← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius

Not A Shred Of Evidence-Human Shredders

Thread ID: 12446 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-02-22

Wayback Archive

Sertorius [OP]

2004-02-22 10:54 | User Profile

This won't go down the memory hole.

Not A Shred Of Evidence

Did Saddam Hussein really use industrial shredders to kill his enemies? Brendan O’Neill is not persuaded that he did Forget the no-show of Saddam Hussein’s WMD. Even George Bush no longer believes that they are there. Ask instead what happened to Saddam’s ‘people shredder’, into which his son Qusay reportedly fed opponents of the Baathist regime. Ann Clwyd, Labour MP for Cynon Valley and chair of Indict, a group that has been campaigning since 1996 for the creation of an international criminal tribunal to try the Baathists, wrote of the shredder in the Times on 18 March — the day of the Iraq debate in the House of Commons and three days before the start of the war. Clwyd described an Iraqi’s claims that male prisoners were dropped into a machine ‘designed for shredding plastic’, before their minced remains were ‘placed in plastic bags’ so they could later be used as ‘fish food’. Sometimes the victims were dropped in feet first, reported Clwyd, so they could briefly behold their own mutilation before death.

Not surprisingly the story made a huge impact. Two days after Clwyd’s article was published, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard addressed his nation to explain why he was sending troops to support the coalition in Iraq; he talked of the Baathists’ many crimes, including the ‘human-shredding machine’ that was used ‘as a vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein’. Clwyd received an email from the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, who expressed admiration for her work and invited her to meet him at the Pentagon. Her Times article on the shredder is still on the US State Department’s website, under the heading ‘Issues of International Security’.

Others, too, made good use of the story. Andrew Sullivan, the British-born journalist who writes a weekly column from Washington for the Sunday Times, said Clwyd’s report showed ‘clearly, unforgettably, indelibly’ that ‘the Saddam regime is evil’ and that ‘leading theologians and moralists and politicians’ ought to back the war. The Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips wrote of the shredder in which ‘bodies got chewed up from foot to head’, and said: ‘This is the evil that the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican bishops refuse to fight.’ In the Telegraph, Mark Steyn used the spectre of the shredder to chastise the anti-war movement: ‘If it’s a choice between letting some carbonated-beverage crony of Dick Cheney get a piece of the Nasiriyah soft-drinks market or allowing Saddam to go on feeding his subjects feet-first into the industrial shredder for another decade or three, then the “peace” activists will take the lesser of two evils — i.e., crank up the shredder.’

In his book Allies: The United States, Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq, published in December 2003, William Shawcross wrote of a regime that ‘fed people into huge shredders, feet first to prolong the agony’. Earlier this month, Trevor Kavanagh, political editor of the Sun, claimed that ‘British resistance to war changed last year when we learned how sadist Saddam personally supervised the horrific torture of Iraqis. Public opinion swung behind Tony Blair as voters learned how Saddam fed dissidents feet first into industrial shredders.’

Nobody doubts that Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people (at least 17,000 according to Amnesty; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch) and that the vast majority of Iraqis are glad he’s gone. But did his regime have a human-shredding machine that made mincemeat of men? The evidence is far from compelling

The shredding machine was first mentioned in public by James Mahon, then head of research at Indict, at a meeting at the House of Commons on 12 March. Mahon had just returned from northern Iraq, where Indict researchers, along with Ann Clwyd, interviewed Iraqis who had suffered under Saddam’s regime. One of them said Iraqis had been fed into a shredder. ‘Sometimes they were put in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 die like this.... On one occasion I saw Qusay Hussein personally supervising these murders.’ In subsequent interviews and articles, Clwyd said this shredding machine was in Abu Ghraib prison, Saddam’s most notorious jail.

What was done to corroborate the Iraqi’s claims? Apparently nothing. Indict refuses to tell me the names of the researchers who were in Iraq with Mahon and Clwyd; and, I am told, Mahon, who no longer works at Indict, ‘does not want to speak to journalists about his work with us’. But Clwyd tells me: ‘We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it.’ So nothing was done to check the truth of what the victim said, against other witness statements or other evidence for a shredding machine? ‘Well, no,’ says Clwyd. ‘[Indict researchers] didn’t have to do that; they were just taking witness statements.’

But surely, before going public with so shocking a story, facts ought to have been checked and double-checked? Clwyd clearly doesn’t think so. ‘We heard it from someone who had been released from the Abu Ghraib prison....I heard his account of what went on in the prison. I was there when [Indict’s] cross-examination of the witness took place, and I am satisfied from what I heard that shredding was a method of execution. We knew he wasn’t making it up.’

This is all that Indict had to go on — uncorroborated and quite amazing claims made by a single person from northern Iraq. When I suggest that this does not constitute proof of the existence of a human shredder, Clwyd responds: ‘We heard a victim say it; who are you to say that chap is a liar?’ Yet to call for witness statements to be corroborated before being turned into the subject of national newspaper articles is not to accuse the witnesses involved of being liars; it is to follow good practice in the collection of evidence, particularly evidence with which Indict hopes to ‘seek indictments by national prosecutors’ against former Baathists.

An Iraqi who worked as a doctor in the hospital attached to Abu Ghraib prison tells me there was no shredding machine in the prison. The Iraqi, who wishes to remain anonymous, worked at Abu Ghraib in late 1997 and early 1998; he left Iraq in 2002 and now lives in Britain, where he is taking further medical examinations so that he can practise as a doctor here. He describes Saddam’s regime as ‘very, very terrible, one of the worst regimes ever’, and Abu Ghraib prison as ‘horrific’. Part of a doctor’s job at Abu Ghraib was to attend to those who had been executed. ‘We had to see to the dead prisoners, to make sure that they were dead. Then we would write a death certificate for them.’ Doctors did not witness executions; after an execution had taken place the victim would be ‘dropped into a kind of hole, and the doctor would go downstairs with the policemen or the security guards, into the hole, to confirm the death’.

Did he ever attend to, or hear of, prisoners who had been shredded? ‘No.’ Did any of the other doctors at Abu Ghraib speak of a shredding machine used to execute prisoners? ‘No, no, never.’ He says: ‘The method of execution was hanging; as far as I know that was the only form of execution used in Abu Ghraib. Maybe sometimes there were shootings, but I think these were rare.’ However, the doctor tells me that he did once hear a story about a shredding machine, from a friend who had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib — but in the version he heard, the shredder was in ‘one of Saddam’s main palaces’. Does he think this was a rumour, or an accurate description of a method of execution used in Saddam’s palaces? ‘Because of what the Saddam regime was like, anything is possible,’ he says. ‘It might be a rumour, it might be true.’

Cryptically, Ann Clwyd tells me: ‘I heard other people talk about a shredding machine, but I can’t tell you who they are.’ However, one other person who talked about a shredder was Kenneth Joseph, an American who claimed to have visited Iraq as an antiwar human shield before concluding that he was wrong and the war was right. Joseph’s Damascene conversion was first reported by United Press International (UPI) on 21 March. He told Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI’s editor-at-large, that what he had heard in Iraq had ‘shocked me back to reality’, that Iraqis’ tales ‘of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as their bodies got chewed up’. He also claimed to have ‘made it across the border’ with 14 hours of uncensored video containing interviews with Iraqis.

Yet many have since questioned Joseph’s claims. When Carol Lipton, an American journalist, investigated his story in April for CounterPunch, she reported that ‘none of the human shield groups whom I contacted had ever heard of Joseph’. She also noted that ‘incredibly, nowhere has a single photo or segment from [Joseph’s] 14 hours of interviews been published’. These discrepancies led some to speculate whether the Reverend Sun Myung Moon played a part in ‘the Joseph story’. Moon, head of the Unification Church (Moonies), owns UPI. Private Eye suggested that Joseph’s story was ‘a propaganda fabrication by right-wingers associated with the Revd Moon’s Unification Church’. Even Johann Hari, a pro-war columnist on the Independent who wrote a sycophantic account of Joseph’s conversion, has since declared that Joseph ‘was probably a bullshitter’.

Clwyd insists that corroboration of the shredder story came three months after her first Times article, when she was shown a dossier by a reporter from Fox TV. On 18 June, Clwyd wrote a second article for the Times, describing a ‘chillingly meticulous record book’ from Saddam’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, which described one of the methods of execution as ‘mincing’. Can she say who compiled this book? ‘No, I can’t.’ Where is it now? ‘I don’t know.’ What was the name of the Fox reporter who showed it to her? ‘I have no idea.’ Did Clwyd read the entire thing? ‘No! It was in Arabic! I only saw it briefly.’ Curiously, there is no mention of the book or of ‘mincing’ as a method of execution on the Fox News website. Robert Zimmerman, a spokesman for Fox News in New York, tells me: ‘That story does not ring a bell with our foreign editor here, and it is something you expect would ring a bell. It sounds like something we would have gone to town with, in terms of promotion and PR.’

And there you have the long and short of the available evidence for a human-shredding machine — an uncorroborated statement made by an individual in northern Iraq, hearsay comments made by someone widely suspected of being a ‘bullshitter’ (who, like the Australian Prime Minister, made his comments about the shredder shortly after Clwyd first wrote of it in the Times), and a record book, in Arabic, that mentions ‘mincing’ but whose whereabouts are presently unknown. Other groups have no recorded accounts of a human shredder. A spokesman at Amnesty International tells me that his inquiries into the shredder story ‘drew a blank’. ‘We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder.’ Widney Brown, deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, says: ‘We don’t know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture.’

It remains to be seen whether this uncorroborated story turns out to be nothing more than war propaganda — like the stories on the eve of the first Gulf war of Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait taking babies from incubators and leaving them to die on hospital floors. What can be said, however, is that the alleged shredder provided those in favour of the war — by no means an overwhelming majority in Britain last March — with a useful propaganda tool. The headline on Ann Clwyd’s 18 March story in the Times was: ‘See men shredded, then say you don’t back war’.

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec239.html[/url]

N.B. Forrest

2004-02-23 10:21 | User Profile

This broad Clywd is the sort of testosterone-challenged idiot who shrieks in "outrage" whenever someone dares to question the word of weepy jewwws who claim to have lost 396 close relatives in the Hollowcost.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 15:56 | User Profile

Now isn't this atrocity propaganda downright silly and hypocritical? The global government of Greater Judea itself maintains order amongst subject peoples by turning them into human torches as was done in Tokyo, Dresden, and elsewhere. And its proteges in the Soviet Union find it serviceable to toss people into crematoria while still alive and screaming or to drive nails into skulls as an interrogational technique - so what's to be shocked about when a creditably forthright autocracy maintains order by horribly mincing its enemies? After all, in historic perspective, this is a relatively humane way of dealing with enemies of the state, since the Romans employed Phoenician crucifixion to produce a veritable combination of "agony and eternity," according to the account of one who experienced it for 24 hours and was taken down to survive and write of his experience.

il ragno

2004-02-24 04:36 | User Profile

Concocted 'atrocities' like this are why I chafe whenever anyone prefaces their criticism of Th' War Agin' EE-vull with a comment like, "Now, there's no denying Saddam is a [B]monster[/B], but..."

No denying? According to [I]what [/I] reliable source: Danny Pipes? Zev Chafets? Debbie Schlussel? Comrade Sandalio? Hell, I seem to recall - once upon a time - when a story like this [I]might've [/I] made it into mainstream print! But that was quite some time ago...if it ever really existed at all.

Start compiling the [U]real [/U] Traitors' List now, kiddies. It's relatively simple to do; merely jot down the names of every 'journalist' you see on cable tv or currently writing natl/intl affairs stories and op-eds for a high-profile paper or weekly. No need to devote much time to nuances of differentiation; there aren't enough of them there to fill a thimble, in any case. Always publicly refer to these Crusading Truth-Tellers as what they actually are: traitors, liars and Mossad operatives. Write them snail- and e-mail asking them point blank how many semesters in journalism school they required to master looking the other way without even being [I]ordered [/I] to, and how they got so deftly coordinated they managed to learn how to stick their fingers in their ears [I]and [/I] endorse those Karmazin/Murdoch/Redstone/Zuckerman lucky-bucks checks at the same time. Send them photos of Ali Abbas with "WHY DID YOU KILL MY PARENTS" scrawled across the top, and then send them pix of the IDF bulldozing another olive farmer's ancestral home with "OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM - THANKS TO YOU, IT WORKS FOR ALL OF US" emblazoned thereupon. Don't restrict your ire to just the obvious lunatics like Pipes; extend it to the soft-shoulders 'patriots' like Howard Fineman & Andrea Mitchell and their Imus Show A-list ilk who never openly cried for blood [because they wanted their escape hatch ready in case it all went south] but instead reported glowing puff-pieces on the architects of World War 4, thus manipulating YOU into howling for gore while their hands remained soft and clean. Ask them why a gentile calling a neocon a neocon is evidence of anti-Semitism but waving an electronic pom-pom for the aerial bombardment that murdered 10,000 Iraqis [I]isn't[/I]. Ask them how it feels to have run 20 lengths behind Al-Jazeera, Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk in the Truth & Integrity Derby; all that money and organization behind them, all those shiny Pulitzers awarded them for their innate incorruptibilty and they can't even get up for [B]show [/B] money against some Arabs, a Limey and a crazy-ass Jewish linguist. Remind them, their colleagues, their employers and their readers that they are no more than ambulatory delivery mechanisms for [I]two-minute hate[/I], regardless of the fawning blurbs beneath their bylines.

Oh, wait; I almost forgot. OD is now an explicitly Christian forum, ie, [U]hate the sin but love the sinner[/U]. Scratch all the above and let us pray for their immortal souls instead. [I]Father, we beseech thee in the name of our dear brother John Podhoretz...[/I]

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 09:56 | User Profile

It's interesting that so damned many Iraqis seemed to have been armed. I mean, what the hell was that? I think that the rule was that Saddam got whatever he wanted and as long as you didn't ever question that first rule then you were pretty much left to do as you pleased.

How else can we explain such wide gun ownership in Saddam's Iraq?

[QUOTE]Oh, wait; I almost forgot. OD is now an explicitly Christian forum, ie, hate the sin but love the sinner. Scratch all the above and let us pray for their immortal souls instead. Father, we beseech thee in the name of our dear brother John Podhoretz...[/QUOTE]

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 09:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Now isn't this atrocity propaganda downright silly and hypocritical? The global government of Greater Judea itself maintains order amongst subject peoples by turning them into human torches as was done in Tokyo, Dresden, and elsewhere. And its proteges in the Soviet Union find it serviceable to toss people into crematoria while still alive and screaming or to drive nails into skulls as an interrogational technique - so what's to be shocked about when a creditably forthright autocracy maintains order by horribly mincing its enemies? After all, in historic perspective, this is a relatively humane way of dealing with enemies of the state, since the Romans employed Phoenician crucifixion to produce a veritable combination of "agony and eternity," according to the account of one who experienced it for 24 hours and was taken down to survive and write of his experience.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Of course, violence must be measured to be effective, especially after power has been achieved.

Please explain this point to our dear friend Angler, who finds the tactics of the Holy Inquisition somehow unacceptable.

Walter

Sisyfos

2004-02-24 23:48 | User Profile

The one appeal that Shrub has over other contenders is that he is, as has been noted, a tool man par excellence. He’ll do anything or invade anybody the memo tells him to. And he’ll [I]know[/I] it’s the right thing to do and justify his case on that basis, contrary opinions galore and genuine self-interest of Americans be damned.

You didn’t get that kind of mayhem with Billy holding the nominal reigns. Too triangularly minded and always careful to smear the sh*t far and wide so as to distribute guilt and ensure unity of lying among fellow tools, or at least ensure plausible deniability for self. George I was a decent servant but found his conscience at the wrong time. That or either his time with the CIA has impressed upon him the limits to intelligence and long term effectiveness of misinformation operations, particularly when under time constraints.

George II is a known quantity. According to Frum he’s “the right man for the job,” and going by his criteria few here would dispute this. Pity the poor neocons who having at last got a man who knows how to deliver -- who has wetted their appetites like few others in recent memory -- must now grapple with the democratic inconvenience of seeing their enabler spend most of his time prancing about and begging for four more years. Oh well. “The cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

Georgie boy’s talent for screw-ups notwithstanding, I don’t think he’ll bring about the desired white exodus from the Republicans. His usefulness lies in his capacity to antagonize the rest of the world. The relatives of “evil doers” (or those guilty of harboring evil doers) that live in US and other western tag-along states will react predictably. Such things, only such things it seems give rise to meaningful education.

Sorry to hear about the Saddam libel. Who knew?