'How I escaped from torture in Iran'

[RedWine]

Nearly a third of people worldwide back the use of torture in prisons in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.
Although 59% were opposed to torture, 29% thought it acceptable to use some degree of torture to combat terrorism.

While most polled in the US are against torture, opposition there is less robust than in Europe and elsewhere.

More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture was acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.


Some 36% of those questioned in the US agreed that this use of torture was acceptable, while 58% were unwilling to compromise on human rights.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42213000/gif/_42213834_prison_torture.gif

The percentage favouring torture in certain cases makes it one of the highest of all the countries polled.

The majority of those questioned in the BBC World Service poll - 19 of the 25 countries surveyed - agree that clear rules against torture in prisons should be maintained because it is immoral and its use would weaken human rights standards.

"The dominant view around the world is that terrorism does not warrant bending the rules against torture," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), whose organisation helped conduct the survey.

Saving lives?

All of the countries surveyed have signed up to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of torture and cruel and degrading behaviour.

But countries that face political violence are more likely to accept the idea that some degree of torture is permissible because of the extreme threat posed by terrorists.

Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.

However, a larger percentage - 48% - think it should remain prohibited.

Other countries that polled higher levels of acceptance of the use of torture include Iraq (42%), the Philippines (40%), Indonesia (40%), Russia (37%) and China (37%).

The Israeli figure conceals a stark difference in attitude within the country, split along religious lines.

A majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53%, favour allowing governments to use some degree of torture to obtain information from those in custody, while 39% want clear rules against it.

But Muslims in Israel, who represent 16% of the total number polled, are overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

Meanwhile opposition to the practise is highest in Italy, where 81% of those questioned think torture is never justified.

Australia, France, Canada, the UK and Germany also registered high levels of opposition to any use of torture.


The survey was carried out for the BBC World Service by polling firm Globescan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

[RedWine]

It's interesting and at the same time disturbing to see political attacks against the wearing of the niqab (as to be contrasted with the hijab) by senior members of the British government. Particularly in light of the undeniable growth of Islamophobia around the world.

While this question doesn’t effect most Iranians, since the overwhelming majority of Iranian Muslims don’t wear the niqab (in fact I’ve never seen an Iranian Muslim wearing a niqab has so I’d welcome commentary on the matter), the fact that it is evidence of growing demonization of Muslims bears witness. A quick search on wikipedia alone reveals the following facts.

In 2006, a YouGov poll conducted in the UK found that 53% of people polled feel threatened by the religion of Islam (in contrast with fundamentalist Islamists). Only 16% of those polled believe “practically all British Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who deplore terrorist acts as much as anyone else.”

Islamophobia is even higher in the US. A 2006 Gallup survey of American public opinion found that “many Americans harbor strong bias against U.S. Muslims.” The numbers are not only stark, but disturbing:

1. 22% say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.
2. 34% believe U.S. Muslims support al-Qaeda.
3. 49% believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.
4. 39% advocate that U.S. Muslims should carry special ID

We often forget, but as Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, warns us; even the current row over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad are less about tenets on Islam which prohibit such depictions, but more about the Islamophic ideologies which led to those depictions.

And can we at all deny the fact that a large number of Iranians living outside of Iran harbor generally prejudicial attitudes toward Muslims, especially practicing Iranian Muslims.

Putting that aside, for a moment, I think its worth noting that this issue concerning the niqab is not one unique to the West or to this time.

During my time in Cairo, security officials who guarded the gates to the American University in Cairo eventually were successful in enacting rules which would require women in a niqab to show their face in order to gain entry on campuses. Security officials had complained that they could not ensure the security of students without being able to clearly identify students entering the campus.

Given the serious threats of terrorism posed to the American University, particularly because of the ongoing war in Iraq, university officials changed their policies requiring women to show their faces when entering the campus.

Despite this limited application, however, the change in law spurred an entire debate on the implications the niqab has on the environment altogether.

For example, a number of professors I spoke to, both foreign and Egyptian, stated that women wearing the niqab inhibit their capacity to teach students in the class. They argued, much like Jack Straw noted, that the presence of a woman robed in black from head to toe is a disturbing and uncomfortable site.

Moreover, because the same women who wear niqab also feel they are prohibited from speaking in front of men, women who wear niqab would not participate in class, work in groups, ask questions, or do presentations.

The point is that there are some legitimate issues behind the niqab. Issues which extend beyond their religious propriety (which is highly questionable in my mind) but that concern their compatibility with fundamental tenets of social and political lives.

However, these issues can be highly distorted and manipulated by current trends of Islamophobia which clearly pervade the Western world and amongst the Iranian Diaspora, and thus should be addressed carefully, rather then recklessly as evidenced by the conduct of both Jack Straw and Tony Blair.

[RedWine]

نظرسنجی از 27 هزار نفر در 25 کشور جهان در مورد شکنجه نشان داده است که تقريبا يک سوم از آنها موافق استفاده از اين روش توسط دولت ها برای مبارزه با اقدامات تروريستی هستند.
اما، در اين نظرسنجی - که به سفارش بی بی سی توسط سازمان بين المللی گلوب اسکن انجام شده است - 59 درصد مخالف شکنجه اند، حتی اگر انگيزه از استفاده از آن کسب اطلاعات برای نجات جان قربانيان حملات تروريستی باشد.

کسانی که در اين نظرسنجی از شکنجه در موارد خاص حمايت کرده اند به طور کلی از کشورهايی بوده اند که از ديد آنها نبرد با خشونت های سياسی موضوعی ملی است. اسرائيل، آمريکا، هند و چين از جمله اين کشورها بوده اند.

بيشترين ميزان مخالفت با شکنجه در کشورهای اروپای غربی، استراليا و کانادا ابراز شده است.

نظرات متفاوت

43 درصد از سوال شوندگان در اسرائيل، 42 درصد در عراق ، 36 درصد در آمريکا و 32 درصد در هند بر اين باورند که اگر شکنجه در حدی محدود بتواند جان افراد بی گناه را نجات دهد اقدامی قابل قبول است.

37 درصد از شرکت کنندگان در اين نظرسنجی در چين موافق و 49 درصد مخالف شکنجه بوده اند.

در مقابل، در بريتانيا، با 72 درصد جواب منفی اکثرا با شکنجه به هر شکل آن و در هر شرايطی مخالف بوده اند. اين آمار خود منعکس کننده مخالفت قوی کشورهای غربی با استفاده از شکنجه است.

آمار به دست آمده از اسرائيل جالب توجه است چون در دل خود تفاوت فاحش ميان نگرش اکثريت يهوديان اين کشور با اقليت عرب آن را پنهان کرده است.

اين دو گروه از شهروندان اسرائيل در ارتباط با جو امنيتی حاکم بر اين کشور نگرش های متفاوتی دارند.

شکنجه چيست؟

در مباحثه هايی که در مورد شکنجه صورت می گيرد همواره در باره تعريف آن مشکلاتی پيش می آيد.

اين نظرسنجی تلاش نکرده که تعريفی برای شکنجه مطرح کند.

بازجويی چه زمانی تبديل به شکنجه می شود؟ مرز ميان فشار و شکنجه کجاست؟

در حالی که دولت جورج بوش، رييس جمهور آمريکا، می گويد "جنگ بين المللی عليه تروريسم" را دنبال می کند، اين گونه سوالات در محور بحث های آمريکايی قرار گرفته است.


شکايات از شکنجه توسط پليس عراق گسترده است

جنجال بر سر انتقال مظنونين به اقدامات تروريستی از کشوری به کشور ديگر، که احتمالا به مکان هايی است که از شکنجه استفاده می شود، باعث تنش ميان آمريکا و برخی از متحدين مهم اين کشور در اروپا شده است.

جنگ و گريز

بحث بر سر شکنجه فراتر از بحث ميان ايده آليست ها و واقع گراهاست. اين موضوع به سياست های قابل اجرای روزمره مربوط می شود.

سناتور جان مک کين، از جمله کانديداهای حزب جمهوريخواه که ممکن است در انتخابات رياست جمهوری سال 2008 پيروز شود، جنگ و گريزی شديد عليه دولت بوش را رهبری می کند تا اين دولت را وادار کند شکنجه را برای هميشه غيرقانونی کند.

تلاش های وی که پس از افشای سوءرفتار با زندانيان در زندان ابوغريب عراق و همچنين انتشار گزارش ها از ديگر زندان های عراق و افغانستان آغاز شد منجر به وضع قوانين جديد برای منع شکنجه و هر گونه رفتار بی رحمانه شده است.

البته قوانينی که وضع شد سازشی ميان نظر دولت بوش و منتقدان آن بوده که به باور مدافعان حقوق بشر و وکلا راه را همچنان برای سوءرفتار باز گذاشته است.

آنها می گويند به همان اندازه که پيدا کردن يک تعريف واحد و وضع کردن قوانين برای منع رفتارهای خاص مهم است نظارت قانونی بر اقدامات مسئولان کشورها نيز اهميت دارد.

برای اين موضوع پاسخ راحتی نمی توان ارائه داد.

برای بسياری - بنابر نتيجه اين نظرسنجی اکثريت قابل توجهی - شکنجه به خودی خود عملی مشمئزکننده است و هيچ شرايطی توجيه کننده دست زدن به اين اقدام نيست.

اما برای گروهی کوچک تر، که در مقياس جهانی جمعيتی قابل توجه به شمار می آيد، جايگاهی برای شکنجه وجود دارد.

اين نقطه نظر بار ديگر ما را به اين سوال حساس و خطرناک باز می گرداند: بازجويان تا کجا اجازه دارند که پيش بروند؟

[RedWine]

It has been almost a year ago that I was in Iran. The numerous articles that I have written since show my fascination with my country of birth and all that I witnessed during my trip-as is true of many of us who return. While going to meet old friends for a sort of reunion, friends who had come from all over the world in the summer of 1384/2005, I stopped to buy big, juicy and blood red-colored shahtoot (mulberries) from a standing truck for our hosts. As for most Iranians, for me eating delicious shahtoot is a nostalgic affair-one of many!

On the way to Farmanieh, one of Tehran's northern, wealthy neighborhoods, located just beneath the Alborz Mountains, where we were attending this reunion, I asked my brother to stop so that I could buy two notebooks from a lavazem tahrir, or a stationary store; I had already decided to write a journal of my everyday account in Iran.

As I was about to pay for the notebooks, I noticed that the store also sold regular books. On the counter I saw a book called Dadeh Bidad: Nakhosteen zendan-e zanan-e siyasi-1350-1357 (Cries from the Heart: The First Women's Political Prison-1971-1978 by Vida Hajebi Tabrizi. The name immediately rang a bell, and I was intrigued. I asked the lady if she had more than one copy, to which she responded that she had two more. I bought all three copies.

We had our reunion which was a wonderfully happy occasion. All of us had of course changed. The guys were older and grayer or balder, and the women didn't have the same youthful features, yet we were all full of life, those of us who had come from abroad and those who had remained and lived in Iran during all the turbulent times. We were jolly to see each other and at the same time, there were sad moments; we reminisced about the past and talked about our lives in the present, whether in Iran, the US, Canada or France.

We departed on a good note, expressing a wish to get together again, hopefully in a better and freer atmosphere. One goes to Iran with little expectation, or one expects the worst. It's funny that when you come back, even if you have experienced unhappy moments, you return feeling homesick, wanting to go back again. At least that's what happened to me.

I started reading Hajebi Tabrizi's book. I could not put it down. The woman at the counter told me that this book had been reprinted five times. She also told me that the second volume, which contains the accounts of women political prisoners in the jails of the Islamic Republic, was only being copied and sold clandestinely. (The original two-volume edition was printed and published in Germany in 2004.) I started reading the book, fascinated by the accounts it offered about women, some of whom I had heard of or read about in my teenage years; it tells the story of female political prisoners during the Shah's time, in Ghasr and Evin, both prisons built during the Pahlavi era and used by Savak torturers, infamous men like Shahriari, Hossein Zadeh (Atta Poor), Hosseini (Mohammad Ali Sha'abani who was the head of Evin prison before the revolution) a gorilla-like monster, Azodi (Mohammad Hassan Nasseri) or Tehrani (Bahman Naderi-Pour) and Rassouli( Nozari). Later, they were replaced with new interrogators, all of whom were known as Haji Aqa, men like Haji Rahmani, and other Haji Aghas! This book includes interviews with well known women who were tortured, such as Fahimeh Farsai, Atefeh Ja'afari, Farideh Lashai and Mastoureh Ahmad Zadeh, the sister of Massoud, Majid and Mojtabah.

"From childhood, my father, [Taher Ahmad Zadeh]* had been imprisoned many times and behind prison doors, I was a witness to arrest and torture. I myself was arrested and jailed in Mahshad for the first time for engaging in a strike. The place was not foreign to me. After a while, in the new prison, I lifted the mattress, and found the imprint of Evin on it. I had heard of Evin many a times. The prison had been established during Teimour Bahktiar's* tenure; it was located in the village of Evin; the locale had been turned into a dreadful place of imprisonment. It was one of the worst torture chambers of Savak. But I had no fear. I had done nothing wrong. Additionally, in those days, being incarcerated on political grounds was an honor. I always asked myself why men were the only ones who were kept in prison. In Mashad prison, they released all of us and only kept the boys." (Mastoureh Ahmad Zadeh)

Farideh Lashai whose brother, Kourosh, also a leftist, repented, later worked with the Shah's regime and then died. I met Farideh who is now an artist, at a birthday party for another friend in Lavasoun that summer, a friend who had been arrested, imprisoned, tortured and then for twenty-seven years was not allowed to leave the country; he had shown me his feet; there were marks from the torture burns he had received in the prisons of the Islamic Republic. His only crime had been that he was signatory to a letter criticizing the government and that his father, the late Ali Shayegan, wanted to become the next President of Iran! Anyway, these are side stories even if they are gripping.

The story of this book is the story of women, many of whom came from an intellectual milieu, upper middle class families of Iran. Most were smart university students who either had leftist/Marxist tendencies or were religious. They were sympathizers or members of the then Fedayeen-e Khalgh or Mojahedin-e Khalgh and other political groups. Prison knows no boundaries and a special camaraderie exists beyond ideology. They lived, worked, exercised, ate, and spent good and bad times together. These women looked after each other, even those who had been jailed for killing a husband or were there for other crimes other than political ones.

"We would do anything we could especially for the religious prisoners. We would wake up and be on their side during Ramadan, made sure they had good food for Eftar (breaking the fast). During prayers, we would keep quiet so that they could recite the Koran loudly on their own. One was a Mrs. Dabagh, who was very devout and who wanted to learn English. She was released in 1353/1974. I don't remember taking care of anybody as much as we took care of her. After the revolution, Mrs. Dabagh became the head of Bassij in Ghazvin." (Sedigheh Serafat)

"There was Nahid Kermanshahi, she was a dancer from the famous Café Jamshid. She knew all the details of what was going on in prison. She was both outspoken and charming. She was big and voluptuous. She had been jailed twenty fives time for drug related issues. She was popular and well respected in prison. She especially had a lot of respect for us, female political prisoners; she would bring us food and would notify us about what was going on." (Mehri Mehrabadi)

A woman who remains anonymous was raped by a Savaki. "When they first came to our house and arrested me, my brother and sister, I was awaiting any kind of torture. When we arrived to prison, they had blindfolded us and they took us immediately to the interrogation room. They started to use foul language and insulted us. They took off all my clothes, including my pants. They started to curse me. They bound me to a chair and they started beating me hard. Then they used cigarettes on my nipples. It was fun and games for them. First I wanted to know what they wanted from me. I had lost all senses. I was feeling totally insulted and humiliated. I felt lonely and weak in front of men who were like savages. There was a world of difference between what I felt and I had read at that moment. Once they got tired of beating me, I suddenly felt a terrible pain. My whole body ached. I couldn't tell where the pain was coming from. Finally under the blind fold, I saw that one of the interrogators was raping me." (?)

[RedWine]

Then there was Ghazal (Pari Dokth Ayati) as they called her, tall, with beautiful black eyes. She had been arrested in 1353/1974. She was very talented; she had influenced all the other prisoners with her gentle and caring demeanor. She had a stunning voice and would sing for the prisoners. She was released some time later, and then killed in a shoot-out with police. "She was both Pari (an angel) and Ghazal (gazelle)."

Some gave birth to their babies in prison. Many of them lost brothers or husbands in clashes with the Shah's police while in prison. Yet they tried to entertain each other, listen to music or even put on plays. The more hard line prisoners, whether leftist or with religious tendencies, called such acts "bourgeois" and others, the spectators, just admired the women who by acting in a famous Western play tried to change the harsh atmosphere in prison, give it a more human face. Though at times, they would be ridiculed by the more staunch revolutionaries who thought their actions were too bourgeois. "I had hidden books by Chekhov and an edition of Hamlet under my clothes. I would read them at nights when everyone was asleep. During the day, I would take notes. I was not scared of acting alone in reading these books or that I had stolen them from the prison library but more than anything I was scared that I was reading Shakespeare and Chekhov." (Farideh Lashaii)

At that time, even writing short political stories was considered a political offense. Fahimeh Farsa'i, who was not a sympathizer of any organization, was arrested one evening when she was returning from a dinner party. She used to write for Zan-e Rooz and Tamasha, mainly literary stories. "They told me, get your things together, we are taking you. I was bewildered; why? I asked. They said, don't talk too much and let's go. I was a law student. I asked them on what legal grounds are you arresting me? I have rights according to the law. They laughed. Their top guy slapped me so hard that I got numb. This isn't the time to seek justice, he said. One of them found a book by Margaret Duras. He said, what is the meaning of this emblem on the cover? Is it some kind of secret? I thought for a moment about the stupidity of these men and said nothing." (Fahimeh Farsa'i)

It was the year 1974, in Boroujerd, when the Savak started their crackdown. They arrested fifty to sixty people in all. "I was seven month pregnant. I was sure they wouldn't do anything harsh to me, since I was pregnant. They wanted information from me. I said that I knew nothing. But they had a whole file. My interrogator, named Arash, came in and started insulting me. I also had heart problems. I thought maybe they would spare me torture but everyone knew of Arash's special torture. He was proud that he had learned this method in Israel, where someone would sit on the prisoner's chest, press both hands under the eyes, and little by little try to squeeze the eye balls out. But he couldn't do this quite right, since it was not easy to sit on the chest of a seven-month pregnant woman."(Farideh Azami)

Marzieh Ahmadi Oskou'i was a teacher. "We met in the late 1960's in the girls' dorms of the School of Sepah-e Danesh (education crusade during the Shah). She was likable and sincere; we hit it off immediately. I had been raised in Shiraz in a modest family. Tehran seemed incredibly vast and new to me. We both passed the university entrance exams (concours). The Savak had been after her for a while, and eventually she was exiled to a remote village in Azerbaijan to teach. For a while, she was left alone by the Savak.

And then one day, when I was in prison, they took me to the Komiteh*, and my interrogator showed me a picture; it was of Marzieh and Shirin (Mo'azed). Their bodies, half naked; their beautiful faces and their mouths, had been disfigured and were dark from the cyanide they had taken. Their chadors, their gun and their shoes were besides them. They had been found out by infiltrators. I wanted to shout. I began to cry hard." (Sedigheh Serafat)

"Mrs. Massoumeh Shadmani (Kabiri) was a Mojahed. She had endured harsh torture in the Shah's prisons. Her resistance was phenomenal. But they finally killed her. I remember just before the revolution, in 1978, the representative of Red Cross had come to visit the prisons. After seeing her badly bruised body and her broken legs, he said,

"The horrors in Iran's prisons are innumerable." (Roghieh Daneshgari)

Times were hard on these women; those who did not die from torture, or in street shootings or by taking cyanide, were released a few years before the revolution of 1979, although the scar of torture stayed with them and will for the rest of their lives. Some even committed suicide later. "Zahra Zolfaghari had been tortured so severely that she became insane. Later after her release, in the early 1980's, she committed suicide."

"There, they had built a hell where death was the only way out." (Simin)

I never found the copy of the book on women prisons under the Islamic Republic. Nevertheless, I have read enough other tales to know that torture continued in an even harsher manner in the prisons of the Islamic regime. I saw "Zendan-e- Zanan," a film made about women prisoners, political ones, prostitutes and drug addicts, all in the same cells. It shows terrible abuse, both sexual abuse by older women and other humiliating acts by women prison guards, the Hejab Poushan, the "pious" ones who claim to teach good lessons to their captors. Women with complexes who have been given power and authority, women who may have been abused themselves by their fathers or husbands and who are now in a position of authority, are inflicting harm on their female compatriots. The tale of torture in the prisons of Iran dates back to the Pahlavi era, under the father and the son, and it continues to this day, after twenty-seven years of a revolution that was supposed to bring freedom and justice. Many of these women, the women in Vida Hajebi's book, fought for that sacred goal, for their ideals. Yet, their struggle did not culminate in anything positive. Many concluded that they were engaged in the wrong combat in their struggle against the Shah's dictatorship, one that had nothing to do with the real conditions in Iran. "Many years later, we realized that our idealism had nothing to do with the realities of our society." (Sedigheh Serafat).

[RedWine]

Vida said at the end of her book, "even though our organization (Fedayeen) was well respected at the onset of the revolution, our effort to 'emancipate the masses' was futile. Because of our political mistakes and the existing conditions in our society, it backfired. Today, more than any other time, I believe even more in our ideals for justice but for realizing this very sacred goal of humanity, I believe our path was a wrong one. What we lost was far greater than what we achieved." (Vida Hajebi)

For the majority of these women, torture scarred not just their bodies but their souls. Many of them not only endured the torture of prison but came back to dysfunctional families, became depressed or disillusioned about idealism or the ideology they had believed in. Torture scars the body visibly but it does more profound damage: it damages the soul, kills it.

Torture still continues in Iran's prisons on a different scale, even harsher, both psychologically and physically. Since the birth of the Islamic Republic, women have been tortured, executed and even killed by stoning- in the age of nuclear power! Not so long ago, Zahra Kazemi was a victim of that horrendous act and she died as a result. Yet, her murderer was sent to Geneva as Mr. Ahmadi Nejad's emissary to head the Iranian human rights delegation to the U.N.!

Torture is used daily; changing people's lives and those around them forever as it did and does almost daily in many parts of the world, including Guantanamo Bay and unknown places in Eastern Europe. From all accounts, physical and mental torture only dehumanizes people instead of deterring them from committing violent acts. Torture degrades them to a level where they become even fiercer in their hatred of the existing conditions or where they withdraw from the world they live in. In a future Iran, an Iran which will hopefully embody the declaration of human rights first articulated by Cyrus the Great 2500 years ago, torture must be eliminated in its totality, in any shape or form.

* Hassan Youssefi Eshkevari, an enlightened cleric, was arrested and imprisoned upon his return to Iran, after attending the Berlin Conference in 2000.

* Taher Ahmad Zadeh, an old member of the National Front and the Freedom Movement became the Governor of Khorasan province after the revolution; he was imprisoned both during the Pahlavi period and after the Islamic Revolution. His sons Massoud and Majid, founders of the Sazman-e Cherikha-ye Fadayee-ye Khalgh, were executed by the Shah's regime, and his youngest son, Mojtaba, a sympathizer of the Mojahedin Khalgh, was killed at the age of 25 during the Evin Prison massacre by the Islamic regime.

* Teymour Bakhtiar was the first director of SAVAK or Sazman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar during the Pahlavi regime. He was related to the late Shapour Bakhtiar.

* The Komiteh Shahrbani was a place where the Savak and the police worked together to engage in some of the most cruel forms of torture. The Komiteh was later used by the Islamic Regime and then dismantled.

[RedWine]

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

[RedWine]

ادعای يک ايرانی درباره بازداشت و شکنجه خود در پاريس


بابک پورباقر يک ماه و نيم مدير طرح توليد خودروی رنو لوگان (ال نود) در ايران بوده است
گزارشهای منابع ايرانی حاکی از اين است که يک متخصص فنی ايرانی به نام بابک پورباقر در کشور فرانسه بازداشت شده و پس از آزادی اعلام کرده است که در مدت بازداشت تحت شکنجه قرار گرفته است.
علی آهنی، سفير ايران در فرانسه در گفتگو با خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی گفته که چهاردهم ارديبهشت (چهارم مه)، بلافاصله پس از اطلاع از بازداشت بابک پورباقر، موضوع را با مدیرکل وزارت خارجه فرانسه مطرح کرده و خواستار پیگیر جدی موضوع شده و در پی آن، دو یادداشت نيز به وزارت خارجه فرانسه فرستاده است.

پليس پاريس در پی تماس بخش فارسی بی بی سی نسبت به بازداشت آقای پورباقر و مسائلی که وی در مورد برخورد با وی توسط بازداشت شدگان مطرح کرده ابراز بی اطلاعی کرد.

تماس بی بی سی با دادستانی پاريس برای بررسی مواردی که بابک پورباقر مطرح کرده است ادامه دارد.

خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی، بابک پورباقر را متخصصی دارای مدرک تحصيلی دکترای دولتی با درجه عالی در رشته الکترونیک از فرانسه معرفی کرده که در آمريکا نيز در زمينه نوسازی کارخانه های خودروسازی تحصيل کرده و در اروپا مديرعامل سه کارخانه خودروسازی بوده است.

آقای پورباقر شانزده ‬ماه پیش در ايران مدير طرح توليد خودروی رنو ال نود (لوگان) شده و پس از مدت کوتاهی اختلافاتی با شرکتهای فرانسوی و ايرانی اجرا کننده اين طرح پيدا کرده و استعفا داده بود.

آن گونه که در گزارشها آمده، شرکت فرانسوی پژو از آقای پورباقر شکايت کرده بوده و هنگامی که وی به پاريس رفته و خود را به دادگاه معرفی می کند، بلافاصله به مدت دو روز بازداشت می شود و مورد بازجويی قرار می گيرد.

بابک پورباقر به سفارت ايران در پاريس اعلام کرده که دو روز پس از آزادی اش يعنی بامداد سه شنبه هشتم مه (هيجدهم ارديبهشت) بار ديگر دستگير می شود و فردای آن روز در جنگلی در اطراف پاريس به شيوه نامناسبی رها می گردد.

آن گونه که وی به مسئولان سفارت ايران در پاريس گفته، در مدت بازداشت دستنبد به دست داشته، تحت شکنجه* روحی و جسمی قرار گرفته و زندانبانان حتی از دادن آب و غذا به وی خودداری کرده و به او اجازه دسترسی به وکيل نيز نداده اند.

به گفته سفیر ایران در پاریس، آقای پورباقر بازداشت خود را به انتقادات خود از شرکت پژو در مصاحبه هايش با مطبوعات ايران مرتبط دانسته است.

با اين حال سفير ايران در پاريس گفته غیرقابل تصور است که انتقادات آقای پورباقر و زير سؤال بردن قرارداد شرکتی فرانسوی با ايران، موجب طرح شکایت یا انگیزه* ای برای پرونده *سازی یا پیگیرد حقوقی علیه يک شهروند ايرانی شود.

بابک پورباقر، در مصاحبه ای با روزنامه ايرانی سياست روز که سی ام مرداد (21 اوت) سال گذشته چاپ شد، طرح توليد خودروی ال نود در ايران را "کلاهبرداری وحشتناک" خوانده و گفته بود که بهای خودروی ال نود در اروپا سه هزار يوروست اما بهای فروش اين خودرو در ايران هشت هزار يورو تعيين شده است.

آن گونه که در گزارش خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی آمده، بابک پورباقر قرار است آخر مه (دهم خرداد) در يکی از دادگاههای پاريس محاکمه شود اما وکيل او هنوز نتوانسته است به پرونده اش دسترسی پيدا کند.

[RedWine]

As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.
The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.

Some of the study participants argue that interrogation should be restructured using lessons from many fields, including the tricks of veteran homicide detectives, the persuasive techniques of sophisticated marketing and models from American history.

The science board critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by current and former government officials. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, sent a letter to troops this month warning that “expedient methods” using force violated American values.

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,” said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.

The Bush administration is nearing completion of a long-delayed executive order that will set new rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The order is expected to ban the harshest techniques used in the past, including the simulated drowning tactic known as waterboarding, but to authorize some methods that go beyond those allowed in the military by the Army Field Manual.

President Bush has insisted that those secret “enhanced” techniques are crucial, and he is far from alone. The notion that turning up pressure and pain on a prisoner will produce valuable intelligence is a staple of popular culture from the television series “24” to the recent Republican presidential debate, where some candidates tried to outdo one another in vowing to get tough on captured terrorists. A 2005 Harvard study supported the selective use of “highly coercive” techniques.

But some of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called “Educing Information,” say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were effectively questioned without coercion.

“It far outclassed what we’ve done,” said Steven M. Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator and trainer, who has studied the World War II program of interrogating Germans. The questioners at Fort Hunt, Va., “had graduate degrees in law and philosophy, spoke the language flawlessly,” and prepared for four to six hours for each hour of questioning, said Mr. Kleinman, who wrote two chapters for the December report.

Mr. Kleinman, who worked as an interrogator in Iraq in 2003, called the post-Sept. 11 efforts “amateurish” by comparison to the World War II program, with inexperienced interrogators who worked through interpreters and had little familiarity with the prisoners’ culture.

The Intelligence Science Board study has a chapter on the long history of police interrogations, which it suggests may contain lessons on eliciting accurate confessions. And Mr. Borum, the psychologist, said modern marketing may be a source of relevant insights into how to influence a prisoner’s willingness to provide information.

“We have a whole social science literature on persuasion,” Mr. Borum said. “It’s mostly on how to get a person to buy a certain brand of toothpaste. But it certainly could be useful in improving interrogation.”

Robert F. Coulam, a research professor and attorney at Simmons College and a study participant, said that the government’s most vigorous work on interrogation to date has been in seeking legal justifications for harsh tactics. Even today, he said, “there’s nothing like the mobilization of effort and political energy that was put into relaxing the rules” governing interrogation.

The director of the science board project, Robert A. Fein, a forensic psychologist at Harvard, declined to speak on the record.

In a prologue to the December report, the first of a planned series, Mr. Fein said the shortage of research meant that many American interrogators were “forced to ‘make it up’ on the fly,” resulting in “unfortunate cases of abuse.”

But associates say Mr. Fein does not want to antagonize intelligence officials, whom he hopes to persuade to bring the reality check of research to bear on interrogation practices.

Defenders of the harshest interrogations, particularly as practiced by the C.I.A. at secret overseas sites, say they were carefully devised and have produced valuable intelligence. An agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said the program “has generated a rich volume of intelligence that has helped the United States and other countries disrupt terrorist activities and save innocent lives.”

He said the agency’s interrogators were “seasoned, well trained, and have the linguistic resources they need,” and added, “The agency learned terrorist interrogation after 9/11, but — based on the effectiveness of this fully legal program — it learned it well.”

A. B. Krongard, who was the executive director of the C.I.A., the No. 3 post at the agency, from 2001 to 2004, agreed with that assessment but acknowledged that the agency had to create an interrogation program from scratch in 2002.

He said officers quickly consulted counterparts in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries to compile a “catalog” of techniques said to be effective against Arab and Muslim prisoners. They added other methods drawn from those that American troops were trained to withstand in case of capture.

Mr. Krongard even recalls receiving a proposal for help with questioning Qaeda suspects from an American dentist who said he “could create pain no human being could withstand.”

The agency rejected such ideas as ludicrous. But administration lawyers approved a list of harsh methods that have drawn widespread condemnation.

In an April lecture, Philip D. Zelikow, the former adviser to Ms. Rice, said it was a grave mistake to delegate to attorneys decisions on the moral question of how prisoners should be treated.

Mr. Zelikow, who reviewed the C.I.A. detention program as the executive director of the Sept. 11 commission, said the “cool, carefully considered, methodical, prolonged and repeated subjection of captives to physical torment, and the accompanying psychological terror, is immoral.”

Many of the techniques that have come in for such criticism were based on those used in the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training, or SERE, in which for decades American service members were given a sample of the brutal treatment they might face if captured.

Because the training was developed during the cold war, the techniques later adopted by the C.I.A. and Special Operations officers in Iraq were based, at least in part, on how the Soviet Union and its allies were believed to treat prisoners. Such techniques included prolonged use of stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation and even waterboarding.

A report on detainee abuse by the Defense Department’s inspector general, completed in August but declassified and released May 18, gives new details of how the military training was “reverse engineered” for use by American interrogators. It says that as early as 2002, some SERE trainers and some military intelligence officers vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored.

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he found the report “very troubling” and intended to hold hearings on how the SERE training methods became the basis for interrogation. “They were put to a purpose that was never intended,” Mr. Levin said.

Mr. Kleinman, the former Air Force interrogator who took part in the “Educing Information” study, said the mistakes of the past five years “have made interrogation synonymous in many people’s minds with torture.” But he said the group wanted to redirect the debate toward the future of interrogation.

“Our intention is not to point fingers at anyone,” he said. “We’re just saying we have to bring interrogation up to the level of professionalism in other intelligence disciplines.”

[RedWine]

After being incarcerated in one of the world’s most notorious prisons, Kianoosh Sanjari, a human rights activist, finally escaped Iran’s oppressive regime. Now hiding in Iraq, waiting for Amnesty International to bring him to The United States, Kianoosh took the time to have an extensive interview with me. Kianoosh gives detailed accounts of his time in Evin Prison, and what he hopes to accomplish now that he is free. Since Kianoosh does not speak fluent English, Roya Teimouri, a fellow human rights activist living in Los Angeles, took the time to act as a translator for our interview.

Maryam: What happened the first time you were incarcerated, and for what were you incarcerated for?

Kianoosh: I was a student at the University of Tehran. The first time [I was arrested] was for being involved in a demonstration. I wasn’t a political activist at the time. I was 17 years old and in my second year of university studying graphic design. I was being charged for supposedly being involved in a demonstration that was against the Iranian government. I was beaten up really badly before being taken to Tehran’s Evin Prison. The officials blindfolded us and threw us into police vans to and from the different destinations. Soon after, we were transferred to a place called Tohid for interrogation. We were taken secretly in and out of facilities blindfolded so we wouldn’t know where we were going. The officials would often play psychological games with us so we would lose our sense of direction.

Maryam: What is Tohid?

Kianoosh: Tohid is a place where the Iranian government officials take anyone they arrest. It is also the place where they conduct most of their torture. I was there for two months. Other political activists such as Ahmad Batebi, and Mohammad Akbari have also been tortured at Tohid.

Maryam: Describe Tohid and your experience in there.

Kianoosh: When I was taken to Tohid, the officials blindfolded a group of us. We had to put our hand on the shoulder of the person in front of us so we wouldn’t fall. Each prisoner is kept in a cell that is 1 ½ by 2 meters. My first time at Tohid, I was stuck in that small cell for three weeks. Tohid has underground places where the prison officials conduct torture and lash people at the bottom of their feet. The people who conduct the torturing have permission from the high court to perform any torture they want. One form of torture they conducted consisted of taking us into a courtyard blindfolded. They would make us sit in the courtyard, oblivious to what is happening, and they would suddenly play loud sounds of people being beaten and tortured. After a long while, the prison guards would angrily ask us, “Is this the kind of freedom you want? If so, then this is what you get!”

Another form of torture they used on prisoners was only allowing them to use the restrooms three times a day. The problem with this is that prisoners who get tortured develop full bladder problems, and therefore need to use the restroom more often than three times. It would be nothing out of the ordinary for prisoners to be forced to pee in their own pants.

Maryam: Does this type of torture still occur at Tohid?

Kianoosh: Recently they closed down Tohid and they have turned it into a museum. The “museum” only displays pictures of people who were tortured during the Shah’s regime, and fails to recognize the torture of the political prisoners of the current regime.

Maryam: Did this type of torture also occur in Tehran’s Evin prison?

Kianoosh: The same kinds of torture techniques still occur in all of these prisons. The same things are happening to all of the political prisoners.

Roya: When Tohid was opened, it was ruled under the military force. This is the worst kind of place to be. It is the military forces who are out on the streets of Iran taking innocent people in and falsely accusing them of committing crimes against the Iranian government.

Kianoosh: We experienced all different sections and all different types of prisons.

I think that Tohid was the worst out of all them, but the same manners are happening in all sections of the prison. When somebody was taken to Tohid, the families were not notified of the arrests for months. They could rot in the prison cells and no one would know what happened to them.

Maryam: Describe your time in solitary confinement.

Kianoosh: There were nights when I would stand by the iron bars. I would listen to the women being tortured. They were crying and screaming. I would hear the people who were torturing them, yelling, and screaming at the women.

Maryam: Describe your last prison experience before you fled the country.

Kianoosh: I was taken to section 209 of Evin Prison, which is the solitary confinement area. My family wasn’t notified of my whereabouts. I was in solitary confinement for an entire month before my family was able to contact me.

Maryam: What reason did the officials give you or your family for imprisoning you?

Kianoosh: Accusations that are given to all political prisoners are the same: You are advertising against the government; you are calling the officials cheaters or liars, or you are probably involved with people outside Iran. The government officials keep you in prison for months if you commit any of the aforementioned crimes.

Maryam: Did you continue with activism work after you were released from prison?

Kianoosh: After I was released, I decided to write all my memories and experiences of prison in the form of a web blog. I wrote about the experiences of my political prisoner friends whom I met in jail. I even wrote detailed accounts of Ahmad Batebi’s physician who was also arrested. While I was writing web blogs, I wasn’t aware that the Iranian government was planning my arrest behind my back.

Maryam: They arrested you once again?

Kianoosh: During this time, an Ayatollah in Iran who is in favour of secularism started a movement against the Iranian government. He felt they were using Islam against the people. One night, while he was having a meeting with his followers, military guards surrounded his house. By chance I went over to his house that night to get information for my web blog. As soon as I arrived, I was arrested. I was once again returned to solitary confinement. A man came into my cell and started slapping my face and interrogating me. When I asked him why he was hitting me, he slapped me harder and proceeded to ask the same questions. The next day, three or four men with turbans, most likely Ayatollahs, came into my prison cell and started accusing me of hitting and abusing innocent people on the streets. They charged me with many crimes that I never committed. For example, they accused me of throwing a hand made arm into a crowd during a protest. I was also accused of getting paid to be a web blogger and I was supposedly attempting to unite other web bloggers around the world. This is one way for the government to show the people in Iran that activists like me are doing the wrong thing. The officials would interrogate us until they could get a lie out of us, or until their torture got too exhausting. Their ultimate goal was to get us to falsely admit to the accusations against us. The government officials want the Iranian people to think that we political activists are fed financially from different groups and oppositions outside of Iran. They wanted us to make the Iranian regime look good and everything else to look bad. After ten months in solitary confinement, I was able to have my mom visit me. They allowed her to visit, so they can put pressure and instill fear in me so I can falsely confess. After not being successful in their interrogation, I was placed back in solitary confinement for two more months. I have served two full years in prison since I was 17 years old. Ten months of my prison time was spent in solitary confinement.

Maryam: How did you get released out of prison this time?

Kianoosh: I served my time in prison and I was released. The government officials thought that I had learned my lesson and would ultimately stop being involved in activism work. Instead, I started giving interviews and began writing more of my accounts on my web blog. One day, one of the high officials called my house and started harassing me. Soon after I was called into the court and the officials requested for me to start talking about that Ayatollah who turned against the government. They wanted me to state that he was mentally insane, but I denied cooperation with the officials.

[RedWine]

Maryam: What was the breaking point that made you decide to flee Iran?

Kianoosh: I never thought that one day I would be forced to leave my county. After I discussed leaving Iran with my friends, they realized that was the best decision I could make. I had no better choice but to leave Iran; my life was in danger, and I got continuously harassed by government officials after being released from prison. I had to leave everything behind, and I am very sorry that I had to be forced to make that decision. The hardest part was leaving my mom and younger brother behind.

Maryam: How does your mother feel about your involvement in activism?

Kianoosh: Of course my mother was very disturbed by the entire situation. She spent her days begging for my freedom. For instance, in 2002, I was the spokesperson for the United Students movement. Iran gave me five years of prison time for this, but my mom begged so much for my sentence to be decreased that the government reduced it to one year. My mom has been a big support to me. Every time I was arrested, the officials would call my house and talk to my mother. They would warn her against talking to the media and not telling anyone about my situation in the prison, but she still did what she had to do. When the media contacted her, she would cry and talk about the situation she was put in. The last time I was arrested, the government officials called the house and she cried and begged to see me. She just wanted to make sure I was alive. She begged to see me alive for one second. She has been a big support to me.

Maryam: Is anyone in Iran safe?

Kianoosh: No one in Iran has any safety. For example, there are poor family members who have political gatherings in front of Amnesty International in Iran, and soon after they all get arrested. Even if someone is protesting a simple pay hike at their job, they will get immediately arrested. Even if a parent is with his/her kids; everyone present will be arrested. There is a man by the name of Omid Ahbassgolinejad who has two daughters and a wife. One day he and his family were standing outside of Amnesty International, at which point they were all arrested, including his three and four year old children. As this example demonstrates, no one, even if you are a young child has any safety in Iran.

Maryam: Who have been the biggest supporters of the political prisoners?

Kianoosh: Families of the political prisoners have been the biggest supporters. In Ahmad Batebi’s case, his wife informed the world what was happening to her husband. She was also arrested herself for being too outspoken. The officials kidnapped her for defending her husband.

Maryam: What’s next for you now that you have fled Iran?

Kianoosh: Right now I have been going daily to the United Nations office in Iraq. As you know, Iraq is not a safe place right now. I wish to come to America soon and fight against the Iranian government.

Maryam: How do you plan to fight against the Iranian government in America?

Kianoosh: I feel that the actual fight against the government of Iran is in Iran. That is why I am sorry to have left the country. Now that I am out, and there is more freedom of speech, I hope to be the voice of the people of Iran. My friends in Iran have said to me that I can be their voice outside of Iran and get their messages across. In a free world, people need to know what is going on to the people in Iran. It is our duty to tell people what kind of government is ruling Iran. If you look at what is going on in Iran, there are different movements all the time. The outside world needs to support the movements that are occurring in Iran. They need to go stand beside the people’s movements. The people of Iran need mental support more than anything. The people of Iran can arrange the rest on their own. The movement is happening inside Iran as we speak. We need to help the Iranian people push it forward.

Maryam: What can we do as citizens of Western countries to help the Iranian people with their movement?

Kianoosh: Countries need to stop doing negotiations with Iran. People in Canada can urge their governments to stop doing negotiations with Iran. If you follow the news, you will see what they are doing to the women and men in Iran. The citizens are not allowed to even dress the way that they want. The new generation of Iran is desperate for someone or another country to come and release them from the torturous hands of the Ayatollahs. The people don’t have power because the government is ruling them with fear. The Iranian government doesn’t care about human rights organizations.

Maryam: How can Iranians in the West get involved in political activism work?

Kianoosh: There are not many Iranian freedom fighters outside of Iran. If an Iranian living in the West wants to help, they should go stand outside of Embassy of Iran or Amnesty International and protest. We don’t see that often. If we have 100,000 Iranians get together, we could make a difference; even if it’s a small difference. Everyone should know about the political prisoners and what they are going through. I hope that people who are not freedom fighters can wake up from the dream that they are in and think about their home country. Unfortunately what I see for the people living outside of Iran is that they left Iran to live under different circumstances. They forgot the poverty, the killings and the prisons. They forgot about the torture. Instead they have been taken by the beauty of the West and have forgotten where they came from. It is our duty as human rights activists to inform these people of what is going on in Iran.

Maryam: Do you have any expectations of the Iranian youth living in Western countries?

Kianoosh: Because I haven’t come to the West yet, I have no recognition of the youth here. I think that if we want to reach the youth, we have to speak their language. We need to try to communicate with them and make them realize it will be to everyone’s benefit to overthrow the Iranian government. I believe that the media can play a very important part in this as well. The youth can start a new revolution through the media. It is very difficult at the same time, because there are Iranian stations in Los Angeles who are bought from the Iranian government. Anytime you see advertisements from Iran on the satellite system, chances are that station is being bought by the Iranian government.

[RedWine]

CHICAGO -- The American interrogator was afraid. Of what and why, he couldn't say. He was riding the L train in Chicago, and his throat was closing.

In Iraq, when Tony Lagouranis interrogated suspects, fear was his friend, his weapon. He saw it seep, dark and shameful, through the crotch of a man's pants as a dog closed in, barking. He smelled it in prisoners' sweat, a smoky odor, like a pot of lentils burning. He had touched fear, too, felt it in their fingers, their chilled skin trembling.

But on this evening, Lagouranis was back in Illinois, taking the train to a bar. His girlfriend thought he was a hero. His best friend hung out with him, watching reruns of "Hawaii Five-O." And yet he felt afraid.

"I tortured people," said Lagouranis, 37, who was a military intelligence specialist in Iraq from January 2004 until January 2005. "You have to twist your mind up so much to justify doing that."

Being an interrogator, Lagouranis discovered, can be torture. At first, he was eager to try coercive techniques. In training at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., instructors stressed the Geneva Conventions, he recalled, while classmates privately admired Israeli and British methods. "The British were tough," Lagouranis said. "They seemed like real interrogators."

But interrogators for countries that pride themselves on adhering to the rule of law, such as Britain, the United States and Israel, operate in a moral war zone. They are on the front lines in fighting terrorism, crucial for intelligence-gathering. Yet they use methods that conflict with their societies' values.

The border between coercion and torture is often in dispute, and the U.S. government is debating it now. The Bush administration is nearing completion of a new executive order setting secret rules for CIA interrogation that may ban waterboarding, a practice that simulates drowning. Last September, President Bush endorsed an "alternative set of procedures," which he described as "tough," for questioning high-level detainees. And in Iraq last month, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, warned troops that the military does not sanction "torture or other expedient methods to obtain information."

The world of the interrogator is largely closed. But three interrogators allowed a rare peek into their lives -- an American rookie who served with the 202nd Military Intelligence Battalion and two veteran interrogators from Britain and Israel. The veterans, whose wartime experiences stretch back decades, are more practiced at finding moral balance. They use denial, humor, indignation. Even so, these older men grapple with their own fears -- and with a clash of values.

That clash, said Darius Rejali, a political scientist who has studied torture and democracy, can torment interrogators: "Nothing is more toxic than guilt, which is typical with democratic interrogators. Nazis, on the other hand, don't have these problems."

For Lagouranis, problems include "a creeping anxiety" on the train, he said. The 45-minute ride to Chicago's O'Hare airport "kills me." He feels as if he can't get out "until they let me out." Lagouranis's voice was boyish, but his face was gray. The evening deepened his 5 o'clock shadow and the puffy smudges under his eyes.

Not long ago in Iraq, he felt "absolute power," he said, over men kept in cages. Lagouranis had forced a grandfather to kneel all night in the cold and bombarded others in metal shipping containers with the tape of the self-help parody "Feel This Book: An Essential Guide to Self-Empowerment, Spiritual Supremacy, and Sexual Satisfaction," by comedians Ben Stiller and Janeane Garofalo. ("They hated it," Lagouranis recalled. "Like, 'Please! Just stop that voice!' ")

Now Lagouranis's power had dissolved into a weakness so fearful it dampened his upper lip. Sometimes, on the train, he has to get up and pace. But he can't escape.
James, an amiable man with a red-to-white beard, shook his head when told of Lagouranis: "He's full of self-pity."

James, 65, was one of Britain's most experienced interrogators in Northern Ireland. Starting in 1971, James said, he worked for the Special Branch of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), interrogating Irish nationalists Gerry Adams, Bobby Sands and others whom the British government suspected of being terrorists. Peter Taylor, a leading historian of the conflict in Northern Ireland, said he believes that "James's account is entirely credible."

Late one night in 1993, three Irish Republican Army gunmen crept up to James's door. "They came to get me," James said. Given a 20-minute warning following a tip to the RUC, he and his wife escaped, ultimately to an island in the Mediterranean. James agreed to talk if his last name and location were withheld. "They haven't a clue I'm here."

Driving along winding, stony roads, past goats and grapevines, James had this advice for Lagouranis in Chicago: "You've got to get up and get on with it -- that's what we did."

James had had no training, but the 18-hour days that made his neck ache taught him what he needed: good rapport, good intelligence, great fear. "Yes, a bloke would get a cuff in the ear or he might brace against the wall. Yes, they had sleep deprivation," he said. "But we did not torture."

Once, IRA leader Brendan Hughes claimed that James had cocked a gun to his head. James does not deny it. "You fight fire with fire," he said, the memory igniting his blue eyes.

He noted that the sectarian killings dropped off: "If it's going to save lives, you're entitled to use whatever means you can." How do you fight bad guys and stay good? "You don't. You can't."

The only interrogation James regrets was of Patrick McGee, under arrest for IRA activity. McGee did not crack, which meant he would go free. As McGee walked out, "he just stared at you," James recalled. "Evil was hanging out of him." James spat in his face. "He never even blinked. It was not satisfying, it was humiliating. I lost my cool."

James stopped his car at the edge of the ocean. According to Greek mythology, a god frolicked on this beach. Vacationers drank iced coffee and oiled the air with coconut lotion. But James seemed to be somewhere else, cloudy and turbulent, in his head.

"My friend once saw a guy planting a bomb," he said. He laughed. "My friend tied a rope around the guy's ankle, and made him defuse it. Now t hat's how to deal with a ticking bomb."

Chicago, 8 p.m.

"All of Iraq was a ticking time bomb," Lagouranis said, downing his fourth of seven beers. He had joined the Army before 9/11 to learn Arabic. He didn't expect to go to war.

He was sitting on a night off at the California Clipper bar, where he works as a bouncer. The bartender joked that Lagouranis should be tougher on customers: "You should 'go Abu Ghraib.' "

[RedWine]

At Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, the site of the 2003-04 abuse scandal, Lagouranis used to relax in the old execution chamber. He and a friend would sit near the trapdoor and read the Arabic scratched into the wall. They found a dirty brown rope. It was the hangman's noose. "If there is an evil spot in the world, that was one of them," Lagouranis said.

At Abu Ghraib and sometimes at the facilities in Mosul, north Babil province and other places where Lagouranis worked, the Americans were shot at and attacked with mortar fire. "Then I get a prisoner who may have done it," he said. "What are you going to do? You just want to get back at somebody, so you bring this dog in. 'Finally, I got you.' "

Lagouranis's tools included stress positions, a staged execution and hypothermia so extreme the detainees' lips turned purple. He has written an account of his experiences in a book, "Fear Up Harsh," which has been read by the Pentagon and will be published this week. Stephen Lewis, an interrogator who was deployed with Lagouranis, confirmed the account, and Staff Sgt. Shawn Campbell, who was Lagouranis's team leader and direct supervisor, said Lagouranis's assertions were "as true as true can get. It's all verifiable." John Sifton, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, said the group investigated many of Lagouranis's claims about abuses and independently corroborated them.

"At every point, there was part of me resisting, part of me enjoying," Lagouranis said. "Using dogs on someone, there was a tingling throughout my body. If you saw the reaction in the prisoner, it's thrilling."

In Mosul, he took detainees outside the prison gate to a metal shipping container they called "the disco," with blaring music and lights. Before and after questioning, military police officers stripped them and checked for injuries, noting cuts and bumps "like a car inspection at a parking garage." Once a week, an Iraqi councilman and an American colonel visited. "We had to hide the tortured guys," Lagouranis said.

Then a soldier's aunt sent over several copies of Viktor E. Frankel's Holocaust memoir, "Man's Search for Meaning." Lagouranis found himself trying to pick up tips from the Nazis. He realized he had gone too far.

At that point, Lagouranis said, he moderated his techniques and submitted sworn statements to supervisors concerning prisoner abuse.

"I couldn't make sense of the moral system" in Iraq, he said. "I couldn't figure out what was right and wrong. There were no rules. They literally said, 'Be creative.' "

Lagouranis blames the Bush administration: "They say this is a different kind of war. Different rules for terrorists. Total crap."

Tel Aviv

"You have to play by different rules," the Israeli interrogator told an American visitor. "The terrorists want to use your own system to destroy you. What your president is doing is right."

The Israeli, who spoke on condition that he be identified by his code name, Sheriff, recently retired as chief of interrogations for Shin Bet, Israel's security service, which is responsible for questioning Palestinian terrorism suspects. The former head of the service, Avi Dichter, and the former chief terrorism prosecutor, Dvorah Chen, called Sheriff "the best."

"To persuade someone to confess feels better than beating him up," Sheriff said. "It's a mental orgasm."

[RedWine]

Sheriff is short and chubby, with thin, reddish skin that turns yellow in the folds when he furrows his brow. He keeps an electric razor in his car so he can shave his head while driving. He wears a cap from the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security.

"Interrogation is a beautiful world," Sheriff said. When Sheriff's 2-year-old was sick and his wife couldn't be at home, he brought the toddler to work and laid him in an interrogation room, on a mattress on the floor: "I put the phone next to the baby and said, 'When you want Daddy, push this button.'
Another interrogator walked in and exclaimed, "My suspect shrank!"

For Sheriff, interrogation was more psychological than physical. He used flattery on Palestinians who put bombs under playground benches: "You say, 'Hey! Wow! How did you connect these wires? Did you manufacture this explosive? This is good!' "

He played good cop, and bad: "One day I was good. Next day I was bad. The prisoner said, 'Yesterday you were good. What happened today?' I told him we were short on manpower."

Sheriff hugged his suspects, he said, poured them tea and kissed their cheeks. As his former boss, Dichter, put it: "You try to become friends with someone who murdered a baby. That's your job. It's the most difficult feeling." When he came home, Sheriff said, his wife would make him change. "You could smell the guy on your shirt."

But when the pressure mounted for intelligence, Sheriff said, the best method was "a very little violence." Enough to scare people but not so much that they'd collapse. Agents tried it on themselves. "Not torture."

Sometimes a prisoner would accuse Sheriff of torture. He tried to shift the moral burden by blaming the prisoner: "I would tell him this: 'I'm sorry. We prefer it the nice way. You leave us no choice.' "

Chicago, 10:15 p.m.

Lagouranis apologized to his prisoners, too.

"Two brothers, they could've died because we were inducing hypothermia," he said. As Lagouranis was leaving Abu Ghraib, he told one of the brothers: " 'I'm sorry. I'll always consider you a friend,' He gave me a look -- he probably wanted to kill my entire family. I spent a lot of time torturing him, but also talking."

"I could see you trying to comfort him," said Amy Johnson, Lagouranis's girlfriend, sitting at the bar. Johnson likes Lagouranis, she said, because he is gentle.

She was also attracted by the mystery of his job, although she'd never heard the details, until this night. The scars on his ankles from sand-flea bites were visible. Of the unseen scars, Johnson said, "I'm afraid to ask."

[RedWine]

That's the most confusing thing -- people don't hate me," he said.

"But you're trying to fight the bad guys," she said. She knows he is haunted. He got an honorable discharge after a diagnosis of "adjustment disorder." He startles awake, she said: "Last night you had a dream --"

"I never saw a ghost in Abu Ghraib," he said. "But I saw a ghost last night. It was me."

"Seeing innocent people being tortured is hard," she said.

"Not the things I saw, but the things I did. You keep saying 'torturing the innocent,' but the two brothers I tortured were guilty. It doesn't mean you should torture them."

Johnson said nothing. She twisted her hair up into a knot.

Lagouranis kept talking, this time about his Gerber knife with the black handle and five-inch blade: "I'd been interrogating this guy all night." But the prisoner, unafraid, looked Lagouranis in the eye. "I had this idea --"

"That he was guilty?" she said.

"No, at worst he smuggled a can of benzene. It was pure insanity. I wanted to take out my Gerber knife and chop off his fingers."

Johnson blanched, pressed her fingers against her lips.

"I don't know if I comprehend it," she said. "It's not a good place to go."

A Tel Aviv Suburb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The best place to go to unwind, Sheriff said, was the municipal garbage dump. After work, he'd set up a beach chair on top of the landfill, under the Israeli sun.

Now Sheriff was high up on the dump, safe from vindictive prisoners, boiling water on a portable gas burner to make some tea. "Sugar?" he offered. Sheriff stretched, relaxed. "I've got a clean conscience because I rarely use it."

Israeli society, however, has been conflicted. After more than a decade of debate in legal and security circles, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that torture is illegal.

Sheriff's concerns, however, aren't legal, they're mortal. He carries a Beretta. In cafes, he faces the door. He ran into a former subject -- "a bit scary" -- knocking on the window of his car.

For all his bravado, quips and denials, Sheriff is afraid to have his full name published.

"I would not like to die in pain."

An Island in the Mediterranean



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pain, for James -- the interrogator tucked away on a Mediterranean island -- was what made the attempt on his life so frightening. The IRA had shot his partner in the heart, he said, but when the gunmen came for him, they brought a sledgehammer.

"They would have tortured me and extracted information," James said.

Britain, like Israel, reformed its interrogation practices. In 1979, the British government acknowledged that Northern Ireland police had mistreated IRA suspects. It introduced restrictions.

"Every time they changed the rules, it was to benefit murdering terrorists," James said, grinding the word "terrorists" with his teeth. "We got no protection. Next we'll be tried as war criminals."

Even today, James bolts awake when the wind knocks over a plant. His wife said, "One night I woke up, and his hands were around my throat, shaking me. I said, 'What are you doing?' He said, 'There are people in the house.' "

James misses his Irish garden. Give him a few brandies and he'll wistfully sing "The Fields of Athenry." His eyes turned red and watery as he said, "The people of Northern Ireland will never know how many lives were saved."

Worse yet, the people he interrogated "are now running the bloody country." They used to glare, with "venomous looks," and say in Gaelic, "Our day will come."

Chicago, 11:50 p.m.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lagouranis stares at their faces when he cannot sleep. He stole a CD with pictures of the prisoners he interrogated in north Babil. He ponders the brown-skinned men with mustaches:

"This guy looted an American supply truck. He was waterboarded by a Marine."

Click.

"That guy was old as dirt. I don't know why he was there."

Click.

"This guy -- you can see the contusions around his head."

Click.

Alone in his apartment, awake most nights, he sits in rumpled jeans and desert combat boots, throwing his Gerber knife at his coffee table. Dirty clothes and beer cans litter the floor. His refrigerator is bare, but his footlocker is full of empty bottles of pills the military doctors prescribed for anxiety.

"It feels like fear. Of what? I'm not sure," Lagouranis said. "You know what I think it is? You don't know if you'll ever regain a sense of self. How could Amy love me? I used to have a strong sense of morals. I was on the side of good. I don't even understand the sides anymore."

Next to a mattress on the floor where he sleeps hang his dog tags. Beside it, in the closet, lies a thick brown rope. He has tied it into a noose.

[RedWine]

حداقل بخشی از "گزارش فوق محرمانه زير" در مورد شکنجه های اعمال شده از سوی آمريکا در عراق و افغانستان در جمهوری اسلامی نيز رايج است, مانند قرار دادن زندانی در معرض هوای بسيار سرد و موقعيت استرس زا (مثلا هم بند کردن زندانی سياسی با قاتلان و مجرمان خطرناک در زندان ها, جلوگيری از تماس با خانواده, تهديد عليه اعضاى خانواده زندانيان, بازجويی های طولانی, بی خوابی دادن, بستن اتهامات جنسی و فساد اخلاقی به دستگيرشدگان و....) ضمن اين که نظام اسلامی در زمينه شکنجه می تواند برخی از "دستاوردهای" خود را هم به شکنجه گران بويژه در زمينه تواب سازی از زندانيان صادر کند و در اين زمينه احيانا روش هايش فرق هايی با شيوه رايج شکنجه در آمريکا دارد. از فرق های ديگر اين است که گزارش اعمال شکنجه به هر حال توسط پنتاگون منتشر شده است, اما در رژيم اسلامی زندانی سياسی در زندان زير فشار جان می دهد, و در همان حال مقامات رسمی با بی شرمی مدعی هستند که زندان هايشان "دانشگاه" هستند و حاضر نيستند مسوليت جنايات خود را حتی در حرف به عهده بگيرند. متن گزارش زير به نقل از خبرگزاری ايرناست:


هفته*نامه آمريكايى تايم نوشت: براساس گزارش فوق محرمانه*اى كه چند روز پيش توسط پنتاگون منتشر شد و چندان مورد توجه قرار نگرفت، بسيارى از تاكتيك*هاى جنجال*برانگيز بازجويى كه در عراق، افغانستان و گوانتانامو عليه مظنونان فعاليتهاى تروريستى استفاده شده، در حقيقت از تكنيك*هايى نمونه*بردارى شده بود كه آمريكا نگران بود كمونيست*ها از آنها عليه نيروهاى آمريكايى دستگير شده در دوران جنگ سرد استفاده كنند.

تايم روز دوشنبه نوشت:اين برنامه تحت عنوان "بقا، طفره، مقاومت و فرار" موسوم به ‪ SERE‬در ابتدا به عنوان آموزشى براى نيروهاى يگان ويژه در فورت بريج طراحى شد. تاكتيك*هايى همچون محروم كردن از خواب ، انزوا، تحقير جنسي، محروميت*هاى حسي، برهنگي، قرار گرفتن در معرض هواى شديدا سرد و موقعيت*هاى استرس زا همگى بخشى از يك برنامه نجات يافتن بود كه با دقت مورد نظارت قرار داشت. اين برنامه آموزشى براى آن دسته از نيروهايى كه در معرض دستگير شدن توسط شوروى يا نيروهاى چينى قرار داشتند تحت نظارت روانشناسان ارتش اجرا مي*شد.

"افشاى اين مساله كه در گزارشى تحت عنوان "بررسى تحقيقات در مورد بدرفتارى با زندانيان" مطرح شده است براى نخستين بار مبدا و همچنين جزئيات جديدترى را در مورد بسيارى از تكنيك*هاى توهين آميز بازجويى كه به رسوايي*هاى ابوغريب، گوانتانامو و ديگر زندان*ها منجر شد، فاش كرده است.

اين درحالى است كه پنتاگون هنوز استفاده از برخى از تكنيك*ها را به صورت كامل منع نكرده است.

سناتور "كارل لوين" ‪ Carl Levin‬رييس كميته نيروهاى مسلح مجلس سنا اين يافته*ها را "كاملا نگران*كننده" خواند و اعلام كرد قصد دارد در اواخر سال جارى جلسات استماعى را در مورد روش*هاى بازجويى كه در اين گزارش به آن اشاره شده برگزار كند.

اين گزارش كه در اوت گذشته تكميل شده بود و تنها در ‪ ۱۸‬ماه مه از رده محرمانه خارج و به صورت علنى منتشر شد معتقد است تكنيك*هاى توهين آميز از فرآيندى بسيارى رسمى تر از آنچه وزارت دفاع پيش از اين به آن اعتراف كرده است نشات گرفته بود.

تا سال ‪ ۲۰۰۲‬پنتاگون به دنبال الگويى براى بازجويى از افرادى بود كه در جنگ عليه تروريسم دستگير و آنها را "جنگ جويان غي