by Mark Pyruz
click photos to enlarge
Typical law enforcement anti-riot equipment. The Islamic Republic of Iran Police Force (IRIPF) policeman is outfitted in fatigues, shield, baton and helmet. By contrast, the American municipal policeman bristles with firearms, each loaded with lethal rounds. Arms carried include M1 carbine rifle, a large calibre service revolver, with extra ammo carried in an accessorized sam browne belt. The American retains his service uniform but is additionally equipped with helmet, baton and gloves.
Applications of riot guns. Above: Kent State University, 1970. US National Guard troops in full battle gear and gas masks prepare to launch tear gas cannisters at student demonstrators. Below: Tehran, 2009. Right: IRIPF policeman in full anti-riot gear, holding a tear gas launcher at the ready. Left: short barrel riot shot gun loaded with less-lethal rounds.
Applications of respective anti-riot mobility. Right: Watts 1965. US National Guard troops patrol in a military jeep. Note: guardsmen carry rifles with fixed bayonets, loaded with lethal rounds, as well as a 45 caliber submachine gun! Left: IRIPF policemen make extensive use of dual purpose motorcycles, carrying less-lethal batons, with some equipped with stun guns and pepper spray.
Anti-riot charge. Above: Ohio National Guards (circa 1968) practice in full battle gear, with standard issue rifles and fixed bayonets. Below: IRIPF policeman in action, Tehran, 2009. IRIPF makes use of varying types of anti-riot gear, less-lethal batons and clubs.
Top: Chicago 1968. Below: Tehran, June 2009.
Top: Kent State University, 1970. Below: Tehran, June 2009. Note the comparison: in general, the Iranian police do not confront demonstrators with firearms and edged weapons.
Top: University of Wisconsin, 1967. Below: Tehran, June 2009.
Dispersal by tear gas. Top: Kent State University, 1970.
Below: Tehran, June 2009.
Baton strikes by law enforcement. Left: woman is struck with full force to the head by a municipal policemen during unrest in Memphis, 1968. Right: YouTube video still of woman struck to the head by an IRGC lieutenant in Tehran, November 2009.
Left: boy shot dead by US law enforcement during unrest at Newark, 1967. During the mid to late 1960's, thousands of African-Americans became casualties of lethal force applied by US law enforcement, and thousands more were arrested. Right: mortally wounded demonstrator, Tehran 2009. Initially in June, Iranian law enforcement responded with lethal force, but in subsequent demonstrations in September and November, the emphasis seems to have shifted toward less-lethal dispersal efforts, with cases of excessive force documented on a handful of YouTube video clips.
Left: 19 year old college freshman Allison Krause shot dead by US National Guard troops at Kent State University, May 1970. Right: Neda Agha-Sultan, dying from a gunshot wound to the heart, Tehran 2009. Both female victims wear blue jeans.
Responses from the criminal justice system. Top photo: "Chicago Eight" conspiracy trial defendants, 1969. Top, L-R: Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Thomas Hayden and Ronnie Davis. Bottom, L-R: Bobby Seale, Lee Weiner, John Froines and David Dellinger. Bottom photo: "Color Coup" conspiracy defendants, Tehran 2009. Center right: Mohammad Ali Abtahi.
Left: Bobby Seale bound and gagged at his conspiracy trial, Chicago 1969. Right: Iranian-American Kian Tajbakhsh defending himself at his conspiracy trial, Tehran 2009.American law enforcement confronted roughly seven straight years of intermittent but unrelenting anti-establishment demonstrations, during the years 1965-1972. Five years into the unrest, lethal force was still being applied, such as what took place against students attending Kent State University. Iranian law enforcement also responded with lethal force late into the initial June 2009 demonstrations. However the September and November responses seem to suggest that less-lethal means have now become policy. Moreover, Iran's anti-riot organizational efforts and street tactics appear to be evolving. It's also been helped along by progressively lower turnouts of protesters. It has yet to be seen if Iran's anti-establishment movement will sustain itself in the way the American example did forty years ago.
_-.jpg)
7 comments:
interesting article
that image of Neda lying there lifelessly always sends a chill down my spine! :(
why go back to 1974?
perfect examples are the last month G-20 protests in Pittsburgh. many videos can be seen here
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=g20+protest+pittsburgh&search_type=&aq=0&oq=g20+protest+pitt
So the case being made is that American civil rights campaigners faced greater use of violence by authorities than that faced by protesters in Iran, and yet in the US they prevailed in the struggle to extend democratic and legal rights to all citizens. Can we take that as an encouraging comparison for Iran's green movement?
There are of course additional important elements to consider other than the readiness of conventional security forces to use violence.
The movement in the 60s/70s was not a monolithic phenomenon. It was a confluence of civil rights, anti-war, and anarchist movements. The civil rights movement is viewed, in hindsight, as being just, though militant elements within the movement, such as the Black Panthers, are not. The anti-war movement is still controversial because they spat upon troops and there is a significant body of evidence that by the mid-70s we had finally figured out how to prevail in Vietnam, but political will collapsed and prevented us from doing so. The anarchists rightfully faced violence and prison terms because they firebombed public places, murdered police officers, and engaged in other senseless acts of violence.
I think it muddles the issue to combine the three movements into one "anti-establishment movement." They may have each been anti-establishment, but that seems to be a similarity without any significance. It is also worth noting that many incidents of violence were retaliatory or defensive actions by law enforcement against violent demonstrations, with the anarchists being the most violent and thus incurring the greatest retaliation. Other incidents - particularly Kent State (anti-war) - were a byproduct of poor discipline and lack of control by superiors more so than an implementation of any policy. I suspect the opposite is true in Iran and that the Mullahs' goon squads are far less justified in the application of force.
An absurd "apples & oranges" comparison! most riot control equipment from both -Iran & American- police forces are similar. The National Guard is military, not civilian law enforcement.
Schmedlap makes a good point that the actions of protesters, whether violent or non-violent, is important to consider in any comparison, as well as how centrally organised and planned the authorities' response was in different cases.
Another question would be how the authorities perceived the benefit or otherwise of the use of violence by the authorities in terms of deterrence versus loss of legitimacy, and how this affected subsequent strategy, or in the case of Iran how it might affect future strategy.
The post makes me very wary of the possibility that it might be seen as an apologetic for Iranian state violence, but nonetheless I find useful the question it suggests about where on the spectrum of possible actions to place the current level of Iranian state violence.
If the Iranian state's willingness and ability to use violence in suppressing dissent were as unlimited as that in Stalin's USSR or in Nazi Germany then the green movement would have little hope. While Iranian authorities feel freer to use violence than say, those in Sweden, to take the other extreme, nonetheless there would seem to be some restraining factors present. The green movement's success depends on the strengthening of those factors.
An ignorant, silly and lazy article for so many reasons. Also, in the end, a very reactionary one. For starters, the US is not the template for the world and the standard by which unrelated events in the rest of world can be judged. Plus, it is not the inevitable future of humanity.
For other flaws, go figure. Beyond redemption or criticism.
The author is clearly ignorant of the dynamics of the state and the opposition movement in Iran.
Post a Comment