Iranian Police Chief Admits Prisoner Abuse

But Says "Viral Illness," Not Torture, Played Role in Deaths of Detained Election Protestors

(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.

[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.

[speakinup22]

nextgenman09 - It is understandable that since you hate Bush you'd take the position you did. Reality isn't your forte.

I endorse non-lethal, non-permanent torture (such as waterboarding) of KNOWN terrorists if there is the slightest chance it will produce any viable results that may add to the safety of the world's population.

Terrorists give no quarter. They have made that plain from the start, and I don't believe they will change their tune because we are so nice to them. So, they deserve no quarter.

In fact, it is more likely that as they have more people tortured they might re-think their position on torture, since capture is a much higher likelihood for them than us... But that would assume they are rational, which they most likely aren't, so either way if we can get relevant information (which we've been told we did - and unlike you I prefer to believe my leaders over the terrorists) it is worth the effort.

If you find that heinous, make sure you are just as vocal about your opinion when the next 9/11 happens. Especially if it could have been prevented.

oh, and BTW, OBL has made it clear he's not going to stop, and most of the US believes another 9/11 IS going to eventually happen. So let's nip the liberal 'fear' tactic in the bud ok.

Frankly, I suspect we are at much more dangetr of it happening because of Obama than less. May it be in your neighborhood.

Fake American.

pssst.... Am I really a "fake" Republican hypocrite ? What's that ? Someone perporting to be a hypocrite that isn't ?

[brianbwb-2009]

To Speakinup

Of course you wouldn't remember, those who support torture often make this claim in their cowardice to admit they support it, so I will refresh your memory.

From the pages of "Command Responsibility",

"Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global ?war on terror.? According to the U.S. military?s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.

Despite these numbers, four years since the first known death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this list ? those of detainees tortured to death ? only half have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail.

Command?s Responsibility describes more than 20 cases in detail, to illustrate both the failures in investigation and in accountability. Among the cases is that of Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public during the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal when photographs depicting prison guards giving the thumbs-up over his body were released; to date, no U.S. military or intelligence official has been punished criminally in connection with Jamadi?s death. The cases also include that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death. In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush?s death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church.

And they include cases like that of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, in which investigative failures have made accountability impossible. Hatab, a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah. Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death ? Hatab?s body ? was rendered unusable in court. Hatab?s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner?s findings of strangulation was never found."

Also your implied lie that Guantanamo might be the only facility operated by the US is just more obfuscation to avoid the fact that the US did torture, murder, and otherwise abuse people it "detained".

You play games with semantics, and even there you lose.

[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.

[veteran71]

"Honest,....these guys slipped on the soap"......

(Excuse uttered by Shrub, Darth, and every other War Criminal on the Planet in response to prisoners who've been found beaten to mush, shocked with electricity, or any of a million other actual causes of death during detention.)
Actually, Darth ADMITTED to torturing prisoners, and even said he was PROUD of it!!! What more does the World Community need???

Interviewer:
"It's been reported that you've authorized and approve of torturing prisoners, and that Americans overwhelmingly think you are a War Criminal"

Darth: "So"???

Get the Hague Court seated and let's get these dirtbags off to the gallows.

[aldon62]

You're pretty much on target here. Until we clean our own messes up, we can't be pointing fingers. Do I feel for those Iranians? Of course I do, but this is an Iranian problem and the Iranians will have to take care of it. Moral support only from here.

[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.

[drivelphobe]

BekieBest is correct. rhs648 , you babble about "if you believe most Muslims are fair, etc" as the qualifier for your outrageous post. No one believes most Muslims are anything but Muslims, honoring their Allah, a the writings of Mohhamed and the Sharia law. None speak out against the acts of violence and terror. Muslims in our country continue with honor killings and unspeakable violence against their daughters and wives.

There may be many dictators who are ruthless without the influence of religion, but they are certainly not on the tip of anyone's tongue. We are much more aware of the millions of Muslims, Jews, and religious factions in the middle east whose allegiance to some deity and the written word of a god, supersedes allegiance to any government, country or friend.

While religious beliefs do provide comfort, hope and inspiration to many, it also provides and nurtures the radicalism that finds its way to the lunatics who become leaders seeking power and final control of others' lives. In fact, maniacal governmental postiions can be interpreted as a form of religion which only further supprts BeckieBest's assertion.

[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]

correction - Please excuse my typing mistakes.

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 our best allies, Turkey falls into that category. It is your babble that makes wholesale generalities about 1.8 billion people 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.

[drivelphobe]

speakinup22...

No one can say for sure how Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot practiced their religions, but their belief in a religion shaped their attitudes and feelings about others. LIke most religious groups, a feeling of arrogance and self righteousness pervades all. All religions teach that their deity is the only one, the true deity. The absurdity of this laughable. Conflict and intolerance is the result. You accuse me of god hating? LOL!
I belong to no "God hating" group. I recognize the benefits of religion but I also recognize, which you apparently don't, the huge negatives. It is true that I reject the existence of deities, but understand how some individuals depend on it, and how the organization of religious belief creates system of manipulation and brainwashing of the masses.

Have a nice day.

[drivelphobe]

rhs648....

I didn't condemn 1.8 billion people, their actions condemn themselves. No one knows, least of all you, how many honor killings occur worldwide or in the USA. They make the news occasionally, and that is enough. Don't you consider the stoning of young women an atrocity? How about beheading and tongue removal? It's all part of the Muslim religion/culture and secrecy is rampant to avoid retribution. Does it have to be an epidemic for you to consider it offensive? I think you might lack in understanding and historical knowledge.

have a great Sunday.

[speakinup22]

drivelphobe - I am having a nice day. Thank-you.

As usual, you have a few statements in the above post most rational folks don't agree with.

"but their belief in a religion shaped their attitudes and feelings about others. " - drivel opinion

wikipedia opinion: "Adolf Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was a near atheist,[1] while his mother was a practising Catholic.[2] According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Hitler.[4]...

"Early on, Hitler expressed his opinion about God and religion as follows, "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."[7]

Hitler did NOT follow the doctrines of his faith, (as he thought there was no God but his country - and professed his citizens should think the same) he merely used an established faith to ingratiate himself with those that did have the faith. This is using a religion to further one's agenda. It is not, as you contend the religion, "provides and nurtures the radicalism that finds its way to the lunatics who become leaders seeking power..."

That is pure BS.

To say it was religion that provided him his evilness is myopic at the least, and quite worthy of calling you a God hater. You can laugh all you want about belonging to a group that hates religion, but when your life is over you will be counted as such, should you follow the course you have chartered.

And, BTW, I do recognize that some wars have been fought over religions. And I can't speak to anything but Christianity; but, once again these tend to be people that don't accept all of the religion's tenants or bastardize them (yes some Popes have done that in my opinion). For you to make the statement that, "There may be many dictators who are ruthless without the influence of religion, but they are certainly not on the tip of anyone's tongue." is NOTHING but misleading. I provided 3 of the worst, and as you yourself stated, "No one can say for sure how Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot practiced their religions..."

It would seem you feel compelled to fight a losing argument as you don't wish to admit you made an inaccurate statement.

You try to have a better day too, ok.

[drivelphobe]

speakinup22.....

I am also having a great day, Thank you.

I don't feel I am fighting a losing argument, but rather asserting my belief and opinion regarding other's posts, including your's. There is no argument when religion is involved. Belief, whether based on fact or fiction, is real. I don't hate the concept of deities. I totally understand why religions exists and how individuals can fall prey to the recruitment and peer pressure of belief. Thank you for your concern about my hereafter, but it will be just the same as everyone else. Sorry you can't think outside the area of Christianity. That is only one religion out of hundreds. I guess you think it is the "real" one don't you!

I'm off to barbecue some fresh halibut, russet potatoes, and asparagus. It doesn't get much better than that.






You seem knowledgeable regarding Hitler's upbringing and I thank you for the info. Your not-so-subtle accusations mean little to me, but I think you might rethink the comments. Myopia, rationalism,

[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.

[veteran71]

Hey Rowdy, do some of your classics, like, "Not one drop of Oil was spilled during Katrina"....or take another trip down memory lane when you were in the SCOTUS, or one of those thrilling tales from your Cattle Baroness or Oil Tycoon days.....(c'mon, you KNOW you want to)LOL

[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 !

[brianbwb-2009]

It should be called Abu Ghraib disease.

[ToolMangler1]

Ahmadamnutjob took a dam-p stick and beat the health out of them.