EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Torture in Iraq Continues, Unabated
Combat operations in Iraq are over, if you believe President Barack Obama’s rhetoric. But torture in Iraq’s prisons, first exposed during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is thriving, increasingly distant from any scrutiny or accountability. After arresting tens of thousands of Iraqis, often without charge, and holding many for years without trial, the United States has handed over control of Iraqi prisons, and 10,000 prisoners, to the Iraqi government. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
After landing in London late Saturday night, we traveled to the small suburb of Kilburn to speak with Rabiha al-Qassab, an Iraqi refugee who was granted political asylum in Britain after her brother was executed by Saddam Hussein. Her husband, 68-year-old Ramze Shihab Ahmed, was a general in the Iraqi army under Saddam, fought in the Iran-Iraq War and was part of a failed plot to overthrow the Iraqi dictator. The couple was living peacefully for years in London, until September 2009.
It was then that Ramze Ahmed learned his son, Omar, had been arrested in Mosul, Iraq. Ahmed returned to Iraq to find him and was arrested himself.
For months, Rabiha didn’t know what had become of her husband. Then, on March 28, her cell phone rang. “I don’t know the voice,” she told me.
“I said, ‘Who are you?’ He said he is very
sick ... he said, ‘Me, Ramze, Ramze. Call embassy.’ And they took the
mobile, and they stop talking."
Ramze Ahmed was being held in a secret prison at the old Muthanna
Airport in Baghdad. A recent report from Amnesty International, titled
“New Order, Same Abuses,” describes Muthanna as “one of the harshest”
prisons in Iraq, the scene of extensive torture and under the control of
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
As Rabiha showed me family photos, a piece of paper with English and Arabic words slipped out. Rabiha explained that in order to describe in English what happened to her husband, she had to consult a dictionary, since she had never used several of the English words: “Rape.” “Stick.” “Torture.” She wept as she described his account of being sodomized with a stick, suffocated repeatedly with plastic bags placed over his head, and shocked with electricity.
Not surprisingly, as detailed in the Amnesty report, the Iraqi government said that Ramze Shihab Ahmed had confessed to links to al-Qaida in Iraq. In a January 2010 press conference organized by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, videotapes were played showing nine others confessing to crimes, including Ahmed’s son, Omar, who, showing signs of beatings, confessed to “the killing of several Christians in Mosul and the detonation of a bomb in a village near Mosul.”
Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa program, told me in London, “there’s a culture of abuse [in Iraq] that has taken root. It was certainly there during the days of Saddam Hussein, but what we wanted to see from 2003 was a turning of the page, and that hasn’t happened. So we see secret prisons, people being tortured and ill-treated, being forced to make confessions ... the perpetrators are not being held to account. They’re not being identified.”
After that brief, interrupted phone call that Rabiha received from her husband, she did call the British government, and its embassy in Iraq tracked Ahmed down in al-Rusafa prison in Baghdad. Normally with a cane, they found him in a wheelchair. Rabiha has a photo of him taken by the British representative.
Amnesty reports that there are an estimated 30,000 prisoners in Iraq (200 remaining under U.S. control). The condition and treatment of the Iraqi prisoners is considered by the U.S. to be, Smart says, “an Iraqi issue.” But with the U.S. continuing to pour billions of dollars into its ongoing military presence there, and to fund the Iraqi government, the treatment of prisoners is clearly a U.S. issue as well. Amnesty has launched a grass-roots campaign to spur further action to secure Ahmed’s release.
Meanwhile, Rabiha al-Qassab, isolated and alone in north London, spends time feeding the ducks in a local park, which her husband used to do.
She told me: “I talk with the ducks. I say, ‘You remember the man who gave you the food? He is in a prison. Ask God to help him.’ “
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


34 Comments so far
Show AllI believe "Americans" (Europeans who settled North America, as opposed to the autochthonous folks) have been doing this to littler, browner people since 1609.
I mean, it's what we do best, and why the U.S. is an easy nation to be ashamed of.
"We're Number One!"
USA USA USA USA USA -- WE BE NUMBER 1 IN SHAME THAT WE CAN BELIEVE IN..
Why would the US care if the Iraqi's are torturing people, it is America that set the precedent for the whole world for torturing! Not to mention their standards for rape, theft, murder, illegal occupation, cowardice, and pure insanity!!
Democrats have to wake up to the fact that Obama is Bush in so many ways.
"Hope 'n - can you spare some Change?" seems to have worked its magic.
This is why we invaded back in 1991!!!!!
Except now their infrastructure is KAPUT! And they still have a brutal dictator!
Mental Torture in The U.S. Continues, Unabated
Good article but what the hell does it have to do with Building 7?
q
The only News broadcast I watch is Amy Goodmans: Democracy Now! And I have supported her financially as she generally does an excellent job of reporting real news, but for some reason she is avoiding building #7, nano thermite, Steven Jones, Ray Griffin, the 911 truthers and all the news on 911 like the plague. Does anyone out there in cyberspace know why?
Of course, because it is an endless distraction, just like this 9/11 truth movement is off topic here.
Yes, Paul Revere, I know why.
Short answer: She craves Professional Respectability, and doesn't want the stink from the Sphere of Deviance to cling to her and jeopardize her hard-earned reputation. The Mysteries of 9/11 reside on a treacherous, slippery slope on the margins of Respectability, aka the Zone of Legitimate Debate.
At first I thought that you'd innocently fallen for quickstepper's bait, but I think you've been around long enough to know that quickstepper always lays down a snarky "Building 7" reference in comments to Goodman articles-- like laying down a Whoopee Cushion, or maybe just marking territory.
It's a familiar Trutherphobe provocation to divert the discussion, so that later on, fellow-travelers can complain about how the "Truthers" always corrupt comments threads with their obsession. I presume you deliberately took the bait.
I like Goodman and appreciate her work, though not sufficiently for her dittoheads. I find her demure, nun-like piety and demeanor cloying at times.
Maybe there's something about that "nun-like" quality that inspires such fierce, protective devotion from her devout admirers. The slightest criticism or fault-finding provokes the kind of High Dudgeon one might expect from Opus Dei Catholics to criticisms of Mother Teresa.
Who cares if you think she is like a "nun", she is a great reporter and I am not even religious.
Thanks for proving my point, Jim. I remember you going ballistic on previous Goodman columns, and was pretty sure you'd snap at me if you saw this. ;)
OK, So you were waiting for my reply.
If that is a point, you proved my point of distraction.
Amy did a great job of reporting on torture (the topic of discussion) and that is my point.
Thanks
Obedient Servant. Thanks for your reply. Paul
Obedient Servant.....I could critique Amy Goodman's style in several ways. But the bottom line is that she isn't a 'saint'. She is a human being who has done a lot of hard work and has a deep committment to sorting through endless possible issues and stories to bring the truth as well as she is able.
I am agreeing with you , (i think) ;-) ......And find your comments, as usual, very eloquent and insightful. I think that craving professional respectability is a valid desire, though. Were you saying that is wrong? I can't really tell.
Interestingly, Bill Moyers had a show last year where he spoke with a couple of journalists - maybe even three (Glenn G. was one, i think). And Moyers brought up Amy Goodman. They discussed why she will never be invited to discuss issues on MSM Sunday morning shows, for example. They were saying that her world view is so different from the accepted american narrative, that it would seem to people that she was from another planet. They wouldn't have the same reference points regarding the issues.
Whatever Amy personally does or doesn't think about certain issues, we may never really know.
peace,
rita
P.S. There were times, during the past ten years,when i was grateful to hear the horrors of the day, coming from her mouth. Because i could sense her caring and it made it more bearable to feel that the person speaking this news was also deeply moved by it herself.
Also. I saw this interview the piece refers to. It was very painful to witness. I will say that there are times when Amy opens up deep emotions in her interviewees and then seems at a loss as to how to respond.
I once wrote her after an interview with a man who had been sexually abused in his torture at a rendition site. I could tell he didn't want to talk about it, and she didn't seem to get that it was very shameful for him to speak about....on top of all the other traumatic emotions involved. I expressed my observation and just thought it was something to be aware of in the future.
o.k....Whew!! Enough said.....
Rita, I'm responding because I have a feeling that (like me), you check day-old comments threads for responses.
For better or worse, web sites that change content daily impart a "moving forward" tendency that turns the discussion threads into bagels; they're only "good" the day they're made. It's natural that regulars are mostly inclined to keep up with the latest input.
But I digress. You astutely twigged that I'm not enamored of respectability per se, professional or otherwise. It implies an affinity or tolerance for conformity, moderation, sham, and social piety which Yr. Obd't Servant does not possess.
I'm not telling Amy or anyone else to eschew respectability. But I see it as a deal with the devil.
Also, FWIW, I trust you aren't suggesting that style, demeanor, and other personal attributes are superficial or trivial-- or that commenting upon them is deplorably catty.
This is a difficult subject to discuss, especially since there are so many half-assed pop culture memes derived from formal logic and forensic debate sticking up like speed bumps. Specifically, the woolly notion that taking notice of personal attributes automatically constitutes an "ad hominem" fallacy, and is something that intelligent (or respectable) people shouldn't deign to discuss.
I think how public figures present themselves is significant and telling, and not merely a matter of taste.
I've been casually throwing around terms from Jay Rosen's schema of public discourse, and here it comes again. Rosen makes a problematic but useful enough division into three "spheres": common understanding (basics agreed upon by rational people without debate, i.e. the sun rises in the east); legitimate debate (all the current events crap in the news); deviance (socially unacceptable topics including the 9/11 mysteries).
This is well and good, but these divisions also occur WITHIN the overarching zones Rosen describes. So, as the Moyers discussion you reference brings out, from the mainstream corporate-media Consent-Manufacturing perspective, Amy Goodman and "Democracy Now" are in the "Sphere of Deviance".
As I noted before, it's both touching and exasperating how devoted admirers freak out at even the suggestion that their idol has even clay beneath a toenail, never mind feet of clay. I'm that way about Cindy Sheehan, possibly because she chose authenticity, passion, and truth over respectability. But then, I'm a rogue.
In conclusion, although I do admire and respect Amy and her work, I also think this verse from "Ballad of a Thin Man" applies:
"You've been with professors, and they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you've discussed lepers and crooks
You've read all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read, it's well known
But something is happening here and you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"
Obedient Servant............Great, great response to good old me!
I love "Ballad of a Thin Man". And who in the world but YOU could possibly use those lyrics to elucidate on the topic of Amy Goodman. She is a very strange combination of qualities. I've run into her a few times and had an exchange or two.
I also do not go for professional respectability and do things my very own way. Believe me. But she wants to be in as many media spheres as possible. Actually, i think since obama, she has gotten a little off her game.
And yes, i do check back to old threads, if i remember that i was involved. So, thank you for your consideration.
Are you the poster who lives around Philadelphia, may i ask?
Yes, I am.
She probably cannot vet most of the relevant information any better than anyone else has - and no one has done so well, though researchers have done good work opening questions.
After 9 years, one can vet that the gov't's story does not wash, but little else. That's not really news, is it?
It is not quite like asking why she doesn't dig into the King or Kennedy assassinations or the sinking of the Lusitania, but the reasons for not reporting it again in 2010 are similar: What we do know is old; what we do not know we do not know, at least for present.
It's good that people speculate and research these things -- including the assassinations and the Lusitania. And it is good that there be outlets for speculation and would they were better, but Goodman's program is hardly the place for an 8-year-old story as yet unsettled, unless something new and revealing can be produced and verified.
With all due respect, bardamu, this defense strikes me as a bit circular and disingenuous.
Even accepting the dubious premise that presently there's really nothing new, informative, or compelling to say about the Mystery of 9/11, that's doesn't justify a certain skittishness towards questioning or critiquing the Official Conspiracy Theory ever since the catastrophe itself-- which occurred in "Democracy Now"'s back yard.
And without researching the question in the DN archives, I'm confident that "old news" topics come up regularly there-- especially if such "old news" is an untreated infection that impinges on a range of current events.
The mosque controversy is a handy example.
Say that if by some miracle, Noam Chomsky had a change of heart and began discussing the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory as a case study in Manufacturing Consent. Amy would have him on in a heartbeat!
Yes, you might reply, but that's because anything Chomsky had to say on the subject would qualify as "revealing".
But how are we to determine what's "revealing" if the alternative news media consistently declines to "reveal" anything on the subject in the first place?
_______________________________________
This exchange from the movie classic "Duck Soup" illustrates my point:
Rufus T. Firefly: And now, members of the cabinet... [pounds gavel] we'll take up old business.
Cabinet Member: I wish to discuss the tariff.
Rufus T. Firefly: Sit down, that's new business. No old business?
Very well... [pounds gavel] we'll take up new business.
Cabinet Member: Now, about that tariff...
Rufus T. Firefly: Too late, that's old business already. Sit down.
It is a waste of time to discuss politics with the 911 truthers. Just as one can ignore god and have a perfectly coherent political analysis, so too can you ignore 911 truthers and continue to criticize the american government and the american war machine. Blame seeking is a useless game. See who's ox is being gored and carry on. Personally, I think the men who blew up the trade center were trying to make a statement about the insanity of war; trying to jolt the human race into peaceful coexistence.
exactly quick , 911 expose' is the rosetta stone to tumbling this house of cardsharks...false flag Mossad op
Our government has 50,000 troops in Iraq who are regularly "invited" by our puppets to help the Iraqi army fight their designated terrorists. Furthermore, the greater part of Americans holding rifles in Iraq are the Blackwaters and their friendly competitors.
So is this "their" systematic torture or is it our own government's systematic torture, which violates a convention ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate and which therefore is equally U.S. law with all other laws?
Mr. President, I can't help you with your administration's coverup of illegal activities. Many members of your staff deserve to stand in front of a judge at this point. You have immunity from prosecution during your term of office, depending on who is in Congress.
I hope all of these greedy power hungry tortures are judged with the same leniency by their God as they judge others.
Goodman does some good reporting, but Democracy Now!, like all the progressive sites, such as this one, ignores the 911 Truth movement. Why pick her out of the mix? Personally, I find her cloying, as Obedient Servant put it. I don't completely buy into her projected reality any more than I do anybody's in the media, and I do find it disturbing that she's become our little secular Virgin Mary--seems like some vestige of religiously-perverted mommy adoration among the agnostics. But at least she's getting the message across that torture is ongoing, just in case anyone on these progressive sites assumed otherwise.
"We do not torture," Obama proclaimed. How ridiculous. After the term itself had been tortured out of any sensible definition, how could anyone have thought that meant anything?
I like Goodman too(war and environmental coverage) but I think they are Democrats at Democracynow.org.
Yes, why is no discussion about WHY there is no 9/11 investigation?
And when are we going to see coverage of how bad this health care deform bill is?
Prior to the passage of the junk bill, Goodman did have PNHP docs and single payer folks on--but nothing now. Why?
Last night, I nearly flipped when Goodman's guest praised Obama for passing "NATIONAL HEALTH CARE." Goodman said nothing.
They're covering too much tea party shit as the MSM does--it's almost like they are sending a subliminal fear signal to vote for Democrats. I never see Greens or "liberal" Indies on the show.
"...and I do find it disturbing that she's become our little secular Virgin Mary--seems like some vestige of religiously-perverted mommy adoration among the agnostics." –(Elizabeth H)
-Well said, all the better for being true.
This same phenomena of adulatory iconifying, regrettably, is not uncommon. Zinn, Chomsky, now even the new 'high priest' for the idolators, Glenn Greenwald...come to mind.
Too many 'darlings,' cults,' and 'priesthood's' all the way around. Consumption of 'pop culture' as 'pop politics.'
Not that one must not read them, as often one must, but know who they are and are becoming.
And no doubt Amy G, does have that 'cuteness.'
–(Vashkar)
The torture is far worse than described here. Two easy examples: Child rape--sometimes in front of the parents, sometimes recorded and played for the parents--to get the parents to "talk."
http://boingboing.net/2004/07/15/hersh-children-raped.html
Or the guy whose penis was repeatedly cut with a scalpel during questioning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/02/terrorism.humanrights1
And on and on. This is just what we're hearing about through the massive filter and media compliance.
I submit that they are probably raping people to death and eating body parts, or maybe alive.
There is no apparent end to their depravity. No matter bad you thought it was, a little digging reveals it is far worse.
Without all-out refusal to participate, we are doomed to the same circle of Hell as the other good Germans.
Pedophilia, from its Latin roots, means "child love". Child sodomy used as a form of wartime torture at Abu Ghraib, with parents then forced to watch some brutal screaming from a kid, isn't even as imaginable as serial pedophilia, a crime which already flips Americans out.
Our soldiers, all of the American mothers' precious sons and daughters, are returning from Iraq and hundreds of thousands of them have mental anguish. Guys! What happened to you over there? Will you ever be able to talk about it?
Perhaps they can use hand-puppets.
Let's all say "thanks" to Obama and the Democratic Party pile of crap who have carried out the traditions of Bush/Cheney.
Read Tariq Ali's "THE OBAMA SYNDROME"