Systematic torture of political prisoners
from Amnesty International's 2002 report:
3VICTIMS OF TORTURE
3.1 Followers of Shi'a Clerics
(Got an error message - my message was too long. I have to break this into two pieces.)
3VICTIMS OF TORTURE
3.1 Followers of Shi'a Clerics
Quote:
Over the years many victims of torture have been Shi'a Muslims from Baghdad or from southern Iraq. They were arrested and tortured because they were suspected of anti-government activities. Many of them were students at al-Hawza al-'Ilmiya in al-Najaf in the south, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious theological teaching institutions in Shi'a Islam. Mass arrests and torture often took place during the periods of unrest which southern Iraq has witnessed intermittently over the last few years. The murder in al-Najaf of Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, a prominent leading Shi'a cleric, and his two sons on 19 February 1999(2) sparked off riots in predominantly Shi'a districts in Baghdad, especially in Saddam City (also known as al-Thawra City), and in southern towns of al-Hilla, Karbala', al-Nassiriya and al-Najaf. Protests in Saddam City resulted in the killings of dozens of protesters by the security forces and the arrest of hundreds of people. The riots lasted for three days and according to press reports at least 100 people were killed in Baghdad alone.(3)
A month later riots erupted in Basra for three days between 17 and 20 March 1999 during which the local headquarters of the ruling Ba'ath Party was attacked and several government officials were killed by armed Iraqi Shi'a Islamists, some of whom were reportedly sent by Iraqi Shi'a opposition groups based in Iran. As soon as government forces regained control of Basra on 20 March the repression started with dozens of people executed following torture and hundreds of others were arrested and tortured.
On 16 April 1999 violent clashes were reported between protesters and security forces when the latter attempted to prevent Shi'a Muslims from taking part in Friday prayers at the al-Hikma Mosque in Saddam City in Baghdad. These clashes reportedly left scores of protesters dead. An eye witness told Amnesty International that ''when people were prevented from prayers they started shouting slogans against the authorities. Some protesters were armed and started shooting at the security forces but the latter were using tanks against the population and many people, including children, were killed. Initially the security forces did not remove the dead bodies. They waited for families and relatives to come and collect them so that they could arrest them. However, the families were too frightened to do so and in the end the security forces had to collect the bodies to clean the streets.'' As a retaliation, armed Islamist activists killed the director of Abu Ghraib Prison, Major Hassan al-'Amiri, and several other security officers the following day in an attack on a house close to the mosque, which was used as a temporary headquarters for the security forces.
The Iraqi government denied all reports of unrest which followed the assassination of Ayatollah al-Sadr. However in mid-May 1999 a government official admitted for the first time that disturbances had taken place in Basra claiming that ''some agents who came from behind the border, from Iran, carried out sabotage acts in the city of Basra on March 17 in order to harm Iraq and its people''.(4)
Among those arrested in Basra were several university lecturers. One person A (name withheld) told Amnesty International that he was arrested on 7 June 1999 at night from his home in Basra. He was taken to the General Intelligence prison in Basra and was tortured during interrogation. Methods of torture included extinguishing cigarettes on his feet and beating. He was also made to lie naked on the floor of the prison's concrete courtyard which was unshaded from the heat of the sun. He was then dragged by his arms from one side of the courtyard to another. This left his back, buttocks and thighs bleeding. A was taken to a special courtroom in Basra. There was a judge and several security men in the court. The judge told him that he was guilty of six charges, including criticising the government in his lectures and collecting money to help families of those executed in Basra. A stated that he was innocent. He was then hit by a security officer on the back of his head with a weapon which left his head bleeding. He was taken back to the prison. He was then released on 19 July 1999 after his family had bribed local miliary and security officials. A few other lecturers remain detained until now after they had been tortured. They include Khaled al-'Adeli and 'Abd al-Hussain Hanin, lecturers in Chemistry and Computing, respectively, at Basra University. They are reported to be still detained at the General Intelligence prison in Basra.
During and following these events hundreds of followers of Ayatollah al-Sadr were arrested and were subjected to torture. Dozens were later summarily tried and executed. Among them were Al-Shaikh Salim Jassem Sadkhan al-'Abboudi and al-Shaikh 'Ala' Hussain al-Shuwaili who were reportedly arrested in around June 1999 and were sentenced to death in May 2000 and executed a month later. Both were from Saddam City and their family homes were demolished by the security forces. Others executed during the same period after they had been tortured included al-Sayyid Sa'ad Mohammad 'Ali al-Nouri, Qassim Ghazi al-Shuwaili and al-Sayyid 'Amr al-Mussawi .Al-Shaikh Nazzar Kadhim al-Bahadli, a 29-year-old theology student from Saddam City, was arrested in June 1999 and was tortured for long periods in the building of Saddam Security Directorate. His wife, father and mother were reportedly brought to the building in August 1999 and were tortured in front of him to force him to confess to being one of those responsible for the disturbances in Saddam City. He was said to have confessed in order to spare his parents and his wife any further torture. They were released following his confession but he was sentenced to death later and was executed at the beginning of 2001.
Over the years many victims of torture have been Shi'a Muslims from Baghdad or from southern Iraq. They were arrested and tortured because they were suspected of anti-government activities. Many of them were students at al-Hawza al-'Ilmiya in al-Najaf in the south, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious theological teaching institutions in Shi'a Islam. Mass arrests and torture often took place during the periods of unrest which southern Iraq has witnessed intermittently over the last few years. The murder in al-Najaf of Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, a prominent leading Shi'a cleric, and his two sons on 19 February 1999(2) sparked off riots in predominantly Shi'a districts in Baghdad, especially in Saddam City (also known as al-Thawra City), and in southern towns of al-Hilla, Karbala', al-Nassiriya and al-Najaf. Protests in Saddam City resulted in the killings of dozens of protesters by the security forces and the arrest of hundreds of people. The riots lasted for three days and according to press reports at least 100 people were killed in Baghdad alone.(3)
A month later riots erupted in Basra for three days between 17 and 20 March 1999 during which the local headquarters of the ruling Ba'ath Party was attacked and several government officials were killed by armed Iraqi Shi'a Islamists, some of whom were reportedly sent by Iraqi Shi'a opposition groups based in Iran. As soon as government forces regained control of Basra on 20 March the repression started with dozens of people executed following torture and hundreds of others were arrested and tortured.
On 16 April 1999 violent clashes were reported between protesters and security forces when the latter attempted to prevent Shi'a Muslims from taking part in Friday prayers at the al-Hikma Mosque in Saddam City in Baghdad. These clashes reportedly left scores of protesters dead. An eye witness told Amnesty International that ''when people were prevented from prayers they started shouting slogans against the authorities. Some protesters were armed and started shooting at the security forces but the latter were using tanks against the population and many people, including children, were killed. Initially the security forces did not remove the dead bodies. They waited for families and relatives to come and collect them so that they could arrest them. However, the families were too frightened to do so and in the end the security forces had to collect the bodies to clean the streets.'' As a retaliation, armed Islamist activists killed the director of Abu Ghraib Prison, Major Hassan al-'Amiri, and several other security officers the following day in an attack on a house close to the mosque, which was used as a temporary headquarters for the security forces.
The Iraqi government denied all reports of unrest which followed the assassination of Ayatollah al-Sadr. However in mid-May 1999 a government official admitted for the first time that disturbances had taken place in Basra claiming that ''some agents who came from behind the border, from Iran, carried out sabotage acts in the city of Basra on March 17 in order to harm Iraq and its people''.(4)
Among those arrested in Basra were several university lecturers. One person A (name withheld) told Amnesty International that he was arrested on 7 June 1999 at night from his home in Basra. He was taken to the General Intelligence prison in Basra and was tortured during interrogation. Methods of torture included extinguishing cigarettes on his feet and beating. He was also made to lie naked on the floor of the prison's concrete courtyard which was unshaded from the heat of the sun. He was then dragged by his arms from one side of the courtyard to another. This left his back, buttocks and thighs bleeding. A was taken to a special courtroom in Basra. There was a judge and several security men in the court. The judge told him that he was guilty of six charges, including criticising the government in his lectures and collecting money to help families of those executed in Basra. A stated that he was innocent. He was then hit by a security officer on the back of his head with a weapon which left his head bleeding. He was taken back to the prison. He was then released on 19 July 1999 after his family had bribed local miliary and security officials. A few other lecturers remain detained until now after they had been tortured. They include Khaled al-'Adeli and 'Abd al-Hussain Hanin, lecturers in Chemistry and Computing, respectively, at Basra University. They are reported to be still detained at the General Intelligence prison in Basra.
During and following these events hundreds of followers of Ayatollah al-Sadr were arrested and were subjected to torture. Dozens were later summarily tried and executed. Among them were Al-Shaikh Salim Jassem Sadkhan al-'Abboudi and al-Shaikh 'Ala' Hussain al-Shuwaili who were reportedly arrested in around June 1999 and were sentenced to death in May 2000 and executed a month later. Both were from Saddam City and their family homes were demolished by the security forces. Others executed during the same period after they had been tortured included al-Sayyid Sa'ad Mohammad 'Ali al-Nouri, Qassim Ghazi al-Shuwaili and al-Sayyid 'Amr al-Mussawi .Al-Shaikh Nazzar Kadhim al-Bahadli, a 29-year-old theology student from Saddam City, was arrested in June 1999 and was tortured for long periods in the building of Saddam Security Directorate. His wife, father and mother were reportedly brought to the building in August 1999 and were tortured in front of him to force him to confess to being one of those responsible for the disturbances in Saddam City. He was said to have confessed in order to spare his parents and his wife any further torture. They were released following his confession but he was sentenced to death later and was executed at the beginning of 2001.
(Got an error message - my message was too long. I have to break this into two pieces.)
Comments
Al-Shaikh Yahya Muhsin Ja'far al-Zeini, from Saddam City, is a 29-year-old former theology student in al-Hawza al-'Ilmiya in al-Najaf. On 2 July 1999 he was arrested in his parents' house following his arrival from al-Najaf. His father and two brothers had been detained as substitute prisoners until his arrest. Security men blindfolded him and took him to the building of Saddam Security Directorate. Once there, he was taken to a room and his blindfold was removed. He told Amnesty International:
'' ... I saw a friend of mine, al-Shaikh Nasser Taresh al-Sa'idi, naked. He was handcuffed and a piece of wood was placed between his elbows and his knees. The two ends of the wood were placed on two high chairs and al-Shaikh Nasser was being suspended like a chicken. This method of torture is known as al-Khaygania (a reference to a former security director known as al-Khaygani). An electric wire was attached to al-Shaikh Nasser's penis and another one attached to one of his toes. He was asked if he could identify me and he said ''this is al-Shaikh Yahya''. They took me to another room and then after about 10 minutes they stripped me of my clothes and a security officer said ''the person you saw has confessed against you''. He said to me ''You followers of [Ayatollah] al-Sadr have carried out acts harmful to the security of the country and have been distributing anti-government statements coming from abroad. He asked if I have any contact with an Iraqi religious scholar based in Iran who has been signing these statements. I said ''I do not have any contacts with him''... I was then left suspended in the same manner as al-Shaikh al-Sa'idi. My face was looking upward. They attached an electric wire on my penis and the other end of the wire is attached to an electric motor. One security man was hitting my feet with a cable. Electric shocks were applied every few minutes and were increased. I must have been suspended for more than an hour. I lost consciousness. They took me to another room and made me walk even though my feet were swollen from beating.... They repeated this method a few times''.
Al-Shaikh Yahya was regularly subjected to electric shocks followed by beating on the feet. For two months he had to sleep on the floor with his hands tied behind his back and his face on the floor. He stated that this was more unbearable than being subjected to electric shocks. On one occasion Shaikh Yahya was suspended from a window for three days. Another method of torture that he described was that while suspended a heavy weight was attached to his genitals and was left hanging for some time. After five months of detention in the building of the Saddam Security Directorate al-Shaikh Yahya and 21 other detainees arrested at the same time were transferred to the Security Directorate of al-Rassafa district, also in Baghdad. He remained held without charge or trial until 14 April 2000 when he was released.
Al-Shaikh Mohammad 'Aziz Rahif al-'Aqqabi, a 27-year-old man married with children, was arrested in the early hours of 14 May 2000 in his house in Saddam City. He was accused of involvement in the murder of the head of Saddam Security Directorate which took place during the disturbances. He was held in Saddam Security Directorate during which he was tortured. In the first 15 days he was held in solitary confinement blindfolded and his hands tied behind his back. The blindfold was removed only during prayers. He stated to Amnesty International:
''...on the second day of my arrival I was taken to a room for interrogation. The blindfold was removed. The interrogator asked me a lot of questions about people I knew but I said I did not know them. Then he asked the guard to take me to al-Gannara [butcher's] room. Once inside the room the blindfold was removed again and the room was empty. I then had my hands tied with a telephone cable behind my back. I was made to stand on a barrel and then the guards encircled each of my upper arms with a tight belt. The belts had a knob. The knobs were tied to a rope and onto a horizontal rod. The guards then pushed the barrel I was standing on and I was left suspended. One guard then held me from the waist and started to pull me down. This was very painful. The interrogator asked the guard to tie my penis and one of my toes to an electric wire and onto an electric motor. He would then turn the electricity on and would increase it. The interrogator was also beating me with a stick on my back...''.
Al-Shaikh al-'Aqqabi was regularly tortured during the first 15 days of detention. He was made to confront one of his friends who under torture had told the interrogators that Shaikh al-'Aqqabi was involved in the killing of the head of Saddam Security Directorate. Al-Shaikh al-'Aqqabi ''confessed'' to the killing under torture. However the details he gave about the circumstances surrounding the killing convinced the security officers interrogating him that he was not involved. Nevertheless he was kept detained without trial and was tortured further in order to extract from him information about activities of other followers of Ayatollah al-Sadr. He was released on 7 November 2000.
I stopped reading after this. I need to go for a walk, say a prayer, anything but more of this. I'll finish it later. I'll force myself to but not now. Too much at once is too terrible.
Originally posted by bunge
... Join the anti-war crowd if you'd like to support a world without torture.
The anti-war crowd would leave Saddam in power. That's not acceptable.
Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein
March 28th, 2003 3:30 PM
Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. - John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003
I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience - though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:
"There was the disclosure... when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information.... So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?" ...
... When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian :
"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?
"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?... Who will celebrate and who will weep?"
The letters section of [/i]The New York Times[/i] is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"
And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals' - many of them my friends - [who] published a petition against the war... condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."
"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote - as I also wonder - "what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."
On Amnesty International, I think freeing prisoners of conscience is the choice way to rock tyrants without upsetting regions with occupation and attack from richer nations.
I've asked you before and you didn't answer. What the hell does "freeing prisoners of conscience" mean?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The anti-war crowd would leave Saddam in power. That's not acceptable.
Leaving Saddam in power is not acceptable, that's true. I'm personally just appalled that our government and military will use torture as well. I don't believe we're dropping people feet first into plastic shredding machines, but we've beaten a few to death recently. Even if we don't kill any of them, torture goes against everything for which this country stands.
My point is we shouldn't be pointing fingers, just like in the POW/Geneva Convention examples. We're complaining because someone is breaking the same laws/morals/ethical codes that we are.
Originally posted by bunge
... My point is we shouldn't be pointing fingers...
You don't have a point. You're just trying to change the subject. Not to condone any abuses we may or may not have committed but it really does make a difference that we don't send people through plastic shredders.
Originally posted by bunge
Many of our allies use torture as well, and we're using it with 'illegal combatants'. Join the anti-war crowd if you'd like to support a world without torture.
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No, join the anti-war crowd if you'd like to PRETEND to support a world without torture. Without the threat of war, real war, not pretend -- there will always be torture. The anti-war folks ignore all of behavioural science and human history when they disregard this. Not everyone in the world has a new SUV that Daddy bought for them and a lifelong safety net. Yes, mean people suck, but that doesn't mean that they aren't REALLY out there.
Wish all you want, but force must be answered with force. And the only appropriate use of force is against force (whether that is political oppression of this kind, forced starvation, etc.). We get what we have in Iraq right now when we spend years and years ignoring the military and ignoring foreign policy, trying to fit either to our "wish" for them and ignoring reality.
I think the problem comes in when choosing sides; it's hard for many folks today to grasp, but there has to be one side in every conflict that is RIGHT, and one side that is WRONG. That doesn't mean that the right side is perfect, a small point missed by dreamers when they talk about "extremes" and "ideals." We always hear that there are no black and white issues, but this is as close as they get.
Anti-war = group denial of reality
Originally posted by bunge
I don't believe we're dropping people feet first into plastic shredding machines, but we've beaten a few to death recently.
Please post links for this: don't bother with any link having "indy" in it.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
...but it really does make a difference that we don't send people through plastic shredders.
But if we beat them to death instead, why doesn't that make a difference to you? If we ship them off to countries where Saddam-like torture is customary, why doesn't that bother you?
Originally posted by finboy
Wish all you want, but force must be answered with force.
What an utter load of crap. Have you ever lived in the United States? Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? Rule of law, not rule of might. We all should have learned that in the Middle Ages. That's part of what the renaissance, rebirth, enlightenment, was all about.
Originally posted by finboy
Please post links for this: don't bother with any link having "indy" in it.
Link
Originally posted by bunge
But if we beat them to death instead, why doesn't that make a difference to you?
Why doesn't it bother you to pretend there's a moral equivalence between us and the Iraqis? The only reason you even know that this happened is because military coroners ruled the deaths as homicides. Furthermore, there's an investigation pending on this matter. I wish you'd give our people even half of the benefit of the doubt you so eagerly extend to Saddam.
Originally posted by bunge
What an utter load of crap. Have you ever lived in the United States? Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? Rule of law, not rule of might. We all should have learned that in the Middle Ages. That's part of what the renaissance, rebirth, enlightenment, was all about.
I guess the city you live in lacks a police department. Rule of law without law enforcement is anarchy. These days, in the US, we cover that by giving the state a monopoly on the use of force. Back in the early days, when the government was spread much thinner, more of law enforcement was done by concerned citizens. Since the first model is patently unacceptable to most nations (including us), we'll see if the second model has any relevance. If not, back to anarchy for the international community.
Please post links for this: don't bother with any link having "indy" in it.
Finboy, there's plenty of reports from the real media (ie independent non-corporate sources)...but you would never acknowledge them, naturally. So here's a link from a regular UK national newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...909294,00.html
Sorry its not a Murdoch owned paper. Apologies for straying off topic..those prisoners weren't just tortured, they were beaten to death.
A prisoner of conscience is someone who speaks out for human rights for example...although it also means someone who is inappropriately imprisoned.
Freeing one, in process, would be to work with and/or assault the government with international support for the relase of the prisoner. This is what Amnesty INtl. does.
They free prisoners of conscience so that they continue their important work.
join the anti-war crowd if you'd like to PRETEND to support a world without torture.
Simpleton, that's simply setting up a contrary position and has no backing.
You've asserted that being against war will allow the existance of torture.
Tell me again, how does having the property of being against war give way to allowing torture? Does being against war imply being against action? You've implied this I'm quite sure and unfortunately you've been disqualified from the second round, but we've got some great parting gifts for you.
Not everyone in the world has a new SUV that Daddy bought for them and a lifelong safety net.
In which you are implying that anti-war folk are rich and thus ignorant thus ignorant of torture.
Money does not ensure torture will not exist, anti-war folks never made an assumption this stupid.
Neither did they say that "people who torture" don't exist...
Wish all you want, but force must be answered with force.
The ol fight fire with fire eh finboy? Lets not use our leading educations to our benefit.
ignoring the military and ignoring foreign policy, trying to fit either to our "wish" for them and ignoring reality.
The US wasn't ignoring them. Bombing continued after the Gulf War, inspections continued. The country was jammed under UN-US sanctions and not disarmed the first time round. So the people starved and hated the world even more for it. Screw a wish, there was none. They were neglected. The realities of Iraq were hidden, being that most people do not take out a Sunday evening to watch Frontline or Witness. They get their news from CNN, and every other sub-standard news source available at suppertime.
there has to be one side in every conflict that is RIGHT, and one side that is WRONG.
Thats BS finboy. If you believe such nonsense try a couple ****ing highschool upgrader courses...
In the battles for territory which marr human existance, there was not a right side. So for all cases your assertion does not follow so you cannot simply state that it is true today.
a small point missed by dreamers when they talk about "extremes" and "ideals."
What dreamers? Your government considers any man born in the middle east who wants to kill Americans extremist when they've simply been exposed to a narrow slice of media and born in a region with the US "occupying" nearby territory. What would you think?
We always hear that there are no black and white issues, but this is as close as they get.
You're ignoring thousands of issues streaming in from both sides. This is by only sheer ignorance a black and white issue.
You're saying that the US has complete moral clarity in attacking Iraq, that they are there only for the good of human kind in your region and theirs. This is about, civilians, business, regional pressures and much deeper, the reasons that underlie the anger on both sides.
Anti-war = group denial of reality
Okay. From this we can clearly see being that I am anti-war, I am in denial of reality. Thanks for the theorem finboy, hope its published soon so that we can all be for war just like you. Uhoh, but if I deny reality then the theorem would appear backwards in which I would read it
Anti-war = group acceptance of reality
Hmm, might want to try that Grade 2 acceptance test again. Stupid.
Formally though, you've asserted that I deny reality in the sense of this war. When did I deny the need to remove Saddam, free the Iraqi people or secure the US?
Never, you're spouting nonsense again.
Well benefiting from your absolute inability to formulate a logical arguement, I can conclude that this cute little equation of yours is full of pompous crap.
More damaging, your characterisations of anti-war folk. You state they are ignorant to torture, "mean people" and that since they do not like them, they ignore them or simply refuse to beleive in them. None of this is true.
Ironically, there is left your desire to believe in moral dichotomy, a certain denial of reality, a concept which is buried eternally in Flander's Fields.
The only equation I can muster from your assertions here, bar my rebuttal, is:
finboy < Qualified to discuss the subject