• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Torture in Iraq still routine, report says

Aimster

Lifer
We went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people from the evil things Saddam Hussein's regime was doing to people of Iraq. We didn't need to go in for WMD. I guarantee you we will find them, but right now our priority is to secure security in Iraq for elections. When we think back to Saddam's regime we all remember those prisions where people were tortured for weeks and sometimes for years. We put a stop to that and the Iraqi people can now live peacefully.

Oh Sorry I had a moment where I thought I was working for FoxNews.

Here is the article:


BAGHDAD - Twenty months after Saddam Hussein's government was toppled and its torture chambers unlocked, Iraqis are again being routinely beaten, hung by their wrists and shocked with electrical wires, according to a report by a human rights organization.

Iraqi police, jailers and intelligence agents, many of them holding the same jobs they had under Hussein, are "committing systematic torture and other abuses" of detainees, Human Rights Watch said in a report to be released Tuesday.

Legal safeguards are being ignored, political opponents are targeted for arrest, and the government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi "appears to be actively taking part, or is at least complicit, in these grave violations of fundamental human rights," the report concludes.

A spokesman for Allawi declined to comment Monday and said "I will put this report on the prime minister's desk tomorrow to see if he has any reaction."

Officials defend 'security' measures
Ibrahim Jafari, an interim vice president, said in an interview Monday that security forces needed to be tougher to combat the campaign of violence by opponents of the election.

"I think the security people are not arresting enough and are releasing them too quickly," Jafari said. "And many of the security people are cooperating with the criminals. I think we have to put security as our priority."

The Human Rights Watch report acknowledged that Iraq was "in the throes of a significant insurgency" in which 1,300 police officers and thousands of civilians were killed in the last four months of 2004. But it argued that "no government, not Saddam Hussein's, not the occupying powers and not the Iraqi Interim Government, can justify ill-treatment of persons in custody in the name of security."

The report was based on interviews with 90 current and former detainees in Iraq conducted between July and October last year, many of them interviewed when they were brought to court for initial proceedings. Of those, 72 said they were "tortured or ill-treated," the report says. It recounts numerous individual cases of torture, and says the victims often had fresh scars or bruises.

'Worse than Saddam's regime'
"I was beaten with cables and suspended by my hands tied behind my back," Dhia Fawzi Shaid, 30, a resident of Baghdad, told the human rights investigators, according to the report. "I saw young men there lying on the floor while police [stepped] on their heads with boots. It was worse than Saddam's regime."

Another, identified in the report as Ali Rashid Abbadi, 21, said he was arrested by police after the bombing of a liquor store on July 11. "The police came and started hitting us," he told Human Rights Watch. "They shouted at us to confess. . . . We were blindfolded and our hands were tied behind our backs. They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals."

Abbadi was later released by a judge for lack of evidence, the report says.

The report deals with the conduct of Iraqi authorities but not that of U.S. military forces at three U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib. The three sites currently hold about 9,000 prisoners.

The Washington Post contacted several people whose cases were included in the report. They declined to speak to a reporter, saying they feared retaliation by police.

"The majority of detainees . . . stated that torture and ill-treatment during the initial period was commonplace" in jails run by the Interior Ministry, the report says. The abuses included "routine beatings . . . using cables, [rubber] hosepipes and metal rods . . . kicking, slapping and punching, prolonged suspension from the wrists," as well as electric shocks to the genitals and long periods spent blindfolded and handcuffed.

'Continuity of personnel and of mindset'
Hania Mufti, the Baghdad director of Human Rights Watch and chief author of the report, said she did not find examples of abuses that were on a par with the worst atrocities committed under Hussein's rule, such as mock executions, disfigurement with acid or sexually assaults on family members in front of prisoners. But in many other respects, she said, treatment of those swept up by police had changed little.

"Many of the same people who worked in Saddam's time are still doing those jobs today. So there is a continuity of personnel and of mindset," she said in an interview. "I think the Iraqi people themselves thought there was going to be a different system. Every day, they are finding it is not so different."

The report also says authorities made a mockery of legal safeguards. People said they were arrested without warrants and held without charges for days, weeks or months. Police officials ignored summonses from judges, and judges who became too demanding of authorities were removed from their jobs.

"The message has not gone out from the government that torture will not be tolerated," Mufti said. And foreign advisers hired to assist the Iraqi police have failed to object, she said.

Intervention by U.S. troops thwarted
The report relates "the only known case in which U.S. forces intervened to stop detainee abuse." It said scouts from an Oregon Army National Guard unit saw Iraqi guards at an Interior Ministry compound abusing detainees on June 29. A soldier took pictures through his rifle scope of detainees who were blindfolded and bound.

According to an account related in the report by Capt. Jarrell Southal of the National Guard, his soldiers entered the compound and found bound prisoners "writhing in pain" and complaining of lack of water. They gave water to the men, moved them out of the sun and then disarmed the Iraqi police. But when the Oregon soldiers radioed up their chain of command for instructions, they were ordered to "return the prisoners to the Iraqi authorities and leave the detention yard."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863916/
 
Honestly, I find this expectation that our soldiers should conduct themselves "correctly" to be idealistic. War is ugly and seeing that this is just one of the many facets of war, unfortunatly all the reporting in the world isn't going to stop it anytime soon.
 
Funny how when it is the British or the Iraqi's doing the torture, the NY Times refuses to run seventy five straight days of front page coverage - 50% of which did not contain any new news. As a matter of fact, these reports seem to be back on page 32 D - where they have hid the good Iraq news for two years now.
 
It was worse than Saddam's regime.

That's the point. When the WMD claims proved false Bush switched to the regime change scenario. We're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. Only problem is, in the eyes of many Iraqis (including those who have been tortured by their liberators), the regime we brought in is worse than the one we ousted.

Not my words or opinion. Their words and opinion.

 
hard to change force of habit isn't it? cheaters will be cheaters, liars liars, torturers torturers.
they need new people that aren't trained by the same people
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Boo hoo. They are stepping on the heads of those who saw off heads. Boo hoo.
Get a clue.

Another, identified in the report as Ali Rashid Abbadi, 21, said he was arrested by police after the bombing of a liquor store on July 11. "The police came and started hitting us," he told Human Rights Watch. "They shouted at us to confess. . . . We were blindfolded and our hands were tied behind our backs. They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals."

Abbadi was later released by a judge for lack of evidence, the report says.

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent. How about you drop those "partisan blinders" you so willingly accuse others of wearing?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Boo hoo. They are stepping on the heads of those who saw off heads. Boo hoo.
Get a clue.

Another, identified in the report as Ali Rashid Abbadi, 21, said he was arrested by police after the bombing of a liquor store on July 11. "The police came and started hitting us," he told Human Rights Watch. "They shouted at us to confess. . . . We were blindfolded and our hands were tied behind our backs. They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals."

Abbadi was later released by a judge for lack of evidence, the report says.

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent. How about you drop those "partisan blinders" you so willingly accuse others of wearing?

In The New Iraq it's guilty until proven innocent.

And none of the Bushies here seem to have a problem with that.

 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Boo hoo. They are stepping on the heads of those who saw off heads. Boo hoo.
Get a clue.

Another, identified in the report as Ali Rashid Abbadi, 21, said he was arrested by police after the bombing of a liquor store on July 11. "The police came and started hitting us," he told Human Rights Watch. "They shouted at us to confess. . . . We were blindfolded and our hands were tied behind our backs. They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals."

Abbadi was later released by a judge for lack of evidence, the report says.
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent. How about you drop those "partisan blinders" you so willingly accuse others of wearing?
In The New Iraq it's guilty until proven innocent.

And none of the Bushies here seem to have a problem with that.
Dare not question the state. Totalitarianism has a new face.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Boo hoo. They are stepping on the heads of those who saw off heads. Boo hoo.
Get a clue.

Another, identified in the report as Ali Rashid Abbadi, 21, said he was arrested by police after the bombing of a liquor store on July 11. "The police came and started hitting us," he told Human Rights Watch. "They shouted at us to confess. . . . We were blindfolded and our hands were tied behind our backs. They poured cold water over me and applied electric shocks to my genitals."

Abbadi was later released by a judge for lack of evidence, the report says.

Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent. How about you drop those "partisan blinders" you so willingly accuse others of wearing?
Boo hoo.

Whine for the brutality of Iraqis that just about every one of you partisan hackneys in here have confessed to not giving two flying fvcks about.

Boo fvcking hoo. Crocodile tears, conjur. Crocodile tears.
 
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
 
Are you people not concered about the civil rights of the Iraqi's who keep getting butchered by these scum terrorists? I could care less about the terrorists in the jails, if we have to torture them to get more info out of them, then do it. That info could possibly prevent further loss of life.

Its a shame that Graner got 10 years punishment for just softening up some scum, shame on Bush and Rumsfeld for letting that happen. They should have gotten the guy who gave orders to Graner. Its really sad
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf
Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?

 
aww, too bad, nobody wants to see a bunch of murderers and terrorists tortured now do they...some even have more sympathy for them than our soldiers getting killed in Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf
Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?


Do you mean this bunk here?

I've never seen any denials of this story except from message board apologists desperate to justify the continuous war crime that is the invasion of Iraq.

And he linked to a story that quotes an ICRC report. I'm sure because the Red Cross doesn't completely kowtow to the Bushista BS that its all liberal "bunk" too, huh? But thats the way extremists filter their information these days. If it totally justifies their extremely narrow worldview, then its absolute fact. If it dares to question it, even one little bit, then its "liberal bias", or if you ask the likes of Ann Coulter, TREASON!
 
Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.

Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf
Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?


Do you mean this bunk here?

I've never seen any denials of this story except from message board apologists desperate to justify the continuous war crime that is the invasion of Iraq.

And he linked to a story that quotes an ICRC report. I'm sure because the Red Cross doesn't completely kowtow to the Bushista BS that its all liberal "bunk" too, huh? But thats the way extremists filter their information these days. If it totally justifies their extremely narrow worldview, then its absolute fact. If it dares to question it, even one little bit, then its "liberal bias", or if you ask the likes of Ann Coulter, TREASON!
You've never seen it debunked elsewhere because the MSM didn't think it was worthwhile. Even Dan Rather wouldn't touch it.

And I've seen it thoroughly debunk on a liberal forum where even the liberals agreed it was a crap claim, and various sites have debunked it as well. The only folks who hold onto this claim are the DU and sites that are so far left they'd make everyone in here look like a conservative.

The new liberals these days seem to bit confused between asking questions that are valid and questions that are full of conspiratal horsesh!t, so stop with the whiney, tired old "You won't dare question blah, blah blah." After all, I'm questioning IndyMedia, which is something YOU don't seem to want to question.

 
Originally posted by: ntdz
aww, too bad, nobody wants to see a bunch of murderers and terrorists tortured now do they...some even have more sympathy for them than our soldiers getting killed in Iraq.

I have no sympathy for radical Islamic terrorists. I also have no sympathy for Abu Ghraib torturers AND the leadership that allowed it to happen. When Americans start to believe that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners, then this country is no better than a third-world banana republic.

The United States used to have Morals that made this sort of behavior abhorrent. Now we have an Attorney General that sent out White House memos justifying the use of torture and a sizable number of morally bankrupt bush-leaguers that support it.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Also, nice of you to forget that 70-90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were completely innocent.


Nice of you to provide real evidence of this. 70 - 90%, quite a range, quite an assumption.

Just for the hell of it, I will say that 70 - 90% were guilty, and 100% of those 'harrassed' were from the guilty party. That is right, my evidence here tells me that 0% of the innocents were harmed.
You don't read much, do you?


ICRC Report
http://images.indymedia.org/im...ion/8/redcrossiraq.pdf
Bwahaha. Indymedia.org. LOL!

Weren't they the ones that fluffed up some conspiracy theory about the fall of the Saddam statue that turned out to be complete bunk?


Do you mean this bunk here?

I've never seen any denials of this story except from message board apologists desperate to justify the continuous war crime that is the invasion of Iraq.

And he linked to a story that quotes an ICRC report. I'm sure because the Red Cross doesn't completely kowtow to the Bushista BS that its all liberal "bunk" too, huh? But thats the way extremists filter their information these days. If it totally justifies their extremely narrow worldview, then its absolute fact. If it dares to question it, even one little bit, then its "liberal bias", or if you ask the likes of Ann Coulter, TREASON!
You've never seen it debunked elsewhere because the MSM didn't think it was worthwhile. Even Dan Rather wouldn't touch it.

And I've seen it thoroughly debunk on a liberal forum where even the liberals agreed it was a crap claim, and various sites have debunked it as well. The only folks who hold onto this claim are the DU and sites that are so far left they'd make everyone in here look like a conservative.

The new liberals these days seem to bit confused between asking questions that are valid and questions that are full of conspiratal horsesh!t, so stop with the whiney, tired old "You won't dare question blah, blah blah." After all, I'm questioning IndyMedia, which is something YOU don't seem to want to question.


Umm...The original source was the LA Times conducting interviews with the Marines in Firdos Square that day who witnessed Army and Marine Psyops personnel put up the flag (First a US flag, then Iraqi) and commandeer the American APC used to pull down the Statue. They also collected the 75 or so Iraqi civilians that actually stood still for photos.

But I do like your reply, completely free of any corroborating links and using that ol' "Even the Liberals debunked it" line so that you can try to push the claim outside of even what mainstream liberals will accept.

And my rather calm listing of fact can only be responded to with hyperbole. "conspiritorial bullshit" is what you called this claim, even though you provide only opinion and hearsay to refute them. And its all whining especially if you can't refute it, huh?

And Indymedia wasn't the source of the report. The International Commitee of the Red Cross was. Here is a link to that report and many others.
 
Back
Top