Question: Iran's Basij Vigilantes: Who Are They, What Are They?
Answer: The Basij, or “mobilization” force, also referred to as the Baseej, are Iranian vigilantes recruited from lower- and working-class neighborhoods by the Revolutionary Guard to enforce Islamic behavior, crush protests, mete out beatings and carry out torture and extra-judicial executions. They purposefully wear no uniforms or identifying markings. The Basij vigilante’s favored weapons, beside fists and boots, are hoses, clubs, iron bars, truncheons, ropes and firearms.
An all-volunteer paramilitary force reputed for its unpredictability, violence and unaccountability, the Basij vigilantes are similar to the Taliban’s roving vigilantes of the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, itself derived from Saudi Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. The significant difference between the Basij and the other two vice squad is in sectarian orientation. The Basjij enforce Iran’s Shiite ideology. The Taliban’s and Saudi Arabia’s vigilantes enforce extreme interpretations of Wahhabi -Sunni repression.
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini created the Basij toward the beginning of the Iranian Revolution in 1981 to serve in the Iran-Iraq war—not as soldiers, but as suicidal human waves. The Basij at the time were largely children.
According to The New York Times, “The Basij was reinvented in the late 1990s, Iran experts said, after the government felt that it had lost control of the streets during spontaneous celebrations when Iran won a spot in the World Cup soccer championship in 1998 and again during student protests in 1999. ‘They decided to invest in a force that could take over the streets that didn’t look like a military deployment,’ said an Iran analyst who did not want to be identified because of his involvement in the events.” The Basij were unleashed somewhat stealthily against protesters in the wake of the 2009 presidential election, beating up and murdering at least 13 supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who lost an apparently fraudulent election to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As protests continued almost a week after the election, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the “Supreme Leader,” warned, ironically during a prayer sermon on June 19, 2009, that opposition to the vote would no longer be tolerated. The warning was interpreted as a signal to the Basij to take off the gloves.
It is impossible to know the Basij’s precise manpower because the vigilantes are not organized like a military organization. Part of Iran’s Byzantine power structure, they’re sponsored by the Revolutionary Guard, but they don’t answer to a single authority. Rather, they are a collection of local militias with allegiances to local clerics or particular individuals. Their home base is the mosque (virtually every mosque in Iran has a “Basij” room).
The paramilitary force has been variously estimated at a few hundred thousands to 2 million. Zvi Shtauber and Yiftah Shapir, in The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006 (Sussez, 2007), which includes a detailed numerical breakdown of every Middle Eastern country’s armed and paramilitary forces, puts the number of Basij at 2 million.
It's not a surprise to hear Republicans criticize President Obama's proposed budget. However, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) writes this in today's Wall Street Journal:
The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 is a sprawling, $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largess...
Congress should vote "no" on this omnibus and show working families across the country that we are as committed to living within our means as they are.
Last year, rather than pass a budget for fiscal 2009 (October 2008 - September 2009), Congress approved money to continue operations until after the inauguration. The bill that Sen. Bayh references is designed to fund the federal government through September of this year.
I just stumbled upon this new resource (a directory) from the Washington Post: Who Runs Government. The goal is for the site to eventually become reader-edited, but that user-generated content will be vetted by WaPo editors before going live. The site has a blog for site-related matters as well as ThePlumLine, Greg Sargent's blog.
A few weeks ago, Deborah White noted that the New York Times rumor mill had Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) pegged as the Obama Administration choice for Health & Human Services Secretary. Today, President Obama finally confirmed the rumor, asserting that she can bridge partisanship issues surrounding health care.
About's Guide to Catholicism, Scott P. Richert, calls the move a "slap in the face" for the nation's Catholics because Sebelius is "radically pro-abortion." He also believes that "it also signals a willingness to confront the Catholic Church on the question of unborn life."
In early February, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle stepped aside as the nominee after admitting that he still owes thousands in back taxes ... although he had already anted up $140,000 in back taxes and interest.
It's the opposite of bi-partisanship, a key element in the rhetorical formula of the Obama presidential campaign.
"It" is using the budget reconciliation process to "pass" controversial legislation by slipping it into the filibuster-proof process. And President Obama's OMB Director, Peter Orswag, suggested Sunday that getting controversial legislation passed "this year" is so important that the means doesn't matter.
He's wrong.
He's wrong because the budget reconciliation process was codified in 1974 "as a deficit-reduction tool, to force committees to produce spending cuts or tax increases called for in the budget resolution." It was not designed as a way to circumvent policy debate or expand spending.
He's wrong because the budget process should be used to manage federal expenditures for programs that have been enacted by Congress. It's bad enough that enabling legislation runs hundreds of pages and that there is no requirement of nexus (relevance). The budget is not the place to shoehorn policy changes that should be the subject of their own enabling legislation.
And he's wrong because winning 52 percent of the popular vote is not a mandate, in the political sense of the word, regardless of how the press secretary spins it. George Bush won with 51 percent of the vote in 2004 and was derided by Democrats when he talked about a mandate. With the shoe on the other foot, in January President Obama used the "I won" argument with Republicans when he was pushing his economic stimulus package. The mandate claim wasn't valid in 2005, and it's not valid in 2009.
The reason Obama's team is floating this idea is that budget reconciliation bills are not subject to filibuster. Thus, in the Senate, only 50 votes are needed for passage, not the 60 required to end a filibuster and force a vote.
If Democratic leadership pursues this ill-advised plan, moderates do have an out. The out is a constraint on reconciliation that is called the “Byrd rule.” Named after Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), the constraint means that if a Senator believes that a provision of the reconciliation bill is “extraneous” it may be subject to a point of order. After the Byrd Rule is invoked, at least 60 Senators must vote to waive the Byrd rule.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Byrd Rule makes it difficult "to include any policy changes in the reconciliation bill unless they have direct fiscal implications." The Byrd Rule prohibits changes to civil rights, employment law, and Social Security.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Four years ago, Democrats were grousing about a Republican threat to use the "nuclear option" to end filibuster of judicial nominees. The Senate filibuster is the main tool that the minority party has to effect legislation. In 2005, a bi-partisan group of 14 centrist Senators stepped in and defused the fear of the Senate going nuclear.
It's 2009: will moderate Democratic Senators condone the kind of chicanery embodied in using budget reconciliation to expand, rather than constrain, the size of the federal government? Will they buck their own party, like a handful of Republican Senators did in 2005? Or will they let the Obama bulldozer run them over?
Learn more about the Congressional budget process and the controversy around the balanced-budget amendment.
I had been meaning to do this pretty much since I made this blog. Sometimes you just don't get around to all the things you mean to. This one I finally did. It only took me a shade over a year to get around to it but traffic is low anyway so a rush wasn't really needed. I forgot to mention the 1 year anniversary of this blog in my last post (I can tend to get wordy ...). Speaking of wordy time to spit this out and get on with it! I finally got around to making an email account for the site. I can now be reached at:
youwantweserve.article@gmail.com
Feel free to send anything you want (sigh yes even hate mail but only if you can reed and rite gude inglish).
Now on to what I really wanted to point out. Did anyone happen to notice Herr Bush mention WWIII today? Of course, it was a fear mongering tactic and not an honest admission of his agenda apparent. It won't be Iran who starts WWIII. I fear what Bush might do next, Iran not so much.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-10-17T183310Z_01_N17329743_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-BUSH-COL.XML
Another point I have been wondering to myself lately is will there be ANY Republican incumbents left by election day? Not that I'm going to miss a single one of their corrupt personages I must add. It is interesting though how many are retiring this year. It's almost like they know they killed the golden goose. They have had their run at the treasury and gave it their all. This doesn't mean there won't be another class of corrupt conservatives following right behind them. Just that it will be harder now to steal so much so fast. Some day we will reach the point where we won't have anything left to steal. Some people serve their country these "people" served their country up - to the highest bidders.
Keep writing! Editorials, your Federal, State and Local government, commenting online, blogging, whatever you can do to make more see the truth. Inaction is doing exactly what they want you to!
One nightmare is ending... and what a nightmare to Democracy this farce of an administration has been.
May the change and spirit of this election help us make it through the nightmares that face us now.
May this historical outcome be a new begining for our great nation and the world as a whole.
Congratulations President Obama, it has been far to long since our nation has had an elected president, a president chosen by the people.
Today, as America awakens from her Neo Con Nightmare, we welcome the man who may yet lead us out of our imperial regressions.
Today, a Nation places their hopes and dreams in the hands of a man who beat the odds stacked against him.
Today, we the people, hope to find our way back to the path of our Ideals.
Today, I hope for more.
More of what America once stood for.
More of the greatness of our society rather than the greediness.
More of the Ideals that brought us together, less of the ideology that splits us apart.
More of We the People, for that is what this Nation was created for. Not Corporations, Nor Wealth or Greed.
May today be remembered as a turning point for America, a day we returned as a Nation to that which we once held sacred.
