5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 16 2010, 10:52am EDT
Contact:
AIUSA media office,Email:,media@aiusa.org,Phone: 202-544-0200 x302
Amnesty International Demands Full Investigation of Egyptian Man's Death Allegedly by Torture in Police Custody
Human Rights Organizations Says Family Found Body Covered in Bruises After Man was Detained
LONDON
Egyptian authorities must investigate
without delay allegations that a young man was tortured to death at a police
station in Alexandria, and guarantee the safety of another young man still
in custody there, Amnesty International said today.
The family of Ahmed Shaaban, 19, alleged
that he died after being tortured and abused by police officers at Sidi
Gaber police station on November 7, and that his body was then dumped into
a canal near his neighborhood to give the impression that he committed
suicide.
"These disturbing allegations of enforced
disappearance and death in custody, and possibly unlawful killing by police,
must be immediately and fully investigated by an independent body," said
Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's director for the Middle East and
North Africa.
Shaaban went missing, allegedly in police
detention, on November 7. His corpse was returned to his family on
November 11, his body and head covered in bruises, which family members
attribute to police torture and beating. His
friend, Ahmed Farrag Labib
is reportedly in custody and being denied access to his family and lawyers.
Shaaban's family learned on November
7 that he was arrested at a police check point on his way back from a wedding,
and taken to Sidi Gaber police station together with Labib.
When his family went to the police station
to look for Shaaban, police told them he was not detained there, but admitted
they detained Labib for the theft of a mobile phone.
The day after his disappearance, Shaaban's
family received an anonymous phone call informing them that he was in detention
and being tortured at Sidi Gaber police station.
On November 11, the family was informed
that Shaaban's body had been found and was at the morgue. Police
reportedly told the family not to hold a funeral but to bury the body immediately.
Members of the security forces are said to have accompanied the family
at the burial and afterwards have been stationed near the family's home.
"The Egyptian authorities must ensure
that Labib is protected against possible torture or other mistreatment,
and not intimidated by those detaining him," said Smart. "His
evidence about what occurred on November 7 is likely to be crucial in uncovering
the truth."
In a separate case, two police officers
from Sidi Gaber station are currently being tried in connection with the
death of Khaled Said, a young man who is alleged to have been dragged out
of an internet cafe by plainclothes police and beaten to death in public
on the sidewalk.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
'Desperate' Trump Sends More Troops and Mulls Ground Invasion of Iran as Hormuz Crisis Deepens
"The US has lost control of this war," said foreign policy expert Trita Parsi.
Mar 20, 2026
As fears mount that he may soon launch a ground invasion of Iran, President Donald Trump is sending thousands more Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, three US officials said that an expeditionary unit of about 2,500 Marines, among roughly 4,000 total service members, departed from San Diego aboard three ships on Wednesday—the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and two amphibious transport dock ships, the USS Portland and the USS Comstock.
They will join around 50,000 US troops already in the Middle East, including another unit of around 2,500 Marines who were reported to be headed to the region last week, just before Trump launched an assault that struck military installations on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports.
Officials said it was not known for what purpose the additional troops were being deployed.
Trump was coy this week when asked by reporters if he planned to send ground troops into Iran.
“No, I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
He previously emphasized that he would not be afraid to put "boots on the ground" in Iran if he deems it necessary.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground—like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” the president told The New York Post at the beginning of March.
With US gas prices nearing $4 per gallon and expected to climb further due to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reported on Friday that Trump is weighing plans to have US troops occupy Kharg Island, through which about 90% of Iran's oil exports move, in a bid to pressure Tehran into reopening the critical waterway.
Foreign policy experts have warned that a full-scale occupation of Kharg Island would be likely to fail and put more troops in harm's way while further embroiling the US in a quagmire.
"Even a blockade of Kharg Island would not force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz," said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. "For Tehran, control over the Strait is not just economic leverage—it is a core component of regime survival and deterrence."
"Reopening the Strait would likely require one of two extreme options: either regime change, or a large-scale military campaign to seize and secure the waterway. Such an operation would take months and still wouldn’t prevent Iran from disrupting traffic through asymmetric means."
Dominic Waghorn, the international affairs editor of Sky News, explained that "opening up a waterway that can be blocked again by cheap, easily deployable drones will be hugely challenging" and will likely only demonstrate to Tehran that the United States is "desperate."
The idea of sending ground troops into Iran is also deathly unpopular with the American public. In a Data For Progress poll published Thursday, 68% of voters surveyed said they would oppose putting boots on the ground, compared to just 26% who'd support it.
Even Republicans, who've generally backed Trump's military interventions to the hilt even though the president campaigned on "no new wars," are split on the idea, with 48% saying they'd oppose it and 48% in support.
Nevertheless, one official told Axios that in addition to the Marine units already heading to the Middle East, the Pentagon was considering sending even more troops soon.
"He wants Hormuz open," the official said, referring to Trump. "If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that's going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that's going to happen. But that decision hasn't been made."
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted earlier this week that the Strait of Hormuz would never have become an issue in the first place were it not for Trump's decision to launch a "war of choice" against Iran.
"I don't think President Trump, in his own words frankly, understood what he was getting into," Sadjadpour told NPR. "What began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity. I don't think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory."
The war is costing American taxpayers $1-2 billion per day, according to lawmakers familiar with the Pentagon budget who spoke with The Intercept earlier this week, which estimated that it could cost trillions in the decades to come if prolonged.
"The US has lost control of this war," said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He said that even if Trump pulled out now and declared victory, Iran would be determined to inflict maximum costs.
"Iran has leverage for the first time in years and will seek to trade it in," he said. "It has publicly demanded a closing of US bases, reparations, and sanctions relief in order to stop shooting at Israel and open the straits."
If the president's base of supporters begins to sour on the war, Parsi said, "it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
Keep Reading
Show Less
After Dropping 'Made-Up' Allegation Against Maduro, DOJ Now Reportedly Probing Colombia's Petro
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
Mar 20, 2026
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump AI Framework Would Deliver 'Big Tech's Top Policy Priority': A Ban on State Regulations
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
Mar 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular