about US and Australia involve to set up the Dictactor in Indonesia? | doomz wrote: |
do you have any prove about US and Australia involve to set up the Dictactor in Indonesia? |
If I may interject helpfully here :
http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/hidden/freeport-indonesia.htm
http://www.namebase.org/scott.html
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/covertaction_folder/caindonesiak-z.html
http://www.progind.net/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=70
http://www.progind.net/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=39
http://camres.frih.net/resources/Understanding%20The%20Second%20Casualty.htm
| Quote: |
The U.S. under the executive leadership of Marshall Green, U.S. ambassador in Jakarta (who had previously masterminded the overthrow of Korean leader Syngman Rhee), with the help of Britain and Australia, collaborated with Suharto. While carefully concealing their role, they spread anti-PKI and anti-Sukarno propaganda, organized and propagandized the student movement, equipped the army, handed over field communications networks, provided naval escorts for Suharto military, and furnished lists of communist operatives for the death squads (Kathy Kadane, quoted by Pilger 2001, p. 29). In particular, they emphasized that a continuation of Sukarno's role would lead to a communist takeover. In covering Indonesia then and later, western media, including Murdoch's The Australian, uncritically framed the Suharto takeover as a positive outcome in the battle against communism. Many celebrated the slaughter of up to a million people as good news, while attacking those who accused Suharto of human rights abuses, later to include Suharto's responsibility for the deaths of 200,000 people under military occupation in East Timor, an occupation for the which the U.S. government gave the green light in 1975 (Gaglioti, 2001). Western governments collaborated with Suharto in the reformulation of Indonesia as perhaps the first manifestation of globalization (which Pilger equates with "unfettered capitalism"). |
Thanks Bikerman for the assistance with sources backing my claims of American / Australian interference in Indonesia.
Doomz wrote
| Quote: |
US or maybe Australia maybe ask Indo to fight the Terrrorist, that's just reasonable since US is having problem with the terrorist
But they will never ever have to be 'licker' for that to Indo. |
What I mean by this is the blind eye turned towards Indonesia's human rights violations immediatly following the start of the "War On Terrorism"
Over the previous 10 years Australia and, to a lesser extent, the US played an important role in pushing Indonesia towards becoming a real democracy, and getting rid of the dictator they had been instrumental in installing.
Now thay will do or say nothing that might upset there "Ally".
This indeed amounts to "A** Licking" in my opinion.
Then again they only ever act in their own best interests anyway.
Inocent people are being thrown in jail for saying that the Indonesian government is not doing there job properly and yet not one word of criticism from John Howard or G W Bush or their goverments? They are obviously real champions of democracy.
