iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Lundberg

GET UPDATES FROM John Lundberg
 

Writer Killed Over a Poem in Iraq

Posted: 05/16/10 08:00 AM ET

The murder of a young man named Zardasht Osman earlier this month called attention to the growing problem of government crackdowns on journalists and writers in Northern Iraq, and reminds us not to take our freedom of speech here for granted.

The ruling party of Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq, under president Massoud Barzani, is under growing scrutiny by international watchdog organizations for its intolerance of criticism in the press. The New York Times reported that the party's security forces "are often accused of intimidating, threatening and assaulting journalists affiliated with opposition parties or critical of the corrupt patronage system fostered by the two governing parties."

Osman drew the attention of the security forces a few weeks ago when he penned a satirical poem decrying the nepotism and cronyism that runs rampant in Barzani's administration. He was abducted in front of the university he attended, and his body was found handcuffed and shot dead on a roadside four days later.

Some are accusing Barzani's security forces of carrying out the killing, and the event has led to demonstrations in the city of Sulamaniyah, drawing over a thousand protestors. Barzani's government has denied any involvement and claims it will investigate, but many remain doubtful -- the security forces responsible for the investigation are run by Barzani's son.

Michael Rubin of National Review Online published a translation of the poem that resulted in Osman's death. He noted, "for anyone that wants to know what it takes for a politician in Iraqi Kurdistan--which calls itself secure and democratic--to order your death, here it goes." Here's an excerpt:

I am in love with the daughter of [Iraqi Kurdistan president] Masud Barzani, the man who appears here and there and claims he is my president. I would like him to be my father-in-law and also I would like to be a brother-in-law with [former Prime Minister] Nechirvan Barzani.

If I become Masud Barzani's son-in-law, we would spend our honeymoon in Paris and also we would visit our uncle's mansion in America. I would move my house from one of the poorest areas in Erbil to Sari Rash [Barzani's palace complex] where it would be protected by American guard dogs and Israeli bodyguards.

I would make my father become the Minister of Peshmerga [the Kurdish militia]. He had been Peshmarga in September revolution, but he now has no pension because he is no longer a member of Kurdistan Democratic Party.

I would make my unlucky baby brother, who recently finished university but is now unemployed and looking to leave Kurdistan, chief of my special forces.

My sister who has been too embarrassed to go to the bazaar to shop, could drive all the expensive cars just as Barzani's daughters do.

Here in the U.S., we are free to fill our newspapers, airwaves and web pages with scorn for our politicians (and we do), but even our freedom of speech has its limits. A case concerning a very angry Kentucky man is now testing those limits. He recently published a 16 line poem called "The Sniper" that describes an assassination mission to kill President Obama (it reportedly included the line "Die Negro Die"). His attorneys are arguing that the poem should be protected as art, but he could face up to five years in prison for threatening to kill the president. Most, I'm sure, would consider that a reasonable line for our government to draw. The tragic death of Mr. Osman reminds us of how far Iraq has to go before its citizens can even have that debate.

 
The murder of a young man named Zardasht Osman earlier this month called attention to the growing problem of government crackdowns on journalists and writers in Northern Iraq, and reminds us not to ta...
The murder of a young man named Zardasht Osman earlier this month called attention to the growing problem of government crackdowns on journalists and writers in Northern Iraq, and reminds us not to ta...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
04:58 PM on 05/16/2010
Iraq has not really entered the twenty-first century if words matter so much.A country where poetry can get you killed? Wow. It's sort of wonderful there is still such a place where words matter so much. The powers-that-be in Iraq need to hire Madison Avenue advertising types to water down the words, to pound the people with words so that words no longer matter. Bombs then advertising. "This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper". -TSE
02:12 PM on 05/16/2010
Threatening to kill a president should never have been a criminal offense. Don't prosecute thoughtcrime. Too many Americans cede too much privilege to the president, who is not, after all, a king.
08:56 AM on 05/16/2010
This is preposterous. Huffington Post ought to be ashamed to publish such non-sense. Amateur. Contact some Kurdish experts in the US. Maybe you can learn something about the topic. How this got by editors....very disappointing.

There is no evidence of security force involvement in Osman's disappearance. These ridiculous allegations were made by a Kurdish opposition party to undermine their political opponents. It's internal political posturing, not fact as the author suggests, and shows just how immature and short-sighted the Kurdish opposition movement is in their thinking.

The poem that Osman wrote was published back in December. Re-read the Times article and at least get your basic facts straight. No one reads the publication Osman wrote in back in December and the publication continues to be published today. If the authorities in the Kurdistan Region were so interested in cracking down on the press, why go after an individual instead of shutting down the 100s of critical news outlets that you've apparently been reading? Your conclusions lack the logic possessed by a 4th grader and could benefit greatly from a course on critical reading.

Look for a mentor other than Michael Rubin. Rubin has a personal vendetta against the Kurdish leadership for not giving him a job after the Iraqi war so he could cash in. He's been slowly committing academic suicide over the last few years in his desire to get revenge. He's lucky no one has taken a defamation or libel case against him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ScorpioRN
Karl Marx was right!
08:13 PM on 05/15/2010
People might disagree with me but trading one despot -Saddam for 5 or 6 others is really not a good trade off. Saddam despite being what he was was contained now when we leave Iraq I really feel that civil war will erupt. GWB the gift that keeps giving.
10:46 PM on 05/15/2010
Yep.
02:24 AM on 05/16/2010
Correct. Saddam was the most pro American ruler in the Gulf States. He worked with the CIA for at least 20 years and was an important intelligence source in a region where the US lacked assets on the ground. He was a sectarian ruler who hated Al Qaeda and gave them no quarter. His influence kept Iran in line and protected the entire region from the Islamic fanaticism that we see today. Under Saddam women had rights. They voted, drove cars, and the large cities of Iraq had electricity, universities, and a western look. To succeed as a leader he became a ruthless dictator who did not tolerate dissent and did not allow political opposition to become strong enough to threaten him. The new rulers of Iraq will have to become just as ruthless if they hope to once again bring control and stability to this fragmented region. But the end of Saddam gives a stark lesson to new rulers who think that they might profit from an alliance with America. We have driven the future leaders of Iraq into the arms of our enemies and we will live to regret it. The fact that this was done as official policy reflects not just on GWB but on the American system of government itself. We have revealed that our system of picking leaders does not work and another GWB is still possible. The rest of the world has adjusted and they will never trust us again.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
08:11 PM on 05/15/2010
Why is there no international outcry?
11:53 PM on 05/15/2010
international outcry?

For what, someone got killed in Iraq, hundreds of thousands were killed there and nobody cared.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
01:24 AM on 05/16/2010
Isn't there a difference between so-called "collateral damage" or mistakes and deliberate a$sa$sination.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ascoli
05:02 PM on 05/15/2010
Nothing will ever change in Iraq ......it will remain barbaric forever
02:38 AM on 05/16/2010
Something has changed. There are now stacks of hundred dollar bills that are used as the currency of the black markets, the primary markets, of Iraq. For 100 years Iraq had to pay its own way, now they are a client state of America and receiving 300 billion a year to keep a lid on a fractious and simmering civil war triggered by the American invasion. If history is a guide, once we leave (and we always leave) there will be five years of civil war that will produce a million casualities and a state hostile to American interests. The future Iraq will ally itself with Iran and become a powerhouse in the region with both oil and nuclear weapons. This new country will be a radical Islamic state that will tip the region away from American control. Russia and China will side with them (they are already making overtures to Iran) and we will finally lose the oil that has driven our foreign policy mad for 50 years. GWB can be thought of as literally the beginning of the end of American world dominance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Californian2020
02:47 PM on 05/15/2010
It's interesting to notice that today's Iraq's so-called democratically elected leaders are no different than Saddam's regime. nepotism, cronyism, corruption, and mot of all intolerance of dissenting opinions, or as in this case something as harmless as a poem!
02:54 AM on 05/16/2010
There is a difference. Saddam was a sunni who operated as a sectarian leader who was an active enemy of Islamic fanatics such as Al Qaeda. All the new rulers are primarily shia and are sympathetic to the theocracy of Iran. Saddam had a decades long alliance with the west and provided vital intelligence during the cold war. We supplied Saddam with satellite intelligence that allowed him to win the war with Iran. The new leaders are antagonistic to the west and have family relationships with Iranian power centers. They are much more closely tied to Iran than Saddam was and are sympathetic to the idea of an Islamic rather than sectarian state. Neither Saddam or the new rulers are democratic, but Saddam was willing to work with the west (but not the Bush family) and the new rulers will not work with the west at all. Just like in Vietnam, the politics of the entire region will shift as soon as we pull out our troops and the entire effort will be seen to have been wasted.