Iranian Police Chief Admits Prisoner Abuse

(AP)  Iran's police chief acknowledged Sunday that protesters detained in post-election unrest were abused in custody but said the deaths of prisoners were caused by illness, not torture.

Iran's opposition reformists say young people protesting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's June 12 re-election were tortured to death at Kahrizak detention center.

More troubling for the government, however, is that some prominent figures in its own conservative support base also say murders were committed in the prison.

Stories of widespread abuse at Kahrizak detention center on Tehran's southern outskirts prompted Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to order its closure last month for "not possessing the required standards."

Authorities also fired the head of the prison for "mismanagement" and three guards at the facility were detained on charges of mistreating detainees. Human rights groups have identified at least three protesters they say died after being detained at Kahrizak.

Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, Iran's police chief, acknowledged protesters were beaten by their jailers at Kahrizak, but said an outbreak of disease was to blame for deaths.

"This detention center was built to house dangerous criminals. Housing people related to recent riots caused an outbreak of diseases," the official IRNA news agency quoted Moghaddam as saying.

Protesters "died of viral illness and not as a result of beating," he added, according to another news agency, the semiofficial Fars.

At least 30 people have died in the unrest that followed the disputed election, according to figures from a parliamentary investigation. Hundreds have been detained. Human rights groups believe the death toll is likely far higher.

The opposition says Ahmadinejad won the election through fraud and that the pro-reform candidate, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, is the rightful winner.


Revolutionary Guard Commander Calls for Mousavi's Arrest

A senior commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard is calling for the arrest and trial of
opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi and former President Mohammad Khatami over the postelection unrest.

The official IRNA news agency quotes Yadollah Javani as saying that the two reformist figures have led what he called a "velvet coup" aimed at toppling Iran's clerical rulers.

According to Sunday's report, Javani said the two men and another reformist who ran for president, Mahdi Karroubi, should be brought before judicial and intelligence officials.
By Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini

[hungry1968-16]

by speakinup22 August 9, 2009 1:46 PM EDT

In one respect I can agree with your statement. Yes, it is true that SINCE the bush administration we haven't had a President with the leadership skills to condemn abuse of prisoners. He prefers to vote 'present'.






You think Bush condemned the abuse of prisoners?

He was the one that ORDERED the abuse of the prisoners?

What makes Bush any better or worse than Gen. Moghaddam, Iran's police chief?

Sounds like the same man to me, just speaking a different language: one speaks with an incoherent, southern, redneck trailer trash accent, and the other one speaks "Farsi". But they BOTH authorized the abuse of the prisoners.

What's the difference?

[eiddam]

Since the Bush Administration , we can't very well condemn Iran's abuse of prisoners, nor can Britain.

[speakinup22]

Really ?

I don't remember any prisoners dying at Gitmo ...

And, I don't believe any of the imprisoned individuals in Iran were known terrorists (the three that were waterboarded were in gitmo).

In one respect I can agree with your statement. Yes, it is true that SINCE the bush administration we haven't had a President with the leadership skills to condemn abuse of prisoners. He prefers to vote 'present'.

[nextgenman09]

Spekinup,
Translation: Its OK when my Messiah Bush tortures and abuses. Fake Republican Hypocrites.

[daisyjingles]

The people who died while in the prisons in Iran were beaten, abused, and DENIED PROPER MEDICAL CARE.

[babooph]

Reminds me of things under the Shah.

[speakinup22]

Excellent observation.

[ToolMangler1]

Those that supported the Shah didn't gripe. Things were going good for them. Maybe you were on the wrong side of the 'equation'.. :)

[johnhouse]

It looks like the Iranian government has so much controversy that it can no longer effectively govern.

[rhs648]

correction

BeckieBest - Here is the fallacy in your statement. If you look around the world, you will find many dictators and ruthless governments both now and over the last hundred years. Many of these regimes are ruthless yet have nothing to do with religion. Years ago, your statement may have had greater validity when many people were afraid to eat tomatoes for fear of poisoning, the conventional wisdom was that the earth was flat, and people were at a loss to explain plagues, disease, and natural disasters. The middle east is a bit of an anomaly where it appears that mixing religion and church causes a lot of problems. Sadly, what we see there are extremists who control governments. Iran is a great example. If you believe that most Muslims are fair, just, and peaceful, you then realize that most of them are not the extremists. If you look at extremists, you realize that not all are motivated in part or whole by religion. The communists in countries such as the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Vietnam abhorred religion and tried to bannish religion. Look at how horrible they were to their own people. You can continue to blame religion. If you do, it shows a lack of understanding and a great lack of historical knowledge.

[speakinup22]

drivelphobe - and just how much did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and countless other mass murders actually practice their religion ?

They may have claimed to be religious, but for example Hitler's religion did not teach him to kill/imprison the infirm, gay, Jewish, non-Arian. This was a decision made by himself. In fact, many religious people defied Hitler, and no one that is of the faith he claimed align with his deviant behavior.

Your claims are mere wishful thinking on your part, and typical of a God hating group of individuals. If you believe in a religion you must accept all of its tenants, not just those that fit your specific agenda.

However, from what I've seen, you don't seem to be able to do this in anything in life.

[rhs648]

drivelphobe - We have the pot calling the kettle black. You describe my post as "babble" while: 1) Yours appears just as long as mine and 2) You condemn 1.8 billion people who are Muslims. Wake up, there are many countries that are Muslim that live peacefully and are not run by Muslim extremists. One of best allies, Turkey falls into that category. It is your babble that makes wholesale geralities about 1.8 billion around the world. By the way. How many honor killings do you know of committed by Muslims in America? Is it an epidemic? The United Nations estimates that there are 5,000 worldwide each year. 5,000 out of 1.8 billion Muslims. Do the math.

[rhs648]

BeckieBest - Here is the fallacy in your statement. If you look around the world, you will find many dictators and ruthless governments both now and over the last hundred years. Many of these regimes are ruthless yet have nothing to do with religion. Years ago, your statement may have had greater validity when many people were afraid to eat tomatoes for fear of poisoning, the conventional wisdom was that the earth was flat, and people were at a loss to explain plagues, disease, and natural disasters. The middle east is a bit of an anomaly where it appears that mixing religion and church causes a lot of problems. Sadly, what we see there are extremists who control governments. Iran is a great example. If you believe that most Muslims are fair, just, and peaceful, you then realize that most of them are not the extremists. If you look at extremists, you realize that not all are motivated in part or whole by religion. The communists in countries such as the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Vietnam abhorred religion and tried to bannish religion. Look had how horrible they were to their own people. You can continue to blame religion. If you do, it shows a lack of understanding and a great lack of historical knowledge.

[BeckieBest]

This is exactly the kind of ruthless, corrupt, insane government you get when you join church and state.

[speakinup22]

BeckieBest - I haven't seen that sort of action taken by the Vatican. It is a country. So, let's not claim it happens in all church states.

On the other hand, I'm glad we don't have an official religion, and I'm equally glad those that are without faith that there is a God are few in our country. Although, I wouldn't take away their right to no faith.

Contrary to what many would claim, religion while it has had it's bad apples and problems, has also created a moral compass which is much more prevalent than its problems (those 10 commandments the non-believers don't want to see anywhere in public come to mind.)

In deed we see those without true faith causing many more deaths than those with faith. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, as well as those that just seek to destroy your first amendment right to religion.

[Mac]

Has it occurred to you that ruthless people will use whatever tool they can find to control their victims? They use catchy phrases, appeals to "the motherland", fake anger, fake votes, strong arm oppression, threats to loved ones, and appeals to your religions (or lack of religion). Intelligent, educated people are able to see through the sham. I hope Americans are able to do that in time for the next elections.

[John_Merritt]

As I stated in various posts since Iran is a member of the United Nations, that organization needs to demand that Iran be compliant with the laws of nature AND what they propose to support. Human Rights for all implies those nations that are overt in their actions on mankind need to be called on it.

However, we know the United Nations is a sham because they play by their own rules. They extort money from us and use it for their own gain. Iran needs to know this act is unacceptable in this day and age. Government is supposed to protect the people. That is their primary role. They are not to subvert the laws of nature, and in the case of Iran; the laws of God.

God is a Protector of all, and people will be held accountable. If violence erupts because of people's actions they will be accountable for that. When there are peaceful and lawful demonstrations of emotions, speech and principles that is acceptable. When proper discourse gives way to violence that is unacceptable.

The Geneva convention allows for proper treatment in the time of war against your own enemy. Do we not have even more of a responsibility to ensure the safety of our own citizens? Iran is no different. If the people are being improperly treated, they need to relinquish control of the 'prisoners' to people who are civil and obedient. Anything less is a sin against GOD and mankind.

[John_Merritt]

'Be angry, but do not sin'. That was a command by God. It is OK to show emotion, that is a natural source of expression. However, when we react in a negative fashion even though we disagree we than become part of the problem.

Is it a sin to show anger? No. It becomes a sin when you act on your emotion and allow that 'expression' to control your actions. And there are many within the confines of this world that allow anger to live and reign within them. That is unacceptable to God.

"Be angry, BUT DO NOT SIN."

[brianbwb-2009]

To John_Merritt

You must have missed the memo, ever since Vietnam, the Geneva convention no longer applies.

If you hold one Iran responsible for breach, then you must hold all who violate it responsible for breach.

This means the governments of most nations would all be in jail, including most US administrations from Eisenhower to the current administration.

As for the UN, they should also, by your logic, demand that the US be also compliant with the same laws. At least the Iranians were taking care of their own business in their own country.

How do you say Iran's act is unacceptable, without saying the same thing about the US' act in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, or Vietnam? Sort of makes us look pretty deficient re morality, and not qualified to even comment on what Iran does for, or to its' own.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the other camps not yet made public, have eliminated any pretense to indignation by the US. Those who supported Bush's illegal lie based wars, gave up any right to comment with any degree whatsoever of "moral superiority".

[alphaa10]

STRANGE NEW DISEASE

AP reports, "Iran's police chief acknowledged Sunday that protesters detained in post-election unrest were abused in custody but said the deaths of prisoners were caused by illness, not torture..."
---

Of course.

And as many in Iran believe that, as believe Ahmadinejad won the election.

So, the protesters died after "illness"?

Just as Neda happened to step into a sniper's bullet?

If illness, the deaths of these young protestors was a strange illness-- its symptoms include broken and frantured bones, blood clots and hemorrhage, brain injury and swelling, injury to internal organs and asphyxiation.

An illness commonly caused by grievous torture.

What should this malady be called? Let's see...

Ahmadinajad's Disease ?

[ToolMangler1]

Devilishly bad bug, Wat!!!!

[speakinup22]

hear hear, alphaa10 !