Girl, 16, hanged in Iran

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-23 09:58pm

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.

Source

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-08-23 10:01pm

invading is looking better all the time.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-23 10:02pm

Yes, I know it should be "hung". I just noticed that, and am glad no one called me on it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-23 10:07pm

Something else for the ladies from Iran:

TEHRAN, Aug 19 (AFP) - Iran's judiciary ordered a man to be released after he killed his unfaithful wife in the courtroom, because the woman's immediate forebears are not alive to claim retaliation, press reports said Thursday.

According to the newspaper Shargh, the man, identified as Mahmoud, had filed a complaint against his wife and her lover when he had found out that she was cheating on him.

When she appeared in court in Shahr Ray city in Tehran province in 2003 he lost control and stabbed her to death.But a court sentenced him Wednesday only to pay compensatory "blood money" to the "parents of the blood", who are in fact himself and their three children, because the parents of the murdered woman, Fatemeh, 29, are dead, Iran newspaper said.

The court followed an order by the head of Iran's hardline judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi.The children would have lost their only breadwinner if the murderer had been put in jail, Iran.

The woman's lover, charged with illegitimate relations, was sentenced to be lashed and the verdict will be executed soon, Shargh said.

"I asked the court for the ultimate punishment for her. But I thought they would not punish her," Shargh quoted the husband as saying, "so I left the court building, hid a knife in my clothes to escape the body search at the court entrance, then I stabbed her in the courtroom in presence of the court staff."

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-08-23 10:11pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:invading is looking better all the time.

the current situation would still be far more tolerable to the common man on the street in iran then a chaotic post-invasion semi-anarchy ala iraq

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-08-23 10:17pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:invading is looking better all the time.

Do you really think the people of Iran would change their ways because we showed up?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-23 10:22pm

The Seer pointed this out

The animosity and anger of Haji Reza was so strong that he personally put the rope around the girl's delicate neck and personally gave the signal to the crane operator, by raising his hand, to begin pulling the rope.

They lifted her up by the noose. No drop. That's the slowest possible way to hang somebody. The victim chokes to death on the end of the rope, a process that can take up to twenty minutes.

Fucking savages.....

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-23 10:22pm

Devil's Advocate time!

The concept of "implied concent" means that these are not crimes at all. These are the legitimate actions of a legitimate government. We don't agree with these actions, but it really is NOT our place to condemn. The people being harmed by this are the citizens of Iran, no one else. And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system. Is there a movement within the country to change the judicial system? If so, how large is it? If not, why isn't there? These are all things to consider before condemning the actions in Iran.

It's these kind of snap decisions about "we should invade because they are bad" that lead to messes like Iraq. How would we fell if terrorists began striking our courtrooms becuase we do not follow Islamic Law in administering our judicial decisions? Our system is no better than theirs. The only difference is that we have been raised on this system and they have been raised on that one.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-23 10:23pm

And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system.

Wrong. The current government of Iran rose through reactionary revolution by the mullahs. If Iran was a republic, you'd have a point. But it isn't.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-23 10:25pm

Bugsby wrote:...they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system...

Yes, I'm sure all of these people love to live there and would never leave given the opportunity

.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-08-23 10:25pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system.
Wrong. The current government of Iran rose through reactionary revolution by the mullahs. If Iran was a republic, you'd have a point. But it isn't.

when we have a majority of the iranian people, and i mean ordinary people, clamouring for america to ride in a save them from themselves, then all you "invade invade invade" people have a point.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-08-23 10:27pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
Bugsby wrote:...they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system...
Yes, I'm sure all of these people love to live there and would never leave given the opportunity .

perhaps they'd rather have thier power knocked out, their infrastructure bombed out and thier young men in teh military killed when the american liberation army rolls into Tehran?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-23 10:28pm

AniThyng wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system.
Wrong. The current government of Iran rose through reactionary revolution by the mullahs. If Iran was a republic, you'd have a point. But it isn't.
when we have a majority of the iranian people, and i mean ordinary people, clamouring for america to ride in a save them from themselves, then all you "invade invade invade" people have a point.

Post proof that I advocated an outright invasion of Iran or retract.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-08-23 10:29pm

Deport them all out of Iran and into southern Mississippi, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Let's see how they like humidity!

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-23 10:31pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
And they, as citizens of the nation, have agreed to this system.
Wrong. The current government of Iran rose through reactionary revolution by the mullahs. If Iran was a republic, you'd have a point. But it isn't.

As I said, its an issue of "implied consent." It is a political science concept that states that you are responsible for any system you live in. You can fight it, but by participating in the system you have to follow it until your protest gains recognition. Let's say I don't want to pay taxes. Just because I don't want to doesn't mean that I don't have to or that taxes are wrong. Because I live in the US, I have to. That's implied consent. I know taxes and stabbings are different issues, but they follow the same principle.

As I asked before, what are the movements within the country to overthrow the regime? How large is the movement, and if its not large neough, why isnt it? If the answer is that there is a movement but its not large enough because most people agree with the current system of law, then there is no problem with the rulings as stated here.

Even so, there is no problem. By appearing at court, both of these women put their faith in the system. Their actions showed that they felt the court was legitimate. Therefore, the ruling of the court in their cases is justified.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-23 10:33pm

AniThyng wrote:perhaps they'd rather have thier power knocked out, their infrastructure bombed out and thier young men in teh military killed when the american liberation army rolls into Tehran?

Screw it. The life of a single american isn't worth it for Iran. If they actually do perform a nuclear test, simply begin dropping buckets of
instant sunshine over every major city of Iran.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-08-23 10:36pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
AniThyng wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: Wrong. The current government of Iran rose through reactionary revolution by the mullahs. If Iran was a republic, you'd have a point. But it isn't.
when we have a majority of the iranian people, and i mean ordinary people, clamouring for america to ride in a save them from themselves, then all you "invade invade invade" people have a point.
Post proof that I advocated an outright invasion of Iran or retract.

sorry, i didn't mean to imply you advocated it - just those who do without considering the ordinary people that will be involved in any military invasion - especially for this sort of motive - it's one thing to be invading because iran has decided to go mad and use nukes - but to invade for the sake of overthrowing a government that condones practices such as this is somewhat murkier - the hanging will not affect most of the people of iran, but an invasion will royally screw over nearly everyone.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2004-08-23 10:38pm

MKSheppard wrote:
AniThyng wrote:perhaps they'd rather have thier power knocked out, their infrastructure bombed out and thier young men in teh military killed when the american liberation army rolls into Tehran?
Screw it. The life of a single american isn't worth it for Iran. If they actually do perform a nuclear test, simply begin dropping buckets of
instant sunshine over every major city of Iran.

oh right - because, yes, all those ordinary iranians deserve to die as well, even though all they did in thier life was earn a living and support a family.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-23 10:43pm

My point is not about whether or not the system is good (I think its a horrible system), it is over whether the system is legitimate. Again, I don't know the full story of the political situation in Iran, so I could be wrong. If you want to take this stance, don't just give me a fact or two, give me a complete rundown of resistance to the Iranian governement, particaularly anything where the legal system is mentioned. Links a plus. If you can't provide that, then tell me why my legitimacy argument is wrong.

Not trying to be bitchy here, but I studied my political theory well, and I want an answer to the points I am presenting. Once I get that, I will go away quietly.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-23 10:46pm

Resisting the Iranian government = swift death, by the will of Allah, of course. That's about all you need to know about internal resistance.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-23 10:54pm

AniThyng wrote:oh right - because, yes, all those ordinary iranians deserve to die as well, even though all they did in thier life was earn a living and support a family.

And what would you have us do? Invade to liberate the Iranian people,
and lose thousands more of soldiers, or a simple preemptive first strike
that requires us to put only a few dozen aircrew at risk?

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2004-08-23 10:55pm

Bugsby wrote:Devil's Advocate time!

It's these kind of snap decisions about "we should invade because they are bad" that lead to messes like Iraq. How would we fell if terrorists began striking our courtrooms becuase we do not follow Islamic Law in administering our judicial decisions? Our system is no better than theirs. The only difference is that we have been raised on this system and they have been raised on that one.

Bullshit. Our legal system isn't based on a fucking fairy tale, and it isn't barbaric. I miss imperialism.

Even so, there is no problem. By appearing at court, both of these women put their faith in the system. Their actions showed that they felt the court was legitimate. Therefore, the ruling of the court in their cases is justified.

You're assuming they had a choice about appearing in court. They executed a fucking 16 year old girl because she had a "sharp tongue". Give me a gun and that judge, I'd pull the fucking trigger myself. The Iranian government and judicial system is inferior to the West, and it *is* barbaric.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2004-08-23 11:01pm

AniThyng wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:invading is looking better all the time.
the current situation would still be far more tolerable to the common man on the street in iran then a chaotic post-invasion semi-anarchy ala iraq

-amused- chaotic post invasion with an edging towards human rights is far more preferrable to a theocratic iran.

common man? certainly.

common woman? not so much.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-08-23 11:02pm

Invading Iran is the worst possible option. Right now the people of Iran are demanding reforms and their prime minister is also pushing for them heavily. The Iranian religious leaders are not in the same position of power they used to be.

Invading Iran would do nothing more then bring the people to the same side as the religious leaders and you would completely fail at your intended goal. Iran wants to pull itself out of the dark ages. You try and do it for them and they will jump right back in to spite you.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-23 11:03pm

AniThyng wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Yes, I'm sure all of these people love to live there and would never leave given the opportunity .
perhaps they'd rather have thier power knocked out, their infrastructure bombed out and thier young men in teh military killed when the american liberation army rolls into Tehran?

Show me where I called for an invasion of Iran. I simply suggested that some people might want to leave. It's called emigration, but isn't possible for the vast majority of the world.