Syrian Blogger Sentenced to Three Years in Jail

blind biker writes "The AP reports (via the Herald Tribune) of Tarek Bayassi, a 24-year old Syrian blogger sentenced to three years in jail for 'undermining the prestige of the state and weakening national morale.' The original sentence was six years but it was commuted on appeal. Apparently, this isn't an isolated case in Syria."

Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[sm62704 (957197)]

Why does this surprise anybody?

Since 1963 the country [wikipedia.org] has been governed by the Baath Party; the head of state since 1970 has been a member of the Assad family. Syria's current president is Bashar al-Assad, son of Hafez al-Assad, who held office from 1970 until his death in 2000.[1]

...Upon assuming power, Hafez al-Assad moved quickly to create an organizational infrastructure for his government and to consolidate control.

Since when have any citizens of any dictatorship ever had freedom of speech? If he were Chinese his family would be paying for a bullet.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Hm, US not much different folks; banned book == no freedom of speech. ( http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm [paynoincometax.com] )

and speaking of which, about the the writers's trial, no due process either, seems that a judge may rule that you are not allowed to mention the law on your defense, under penalty of jail time. :-|

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[DrLang21 (900992)]

This book was "Previously banned" by the admission of the author. Right along with Lolita and others. It is banned no more. Don't forget about the Sedition Act when John Adams was President. Christ, it's not like anyone is claming that the US is perfect.

Find a freedom that is PRESENTLY being violated in the US to bitch about. It's not hard to do.

Gag Rule

[boris111 (837756)]

Don't forget the Gag Rule [wikipedia.org] used by congress to stop discussion on slavery for 13 years.

Actually I was surprised

[Shivetya (243324)]

he didn't just disappear or have an appointment with a bullet.

perhaps the fact what he did was so easily available saved his life.

I do have to wonder how some people here actually thinks the Syrian leadership is any shape or form actually embarrassed by their handling of it let alone concerned what you think about it. On the world stage nothing much more expected out of a country like this and they wouldn't care anyway.

This is one the of many countries that only exists because its not PC or financially exp

Re:

[jackharrer (972403)]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia.

If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war. Look at Lebanon and you'll understand. Whole middle east is like that. Don't just watch what they show on CNN as quite a big part of transmission is just lost during editing.

My brother-in-law is Syrian (albeit Christian, not Muslim) and I met his family many times. Situation there is mo

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Otter (3800)]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US...If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war.

I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Latin America and East Asia, that only a sufficiently dictatorial rightist or leftist (depending on the speaker's own prejudices) could run a stable government.

In fact, it turns out that Mexicans, Koreans, Brazilians and Singaporeans are quite as capable of living in democracies as Western Europeans are.

Re:

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

Singapore?

you are using Singapore, the country where they can fine you for not flushing a toilet in a public restroom, where possession of marijuana is punishable by death as an argument FOR people being able to live like we do in the Western world?

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[MBGMorden (803437)]

The USA comes to mind, oh, if only that civil war hadn't happened, I might have a slave of my own today.... darn... :)

A little off-topic, but the South was already moving towards ending slavery and most historians I've spoken with think it probably would have made the move on it's own within a few more decades (it wasn't just something in the water above the Mason-Dixon line that made people anti-slavery - it was a general changing world view on the subject).

The US Civil War was about secession (or rather, the right of a state to secede from the union), not directly slavery. The core of it was that Southern states tended to view them selves as belonging more to their State (so one was a Virginian or a North Carolinian before they were American). The Federal government to them was supposed to be a loose organization more analogous to the United Nations of today. It's existence was solely to provide a unified military defense and to facilitate interstate commerce. As such the southern states wanted the right to decide their own policies (of which slavery was indeed a major hot issue of the day). They also viewed it as their right to decline membership and go their separate ways if they felt so justified. The war was largely based on a disagreement in the interpretation of that relationship between the US and the individual states.

Slavery wasn't abolished until a year into the war and then ONLY in the Southern states (though at the time Lincoln didn't have control over them, so it was a bit toothless). Slavery in the North was still quite legal after the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery didn't end there until the 13th amendment passed after the war ended, 3 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Indeed, General Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave (though he set him free in 1859), and his wife owned four. Many other Union generals owned slaves too. Naturally slave ownership among the Southern leadership was quite common. On the other hand the VAST majority of the soldiers doing the actual fighting on either side did not own slaves at all (afterall, slaves cost a lot of money, and wars are often fought by the poor). In the eyes of the common soldier they were simply fighting to either keep their country from tearing apart or for their independence against an oppressive government, depending on which side they were on.

Not that I think slavery is good or anything (IMHO it's one of the greatest evils man can commit), but it just irks me sometimes when the American Civil War gets simplified into a no slavery vs slavery or good vs evil situation, when in reality it was far more complex.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[CowTipperGore (1081903)]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia. If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war...Whole middle east is like that.

Grotesque racism and ignorance is modded Interesting?

Re:

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

You need to understand that you cannot rule countries like Syria in the same way as US. It's also pretty true about, for example, Russia. If you don't have strong government there they will descend into anarchy and civil war.

I'm Russian. We didn't descend into anarchy and civil war in 90s, despite all the democracy. We did come quite close early on, but by late 90s, things were clearly improving. Of course, that's when the currently ruling "strong hand" elite stepped in and took over, using essentially th

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Good old Hafez also massacred 20,000 of his own people at Hama. Violations of human rights are nothing new to Syria, just ask the Lebanese.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[l-ascorbic (200822)]

It sounds unlikely, but Bashar isn't really to blame here. He was never meant to be president. His brother was groomed for the role, but died in a car accident. When Hafez died, Bashar was working as an eye doctor in London. He was rushed back to inherit a job he never wanted. After he took control he quickly put in place measures to liberalise the country, loosening restriction on freedom of speech among others. However, this didn't last long. it soon became clear that he was not the one with the power. The real leaders were the senior official of the Baath Party who had been put in place by his father. They clamped down and reversed his reforms.

While he is the one whose face is on posters on the side of every building and on the wall of every shop and home, he's not in charge. There's obviously a lot of brainwashing going on, but he really does seem to be very popular in Syria. A lot of this is bread and circuses: people generally have a good quality of life, so tend to ignore the politics.

In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people. It's sad to see stories like this, but there are signs of improvement in the regime. Even the fact that he had a trial and had his sentence reduced is a progress. It's unlikely he would have had that under Hafez. Despite the recent furore over the alleged nuclear reactor, there seems to be signs of progress towards peace with Israel. Only a couple of weeks ago, Turkey's president Erdogan was brokering talks about a possibly treaty. Time will tell.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[mapkinase (958129)]

"In any case, Syria is a beautiful country, with incredibly friendly people." I testify to that. Everybody in my mosque is very nice, but Syrians stand out even on that background.

Re:Guys, we're talking about SYRIA here

[Hognoxious (631665)]

It could be worse. They could have cameras in the streets and use them to fine people who run red lights. Imagine that!

somebody should explain the court

[utnapistim (931738)]

Well ... somebody should probably explain the court that they did much more than the blogger, to undermine the prestige of the state (and to show the national morale as lacking), by simply convicting him.

Re:somebody should explain the court

[adpsimpson (956630)]

This is actually very insightful.

The point of free speech is more than just to allow anyone to say their bit. It includes the fact that reasoned and fair debate will do more to undermine any truly dangerous people than any system of censorship could.

There are many examples of this, but the one that springs to mind is BNP (British National Party - right wing skinheads aka Neo Nazis in the UK) being invited to open debates versus simply being sidelined. Every time they are invited to express themselves and engage the mainstream media, they make complete fools of themselves, proving themselves to be nothing more than racist skinheads. Banning them would fan the flames - allowing them free (even if racist and offensive) speech does far more to kill their support.

Suppression of an ideology almost always does more to drive people towards it than free discussion.

Re:

[ChromeAeonium (1026952)]

by removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting Israel.

This is what you sound like here. If you can't see the similarities, watch the movie.

Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won't obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Israel!
Everyone: Blame Israel!
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Israel! Blame Israel!
Sheila: We need to form a full ass

Re:

[orzetto (545509)]

You and that court have a different appreciation of the term "Prestige": you think that a state has prestige when it respects human rights and allows freedom of speech. They think that prestige means that everybody is so scared of the state that no one dares to speak against it.

Anyway, in my country a journalist just got media-lynched because he pointed out that the new leader [wikipedia.org] of the upper house of the Parliament was a business associate of convicted mafiosi. I suppose Power always has a way to get rid of

Re:

[CubeRootOf (849787)]

The key here is that they undermined the prestige of the state with other states, not with thier own people.

The Goal of this court is to keep INTERNAL morale high. They don't care what we think of them. They are trying to keep thier message consistent within thier country.

Similar things were done here not so long ago, and just as publically, if not more so. Do you know what happened to folks who said that 'maybe communism isn't so bad?' during the 50's?

The guy wasn't shot, he wasn't maimed, his family wasn'

Everything old is new again

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

Lese majesty [wikipedia.org] has been a crime since Roman times. Remember, it's only treason if you lose (the revolution).

Re:

[Daimanta (1140543)]

And remember, it's only righteous if you win(the coup).

I'm not any error Cham train!

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

Better story about Tariq Bayassi here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.almarfaa.net%2F%3Fp%3D117 [google.com]

His "Free Tariq" site:
http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://ahmadblogs.net/freetariq [209.85.171.104]

The problem I have with all of this is that we simply don't have very much evidence to go on as spectators. If someone was being brought up on trumped up charges, it would make a difference to me whether he was Fred Phelps or Fre Rogers. Justice should be blind, but sometimes taking the blindfold off and snuffing out truly vile people for the sake of the rest of us.

There isn't enough information at all about Tariq that is easily available, so we don't know if he was just bad mouthing Assad or if he was organizing assassination attempts on the President. Without context, I guess we should just cry for Free (as in Speech) Speech.

Re:

[Dog-Cow (21281)]

You make it seem like organizing assassination attempts against Assad should be a crime.

Doublespeak?

[PJ The Womble (963477)]

There's obviously a couple of homonyms at work here... "prestige of the state" and "weakening national morale". Because here in the UK at least, our perception of what makes us prestigious is that we ARE free to comment on the state, and what weakens our national morale as much as anything is when the state is seen to exercise excessive power over the freedom of the population.

The President of Syria has worked very hard at creating an image of being a humble, quietly-spoken, Western-educated ex-ophthalmologist who's had power lavished upon him almost inadvertently. Well it's back to the drawing board for the Damascus spin-doctors now then!

Weakening national morale

[esocid (946821)]

Well shit, if that were a crime here about half the population, myself included, would be guilty.
We're gonna fail! (Whatever you are thinking, just assume I mean that.)

prestige?

[Lord Ender (156273)]

I was not aware that Syria had prestige.

Fragile Area

[FurtiveGlancer (1274746)]

With Lebanon falling apart next door (Google Hamas and Lebanon), may the Syrian government have valid reasons for a crack down? One wonders exactly what he wrote on these "opposition sites" to earn the wrath of the government.

On the bright side, his sentence was commuted to only three years. He may survive that, depending on where the sentence is to be served.

Re:

[psychodelicacy (1170611)]

Can there be "valid reasons" for a government to censor its citizens' speech? Certainly, undermining the prestige of the state doesn't seem even vaguely valid, as all it means is that you can be prosecuted for criticising the government. So, the people in power can reduce the chance of ever being out of power by simply making it illegal to want them to be out of power.

"Only three years"? Hang on, have I been writing a serious response to a sarcastic post here?

He had a trial, at least.

[glgraca (105308)]

At least they gave him a trial.

People are being freed from Guantamo after 6 years without ever even having being charged with anything. Can you imagine the torture of not even knowing when you are going to get out?

Re:

[Sobrique (543255)]

s/when/if/

Seriously, for all the horrible stuff that happens in Syria, the chronically bad state of play that is Guantanamo, indefinite detention without trial, and torture is pretty disgusting too. One does not excuse the other, but at least Syria isn't _pretending_ to be an elightened beacon of democracy and humanity.

Re:

[psychodelicacy (1170611)]

What is the difference between having a trial under an unfair and rights-infringing legal system, and no trial at all? The former gives the illusion of a democratic and fair process, legitimising what is really no better than illegal detention.

Re:

[optimus2861 (760680)]

Does anyone else think that one of these days, it would be nice to read an article and discussion about some other country's issue without having to read a gratuitous slam about some aspect of the United States which gets modded up to +5 mostly because it is a gratuitous slam about the United States?

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[MrMickS (568778)]

It may be a gratuitous slam on the United States but its a truthful one. The behaviour of the United Status regard Guantanamo has been a blight on its reputation, one that has soured its image across the world. Its a measure of how badly the image has been soured that its not possible to have a discussion of rights without the subject being raised. This might not be people's taste but its the reality of the situation.

What is the answer? I guess that if you are holding yourselves up as being the defender of the free world and calling 'evil' to account you have to make sure that you don't commit evil yourselves.

I realise that not all US citizens supported this state of affairs but enough of them voted to elect the George W Bush and again to re-elect him. Whilst you might not agree with the policies conducted they are being carried out in your name by your democratically elected government. As such you have to take the heat that goes with it. Fortunately you are free to protest against this and not be locked up.

Re:He had a trial, at least.

[0111 1110 (518466)]

It may be a gratuitous slam on the United States but its a truthful one. The behaviour of the United Status regard Guantanamo has been a blight on its reputation, one that has soured its image across the world.

So the fact that it is truthful is a justification to bring it up in every discussion? It may be truthful, but it is completely, utterly, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I highly doubt that Guantanamo has "soured" our image in any place which was not already anti-American. America has been a hated country for decades in most regions of the world. The blame that America is taking for virtually every problem in the world is nothing new. Let me know when a US citizen is placed in jail or killed for anything like a blog. In case you haven't noticed Bush is bashed every day on slashdot and even ACs have their IP logged so if Bush had the power and desire to take them down he certainly could. So the comparison is disingenuous.

makes you appreciate home

[pak9rabid (1011935)]

As bad as we all think things are getting in the free world, it's things like this that remind me it could be a helluva lot worse.

Re:

[aadvancedGIR (959466)]

However ridiculous the charges were, this guy had a trial, and could semi-sucessfully apeal, so yes, it's great to live in a country where anyone can be labelled "ennemy of the state" and be scretly detained without trial.

Power of a single blogger

[VincenzoRomano (881055)]

If a single blogger can "undermine the prestige of a state and weaken a national morale", that he or she should be sentenced by death, as he's too much power in that country.
Or maybe the case that that state has already a very low prestige and a very weak national morale that a single blogger can blow it away!

Re:

[VeNoM0619 (1058216)]

I would hate to be the grammar nazi who has to clean up that post...

Re:

[thePowerOfGrayskull (905905)]

Not to be confused with Javid Iqbal [crimelibrary.com] or Javid Iqbal [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[katz (36161)]

Interesting how your post tries to turn story about Syrian a dictatorship into a soapbox from which to pontificate about something unrelated. What does Israel have to do with how Syria mistreats its own people? Leave it out of the picture.

- Roey

Re:

[DrLang21 (900992)]

I don't really think it is fair to mark this post as troll

Correct. Flamebait would be a more appropriate mod.

Re:

[Sobrique (543255)]

Or Guantanamo bay where things like legal constraints seem optional.

Re:

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

No, irregardless is a perfectly legitimate choice. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

You grammar Nazis are going to just have to accept the fact that the word is a legitimate part of the language now. You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.

Re:

[electrictroy (912290)]

In my opinion, anyone who doesn't speak the original tongue (example: Beoqulf) is not speaking true English. I'd even be willing to accept the language of circa 1400 (example: Chaucer), but no one seems to want to cooperate and use the proper grammar. I guess we need a "Department of the Language" similar to how the French Despotic government has, to decide what is acceptable and what is not allowed, and imprison anyone who dares use a non-approved word.

Alas noone listens to me. They just keep evolving t

Re:

[superslacker87 (998043)]

You can fight it all you want but the language is going to evolve whether you like it or not.

Proof positive: This same reply fifty years from now, when lolspeak has become the commonplace language of our time:

lolz, erreygrdles iz gud choiss, stoopid n00b. Frum da dicshunary:

i can has cut?

u grammer nazis r goin to jus has 2 accept teh fact dat teh werd iz legitimate part ov teh language nao. u can fight it all u wants but teh language iz goin 2 evolve whethr u liek it or not.WHETHR U LIEK IT OR NOT.

Re:

[value_added (719364)]

No, irregardless is a perfectly legitimate choice. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

I wonder whether in your over-eager need to consult the web, you managed to discover the meaning of dialectical, or what any of the il, in, ir, or im prefixes mean? Here's a hint: you don't need to know any Latin to know that insensitiveless clod doesn't mean what you think it means.

You grammar Nazis are ...

Ignoring the obvious bias on the part of someone who opts for inflammatory terms, how is making use of a tortured

Free Trade is the Answer

[tjstork (137384)]

If its the former, no duh, we already knew that. If its the latter, are you trying to get us to want to do something about it? and if so, what do you propose? that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?

Free trade with Syria is the answer. The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Sanctions are a form of war, remember.

Of all ironies is that Bush, by invading Iraq, threw away the lessons of his own party. Republicans, for better or for worse, have been staunch free traders since Reagan and it is that commitment to free trade around the globe that has caused nations to adopt more open societies, not American bombers. Have a strong defense, but for god's sake, don't start any wars and try and sell people stuff. It's a simple game plan, and Republicans were so good at it. But, after Afghanistan they just got too cocky and thought we could knock off Iraq. I almost want to go back in time and throttle William Kristol, and say "no, no, no, it is not time to have a benevolent American Empire!"

But, we just have to get back to the original game plan. Don't lecture the likes of Syria. Sell them stuff.

While we are at it, get rid of all of this USA PATRIOT nonsense.

Re:

[tjstork (137384)]

Just look at how open China has become..

China is a lot more open than it was before. I mean, China may have a great firewall, but other regimes do not have an internet at all. Plus, you have to realize that there are plenty of Chinese people on the other end of a phone call or even meeting in person with western business partners. Is China as free as we would like, no? But, then, when Western Europe was in the same economic level as China, we were all serfs and slavery was legal.

huh?

[Presto Vivace (882157)]

Just because Syria has the power to do this does not make it right.