Sunday, May 20, 2007

Did Gonzales Skip Out on SERE/Torture Training?

Also posted at NION

Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is known to have served in the U.S. Air Force. Multiple sources describe his transfer to the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, where he spent two years, 1975-1977. According to the Wikipedia entry on the Academy, in those days SERE training was mandatory for all cadets between their 3rd and 4th years. But Gonzales never made it to his third year, per Wikipedia's anonymous author(s):

Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to Rice University (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982. [Emphasis mine]

Now the further service obligation was probably another sign up, as he had already been in the Air Force four years, spending the first two years in Alaska as an enlisted man. But could the "further obligation" have been attending SERE training, known to be horribly onerous?

For those not familiar with SERE, the acronymn stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. A program that started with the Air Force, and had its roots in resistance to capture programs in the Cold War, it spread to the other services over the years.

One area of concentration in SERE's curriculum is resistance to interrogation, and is said to include teaching of and experience of the following:

  • extreme temperatures
  • waterboarding - being tied to a board with the feet higher than the head and having water poured into the nose
  • noise stress - playing very loud and dissonant music and sound effects. Recordings have been reported to include babies wailing inconsolably, cats meowing, and irritating music (including a record by Yoko Ono)
  • sexual embarrassment
  • religious dilemma - being given the choice of either seeing a religious book desecrated or revealing secrets to interrogators.
  • flag desecration
  • prolonged cramped or restrictive confinement
  • sleep deprivation
  • starvation
  • mock execution
  • overcoming food aversion (finding nutrition from alternate sources which might include insects, roadkill, dumpsters)
  • height/water/enclosed spaces
  • physical beating
  • "stress inoculation"
  • According to a document discovered by Mark Benjamin of Salon in a ACLU cache of released government documents:

    A March 22, 2005, sworn statement by the former chief of the Interrogation Control Element at Guantánamo said instructors from SERE also taught their methods to interrogators of the prisoners in Cuba.

    "When I arrived at GTMO," reads the statement, "my predecessor arranged for SERE instructors to teach their techniques to the interrogators at GTMO ... The instructors did give some briefings to the Joint Interrogation Group interrogators."

    This is directly relevant to those in the American Psychological Association who are fighting to gain a moratorium on psychologist participation on interrogations, such as those at Guantánamo, and who maintain the leadership of the APA is pro-government and pro-torture, despite all their protestations and pretty, if legalistic, resolutions.

    Why? Because the the Chief Psychologist of SERE at the time was Colonel Morgan Banks. Banks was also, and importantly, handpicked by then APA President Gerald Koocher to serve with five other members of the military (out of 10 members total) on the PENS committee of the APA, which in 2005-06 investigated the question of psychologist involvement in coercive interrogations and torture in Bush's "war on terror". It issued a report that formally condemned torture, and psychologist participation in same, but supported ongoing psychologist participation in national security interrogations.

    For his part,Banks denied to the Washington Monthly introducing SERE techniques to Guantánamo interrogators, but then he may not have been "chief of the Interrogation Control Element". Nevertheless, he is

    responsible for the training and oversight of all Army SERE Psychologists, who include those involved in SERE training and in the repatriation of former detainees and prisoners of war. He provides technical support and consultation to all Army psychologists providing interrogation support, and his office currently provides the only Army training for psychologists in repatriation planning and execution, interrogation support, and behavioral profiling.

    By the way, thanks to the Kiley report (of then Army Surgeon General, the now-disgraced Kevin Kiley), we know that all Behavioral Science Consultation Team or BSCT members at Guantánamo must undergo SERE training. And, New York Times writers M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks had a source tell them that Banks was intimately involved in constructing interrogation policy at Guantánamo, just as he had been when stationed at Baghram Air Force Base in Afghanistan in 2002-2003:

    We also learned from a Pentagon official that the SERE program's chief psychologist, Col. Morgan Banks, issued guidance in early 2003 for the "behavioral science consultants" who helped to devise Guantánamo's interrogation strategy (we've been unable to learn the content of that guidance).

    And this is the man who was to dispassionately investigate and counsel on the role of psychologists in interrogations for the oh-so-liberal APA?

    Which takes me back to Alberto Gonzales. He, of course, is infamous for counseling Bush for rejecting Geneva Convention protections to prisoners captured in the military actions against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Here's a link to his memo of January 25, 2002.

    Would Gonzales have as easily made his recommendation to allow torture if he himself had suffered, as many Air Force cadets of his age did, the torments of SERE training? Or if he had taken the training, and I cannot be sure he didn't undertake it, could that experience have hardened him, made him ready to revenge his sufferings on nameless men, women, and children he had never seen, who would undergo coercive interrogations because they were deemed "enemy combatants" in a new kind of war that Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales felt existed above national and international law?

    We can't answer that question. But one thing for sure, the torture continues. The perpetrators escape accountability. And the nation sleeps in restless slumber, dreaming of American Idol fame, of Jack Bauer rescue and failure, and of invisible American and Iraqi corpses, hidden from the T.V. screens.

    Gonzales's likely skipping of SERE training is like Bush's playing hooky from National Guard service. Both are symbols of American adolescent irresponsibility and hauteur: let the others do the dirty work, and screw everybody else.

    Wednesday, May 16, 2007

    Baghdad Fallen: Diplomats Ordered into Flak Jackets

    Crossposted at Daily Kos

    No. Bagdad has not fallen to the "insurgents". Not yet. But it's only a matter of time before the headline of this diary appears upon the front pages of U.S. newspapers.

    Today, the Green Zone of Baghdad -- the so-called safety zone that is the hub of U.S. operations, a 3.5 square mile area in the heart of the city -- was hit by mortar fire for the second day in a row. According to an AP report, two people were killed and at least 10 wounded. The State Department minimized the attack, but U.S. Embassy officials "ordered diplomats to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings."

    It's the anti-surge. Instead of making Baghdad safer, the various groups that make up the Iraqi insurgency are stepping up their attacks in the very heart of the U.S. war and occupation regime.

    Both the intensity and skill of the attack were noteworthy. The shells, believed to be 122mm, exploded in rapid succession over about a three-minute period.

    The blasts were relatively close to one another, suggesting an experienced mortar crew using more than one launcher.

    On May 3, four Asian contractors were killed by a rocket attack in the Green Zone. Yesterday, nine were wounded. Over and over, in the AP article, Americans are voicing their fears:

    Nevertheless, the recent increase in attacks has raised alarm among American staffers living and working in what had been considered an oasis of safety in the turbulent Iraqi capital....

    Later this year, the United States plans to open a massive new embassy inside the Green Zone despite the ongoing security threat. Embassy staffers have expressed concern that the new facility lacks enough space to house the estimated 1,000 employees in safety.

    It was only a little over a month ago that a suicide bomber got into and blew up the cafeteria in the Iraqi Parliamentary Building. Meanwhile, as most news articles covering this story point out, such as this one from the Chicago Tribune, thousands of U.S. soldiers are searching for three soldiers reportedly captured in a surprise raid on a U.S. Humvee patrol. (Today, the Washington Post reports the names of the seven who were slain in the attack.)

    The images are building up to an overwhelming sense of conclusion: events in Iraq are spiralling out of control, even from a strictly military point of view. One wonders if the sudden censorship of soldier-bloggers and the military shut down of sites like MySpace aren't related to efforts to stem the tide of information.

    Even the British, who saw the departure of Bush ally, Blair, recently, have reversed course and saved the royal body of Prince Harry, announcing he will not be sent to Iraq, citing unacceptable risks and "specific threats".

    No one is safe in Iraq today, least of all its ordinary citizens, who have died in the hundreds of thousands. Americans and their allies who felt safe in the Green Zone are beginning to bear the psychic and bloody cost of American imperial policy, and Bush's megalomania.

    Today, the Senate failed to cut off war funds, though the vote was larger than ever to do so (67-29). But the entire affair in D.C. has a hallucinatory quality, as does the political analyses that surround it.

    U.S. diplomatic staff cannot walk around even the Green Zone without wearing helmets and flak jackets. Rocket and mortar attacks are becoming a daily affair.

    The U.S. must be forced to withdraw from Iraq now. Articles of impeachment are likely a necessity to remove the increasingly remote and Nero-esque Bush and his Rasputin-like cohort Cheney (if you can excuse the mixed historical metaphor).

    As events related herein make clear: time is short. Tomorrow, Baghdad will be fallen.

    [Updated: around 8:00 PM PDT, 5/16]

    I wanted to add some links, as there are some sources that deserve credit on reporting a few days back on the fear growing in the Green Zone, and on the precautions ordered for diplomatic personnel.

    ABC News: "U.S. Embassy: Wear Flak Jackets, Helmets"

    Daily Kos diary by Olds88, 5/14/07, No Warning Sirens During Cheney Visit

    McClatchy's story, 5/14/07, U.S. Embassy employees fearful over Green Zone attacks

    BBC: War-torn Iraq 'facing collapse'

    The latter is an important story, detailing a new British Chatham House think tank report:

    Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation, British foreign policy think tank Chatham House has warned.

    The report says the Iraqi government is now largely powerless and irrelevant in many parts of the country.

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007

    Is Establishment Turning Against Bush Detainee Torture?

    Daily Kos has an article by bejammin075 that quotes former Colin Powell Chief of Staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, as calling for impeachment investigations against Bush and Cheney. This may be remarkable in itself, but I found his rationale, as stated by Wilkerson in an interview with CNN, to be just as important. The man who part of the administration that built a phony case to go to war against Iraq, now says:

    I would start my investigation into the detainee abuse issue, which constitutes, I think, a defilement of everything America stands for, and has done irreparable damage to our reputation, and thus to our power around the world. If that doesn't rate a 'high crime' definition, I don't know what does.

    And I would also look closely at how we got into this war, particularly the cooking of the books in intelligence. [Emphasis is mine]

    Wilkerson has been saying some pretty critical things about the Bush administration since he left some time ago, but the emphasis on detainee abuse, i.e., torture, is welcomed in any case. I wonder how many individuals within the administration or the establishment in general oppose Bush on this. What they don't tell us is how extended and expansive is the organizational reach of the agencies that research and implement this torture. Will they say the "C" word?

    Sunday, May 13, 2007

    A Letter to Dr. Sharon Stephens Brehm, APA President

    The following letter was sent to the President of the American Psychological Association, following the call by this blog for action to support the proposed moratorium against using psychologists in national security interrogations, since they have been compromised by copious reports and evidence of torture.

    Dear Dr. Brehm,

    I write to support Dr. Reisner's proposed moratorium. There is more than adequate evidence to demonstrate that psychologists have been involved in unethical and probably illegal interrogations, especially those related to work in Special Forces and BSCT teams.

    I know of at least two specific instances of documented, direct psychologist misconduct during interrogations. Additionally, Former Army Surgeon General Kiley wrote in his report that BSCT hires from 2004 were primarily psychologists. If you put this simple fact together with the latest report from the International Red Cross on ongoing torture and misconduct concerning treatment of detainees and interrogations at Guantanamo, you have a high likelihood of psychologist misconduct.

    The moratorium also must go with a greater openness and an end to secrecy surrounding the activities of the BSCT teams. Redacted documents should be released in unaltered form, and APA must demand this.

    The future of the APA hangs by a thin thread, and it would be folly not to recognize this. I am an APA member, and talking with other members, I know that unhappiness with APA leadership on this question is wide-spread.

    I also know that you have a tough job, and that many APA members support the current situation, including many in Division 19, but not only inclusive of them.

    The history of professional, especially academic, psychology in collaborating with government entities in the preparation of interrogations that use torture is a sordid part of our history. It must end now if psychology is to emerge in the 21st century as a progressive and positive scientific force.

    Otherwise, it will be anathemized and become, in the public's mind, congruent with the worst elements of human nature. If you think this is impossible, I ask you to reflect upon the Lysenko scandal among geneticists in the old Soviet Union.

    Psychology may suffer soon the same fate. It will take leadership and courage to lead our guild away from this terrible future. I pray you have the wisdom to follow this course.

    Sincerely,
    XXXX XXXXXX, Ph.D.
    San Francisco, CA

    Friday, May 11, 2007

    U.S. Forcibly Drugs Immigrants -- ACLU Suit

    From the ACLU press release on May 8:

    Two Men Given Powerful Drugs Against Their Will

    LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has learned that two immigrants were forcibly sedated by the United States government. Raymond Soeoth and Amadou Diouf, clients in an ACLU of Southern California lawsuit, revealed that they had both been drugged involuntarily during attempts to deport them.

    Diouf was under court protection from deportation when officers put him on an airplane for return to his native Senegal. When he attempted to protest to the flight captain, he was sedated against his will.

    While undergoing deportation Soeoth, a Christian minister from Indonesia, was drugged by guards even after he explained he did not want to be sedated.

    In the end, neither man was deported. Both men were released last February after approximately two years in a federal facility in San Pedro as part of a lawsuit in which the ACLU of Southern California has won the release of more than a dozen people held indefinitely in violation of federal rules.

    “These druggings were medically unnecessary, immoral, and dangerous,” said ACLU of Southern California Staff Attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents Diouf and Soeoth. “Officers sedated these perfectly sane men, apparently just to silence them. The routine nature of these actions raises serious questions about how common this practice is.”

    An article published today in the Los Angeles Daily Journal documents the men’s experiences. The reporter learned about the drugging during interviews with Diouf and Soeoth.

    Medical experts consulted by the ACLU of Southern California say the drugs used on Soeoth, Haldol and Cogentin, are used to treat psychosis and should not have been prescribed for someone with no history of mental illness. A federal policy prohibits medication of detainees “solely to facilitate transport, unless a medical professional determines that they present a danger to themselves or to others.” [emphasis added]

    The ACLU said that is a loose medical standard that is open to abuse.

    “It is frightening that the government is using anti-psychotic drugs on immigrants who have no history of mental illness,” Arulanantham said.

    The ACLU of Southern California is aggressively investigating the practice with the pro-bono assistance of the law firm Munger, Tolles, and Olson LLP.

    I want to know what medical professional determined these men were a danger to self and others, allowing government agents (who are unspecified, but presumably Homeland Security) to use powerful psychotropic drugs to unwilling victims. Haldol, in particular, can cause permanent nerve damange and a chronic tic-like condition called tardive dyskinesia, sometimes, though rarely, after one administration.

    It is hard to keep registering one outrage after another, but this practice must be stopped. Hopefully, the ACLU suit will bring us more information on the policies and personnel involved in this heinous misuse of medical procedure.

    Thursday, May 10, 2007

    Video: What If You Were Imprisoned at Gitmo? (Viewer Advisory: Strong, Graphic Images)

    Stephen Soldz found an amazing, if shocking, video that recreates the experience of being imprisoned and abused at Guantanamo prison. I'll let him explain it:


    British Channel 4 TV took seven volunteers and subjected them for 48 hours to the tactics authorized for use at Guantanamo. Quite chilling. It took only 10 hours for the first volunteer to be removed due to the severe trauma he underwent. Only four of the seven survived 48 hours of hell. Many of the Guantanamo detainees have been there over four years: 35,040 hours, 730 times as long. If we do not help them, they may spend the rest of their lives there. Everyone, including all APA members, should watch this.

    Wednesday, May 9, 2007

    Heart of Darkness: Sensory Deprivation & U.S. Torture -- Where From Here?

    Many students and college graduates who have taken a psychology course have probably heard of Jerome S. Bruner. One of America's most famous psychologists, he helped found Harvard's Center for Cognitive Studies. Under Lyndon Johnson, Bruner ran the National Institute of Child Health and Development. His book, The Process of Education, became a classic in the 1960s, with its far-reaching program of school curriculum reform.

    Today, Bruner is 91, and still active as Research Professor of Psychology and Senior Research Fellow in Law, at New York University. What's not commonly known is that during World War II, he was conscripted, as so many behavioral scientists were, into the Office of Strategic Studies (OSS). Or that in the later 1950s, Bruner was involved in research in sensory deprivation, much of which was funded by the U.S. government in an attempt to counter so-called Chinese brainwashing, and as part of the U.S. mind control and interrogation programs. Bruner, it seems, was unaware of his role in the latter, as we shall see.

    Brainwashing Fascinates the Academy

    As part of a massive U.S. program to understand what appeared to some U.S. intelligence observers to be a large brainwashing program by the Russians and the Chinese, U.S. intelligence and the military began recruiting and sponsoring psychiatrists and psychologists to do research on "brainwashing" methodology, including use of hypnosis, drugs, sleep deprivation, and isolation (solitary confinement). But there was a separate and new line of mind control research, whose headquarters were at McGill University in Montreal. There, the famous psychologist Donald O. Hebb, later president of the American Psychological Association, crafted the first large experiments on sensory deprivation from 1951-53.

    Hebb's famous article, Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System), and his pioneer experiments on sensory deprivation, spawned a great deal of interest in the military. And, through the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the money started to flow, reaching numerous universities and medical/psychology departments. Some of the biggest names in the field of behavioral science and medicine became witting and unwitting recruits in a research program that would culminate in a new paradigm of torture interrogation, as exemplified in the CIA's now-famous (and still partly censored) KUBARK interrogation manual of the early 1960s.

    As historian Alfred McCoy described it in his book, A Question of Torture:

    Although Hebb later admitted, with some sense of remorse, the clandestine source of his funding, he still incorporated findings from the sensory deprivation experiments, without any apparent regrets, into the theoretical relections that contributed to his rising scholarly reputation. In his Essay on Mind, published in 1980 after all the revelvations about CIA funding and Dr. Ewen Camerons's abusive research [at McGill University], Hebb wrote that his "so-called sensory-deprivation experiment" demonstrated "that the integrity of the mind at maturity continues to depend on... the sensory stimulation of the normal complex environment." These tests, Hebb concluded, "supported the prediction that... such [sensory deprivation] conditions would have a disorganizing effect on thought"... (p. 220) [emphases added, not in original]

    While Hebb may have been involved, others in the academic research community may not have understood all the implications. Jerome Bruner is an example of the latter. Although he was not without experience in interrogations, having been involved in OSS interrogations during the period surrounding D-Day, Bruner came to a Harvard symposium with a new paper on the effects of early sensory deprivation, which was a special interest of his. Perhaps it was personal: Bruner had been blind for the first two years of his life.

    The Harvard Symposium on Sensory Deprivation

    According to McCoy, the 1958 Harvard symposium on sensory deprivation was funded covertly through an ONR contract -- Nonr 1866 [29]. Other government agencies had funded much of the individual research done, including the Army, Air Force, and the National Science Foundation. The papers from this symmposium were edited and printed up in a volume that one can still purchase, used, online: Sensory Deprivation, A Symposium Held at Harvard Medical School. One of the book's editors, Philip Kubzansky, was also a an author of an essay entitled "The Effects of Reduced Environmental Stimulation on Human Behavior: A Review", which appeared in another book from the same period, one I've previously reviewed, The Manipulation of Human Behavior. (Kubzansky was also Chief Psychologist at Boston City Hospital at the time.)

    Jerome Bruner appears to have been interested in the developmental aspects of sensory deprivation, especially as they affected the neurological and cognitive aspects of a child's maturation. His essay for the symposium as reprinted and can be read entirely on-line (one of the reasons for using it as the centerpiece of this article) by anyone who is interested. It appeared as a stand-alone article in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. XXI, No. 2, in 1959. As a primer in the topic of sensory deprivation, you couldn't ask for a better introduction.

    According to Bruner's paper, "The Cognitive Consequences of Early Sensory Deprivation", the whole issue stemmed from a new understanding of the development of perception in the maturing organism. Bruner was conscious of his precursors in the field, and explained their primary discoveries:

    For bringing this matter into a proper empirical perspective, we must be grateful for the work of Hebb and his students in investigating the effects of early sensory deprivation in animals. I do not propose to review the work, for it is well known. In general, an impoverished environment, one with diminished heterogeneity and a reduced set of opportunities for manipulation and discrimination produces an adult organism with reduced abilities to discriminate, with stunted strategies for coping with roundabout solutions, with less taste for exploratory behavior, and with a notably reduced tendency to draw inferences that serve to cement the disparate events of its environment...

    But Bruner was not just concerned with the effects of early sensory deprivation, as he was aware that the early SD experiments were almost all conducted on adults, and there were effects, usually reversible, that were still psychologically profound. Bruner continued:

    ... let me remind you of the parallel findings on prolonged sensory deprivation in adult organisms that have the effect of disorganizing cognitive function, upsetting the constancies, even disrupting the perception of continuous contours that extend beyond the immediate focus of attention at the center of the visual field. I remind you of these matters in advance of setting forth some speculations to underline the likelihood that perception and cognitive activity generally depend upon a dynamically stable though ultimately disruptible equilibrium that depends, even in adult life, upon contact with stimulus heterogeneity and a shifting environment. [emphases are mine]

    This was something akin to Philip Kubansky's observations of the effects of isolation and sensory deprivation upon an interrogation detainee, as written in The Manipulation of Human Behavior:

    The boredom, restlessness, irritability, and other mood changes observed also may well apply. The stimulus-hunger and increased suggestibility which have been observed may make an individual more vulnerable to revealing information he might otherwise withhold, particularly when accompanied by the social uncertainty induced in the interrogation situation. Unprepared for these consequences of isolation and deprivation, like many experimental subjects, an individual may become apprehensive and indeed panicked by his reactions. The appearance of hallucinatory-like phenomena and their emotional accompaniments have often been quite anxiety provoking. (p. 90)
    Why Are We Doing This?

    Yet, at this Harvard symposium, at the school where he worked for so long, Bruner looked at the other contributions of the behavioral scientists and seemed befuddled. An essay by the psychoanalytic researchers Holt and Goldberger on the personality correlates of response to sensory deprivation flumoxxed him. He wrote:

    The work reported by Goldberger and Holt in this symposium on "individual differences in reaction to experimental interference with reality contact" and also by Bennett on the effect of sensory isolation in high altitude flying suggests that people respond differently to the initial stages of isolation, some finding it exciting and even intoxicating, others, terrifying and disrupting. I do not know what bearing this has on our present problem, save that when one is isolated from external stimulation one is thrown on internal resources, and people differ in the degree to which they live comfortably and confidently with their inner impulses and cognitive models.

    Bruner seemingly did not see or understand what all this research was reaching for. With his own personal interest in the then-new field of cognitive psychology, and his passion for developmental themes, he overlooked the sponsorship of the Office of Naval Research. After all, it was common enough in those days to have military sponsorship of one's psychological research. Goldberger's work on psychological types had been sponsored, for instance, by the Air Force. But there was a point. The work on isolation and sensory deprivation was to be used in formulating a "scientific" model of interrogation, which in the end amounted to psychological torture.

    This new scientific model delineated profound and disturbing vulnerablities in human nature and the ways human beings construct reality. As the physicists did with atomic physics, the psychologists and psychiatrists researching isolation, sensory and sleep deprivation, responses to various drugs, and to hypnotism, had discovered some important aspects to the workings of our minds and bodies... and they would use it to construct technologies of destruction and governmental control.

    In brief, what did they discover? According to Peter Suedfeld, a psychologist writing 10 years after Bruner's paper, in a retrospective on SD research, these behavioral scientists had discovered "a manipulation that made a difference -- unlike so many pallid experimental situations, a difference you could almost taste." (Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research, ed. J. P. Zubek, Appleton-Century-Crofts, NY, 1969, p. 3)

    Sensory deprivation research touched on more than deprivation, it covered aspects of human psychological and physiological functioning under conditions of isolation, sensory blurring, near-total deprivation, personality and drug interactions, among other potential effects. It posited human beings as sensation-seeking organisms (and not just humans, but higher animals). In fact, the need for stimulation was raised to the status of a human drive or instinct. Along the lines of the cognitive psychologists, like Bruner, who were coming into prominence at this time, the patterning of stimuli and perception was seen as linked to some kind of relatively stable environment. As Bruner pointed out, if that environment, or the cognitive map a person had made of an expected environment were to change radically, or become random, or unfocused, the organism/nervous system responded maladaptively. Negative changes took place along a number of psychological dimensions: cognitive, emotional, stress tolerance, susceptiblity to persuasion, etc.

    As Hebb pointed out at the 1958 Harvard Symposium, the whole SD research project began as an attempt to understand and counter what was believed to be a Russian and Chinese Cold War project to control others' behavior and minds. They called it "brainwashing". In the end, they twisted it into a form of coercive interrogation that was utilized by the CIA and military up to the present day.

    From Harvard Yard to Guantanamo Bay

    From PHR's essential book, Break Them Down:

    A legal memorandum prepared by Lt. Col. Diane E. Beaver in October 2002 considered the legality of the techniques proposed for use at Guantánamo. The memorandum approved the use of waterboarding, isolation, sensory deprivation, removal of clothing, hooding, and exploitation of detainees’ phobias. (p. 46)

    Not surprisingly, behavioral specialists were called upon to monitor and consult on these torture techniques. Psychologists were utilized because they had special expertise in areas such as... well, sensory deprivation!

    Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib, described to General Taguba how that worked in practice.

    If the interrogation plan falls within the outline set by LTG Sanchez then the O5 Deputy Director or myself approve the plans. Those interrogation plans include a sleep plan and medical standards. A physician and a psychiatrist are on hand to monitor what we are doing.
    . . .
    Typically, the MP has a copy of the interrogation plan and a written note as to how to execute. There should also be files in the detainee files as to what is going on when an exception is needed. The interrogator uses these files to keep a record as to what has happened to the detainee. The doctor and psychiatrist also look at the files to see what the interrogation plan recommends; they have the final say as to what is implemented.... At Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, “behavioral science consultation teams” (hereinafter BSCT), composed of psychologists and psychiatrists, were formed with the purpose of facilitating interrogation. (p. 46-47)

    None of this was really new. The old CIA KUBARK manual, which directed its interrogators in counterintelligence "interviews" made clear that "experts" were often needed, and that sensory deprivation, among other psychological forms of torture, was to be utilized.

    As this selection from the CIA's "Interrogator Checklist" makes clear, psychological knowledge of the type we have been discussing here, is necessary in the torture chamber:

    6. Does the interrogators selected for the task meet the four criteria of (a) adequate training and experience, (b) genuine familiarity with the language to be used, (c) knowledge of the geographical/cultural area concerned, and (d) psychological comprehension of the interrogatee?

    7. Has the prospective interrogatee been screened? What are his major psychological characteristics? Does he belong to one of the nine major categories listed in pp. 19-28? Which? ....

    41. As above, for confinement. If the interrogates is to be confined, can KUBARK control his environment fully? Can the normal routines be disrupted for interrogation purposes?

    42. Is solitary confinement to be used? Why? Does the place of confinement permit the practical elimination of sensory stimuli?

    43. Are threats to be employed? As part of a plan? Has the nature of the threat been matched to that of the interrogatee?

    44. If hypnosis or drugs are thought necessary, has Headquarters been given enough advance notice? Has adequate allowance been made for travel time and other preliminaries?

    45. Is the interrogatee suspected of malingering? If the interrogator is uncertain, are the services of an expert available?

    An Action Call

    In other postings, I have called for the public to place pressure upon the American Psychological Association to stop its members from participating in coercive intelligence interrogations, i.e., in torture! Because a portion of the APA membership is fighting for such a moratorium, the American public is in a unique position to vote, in a manner of speaking, on the use of torture by the U.S. government, by calling and writing APA top office holders and telling them "We don't want any participation in torture or coercive intelligence or military interrogations."

    For more details on this campaign, click here. Or go ahead and write directly to the President of the American Psychological Association by clicking through to this link, which the APA calls "Ask the President".

    We can make a difference. The history of science and psychology cannot be hijacked by a group of militarists and jingoists in order to maintain an immoral interrogation program of torture and inhumane treatment. Ask yourself, what have I done to change this barbarous practice, then do something about it!

    Sunday, May 6, 2007

    Thanks to All Supporting Campaign to Pressure APA on Interrogations

    Voltaire began his campaign to stop torture practices left over from the days of the Inquisition when he was already well into his 70s. I'm only in my 50s, so I figure I have a lot of catching up to do. (Of course, our torture practices are left over from our own version of the Inquisition... the Cold War.) I have a link to yet another new letter from a psychologist to the Sharon Brehm at the American Psychological Association (APA). It was posted over at Stephen Soldz's Psyche, Science, & Society.

    Dear Dr. Brehm:

    You have an opportunity to make things right.  You have an opportunity to restore integrity to the APA with respect to its activities that have supported the immoral, illegal, and unethical interrogations of innocent human beings in U.S. detention centers around the world.

    I ask you to push APA toward prohibiting psychologists' involvement in the interrogations of detainees happening in Guantanamo and other detention centers.

    I ask you to remove the "Nuremberg" defense (Standard 1.02) from our Ethical Principles.

    I ask you to let the world know by your actions that psychologists are not a bunch of barbarians; that we truly care and are compassionate and strive to be healers not destroyers of human psyches.

    What will you say to your children, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren when they ask you what you did to stop the torture of human beings  in U.S. detention centers?

    What would you say to the children of the detainees who have been tortured under the guidance of psychologists?

    Do you have the compassion and courage to stop this evil?

    Art Eccleston, Psy.D.

    For those of you who don't know yet, Sharon Brehm is the new President of the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA remains the only health-care related association that continues to allow its membership to participate in national security interrogations such as occur or did occur at Guantanamo Bay Naval Prison, at Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and numerous other sites.

    The interrogations that took place, and continue to take place at these prisons, are notorious for using techniques of psychological torture that require the participation of medical and mental health personnel. We have a special opportunity to squelch the participation of psychologists, who have been crucial to Pentagon and CIA staffing at interrogation sites, and slow down, if not stop much of the torture practices the U.S. is undertaking. How? By supporting the moratorium being promoted by APA membership to stop participation in national security interrogations abroad. For more on the hows and whys behind this campaign, read the original call here.

    Much thanks to all who have promoted and helped circulate this call to action. I intend to keep the pressure on all the way to the APA convention in San Francisco this August. If you want to know more how to help, e-mail me at sfpsych at gmail dot com. (Spelled out because the spam situation is getting out of hand.)

    Write or call the APA:

    American Psychological Association
    750 First Street, NE
    Washington, DC 20002-4242
    (800) 374-2721
    (202) 336-5500

    Write and call, now. Let them know how upset you are.

    Send an email to the Public Affairs Office of the APA, expressing your outrage:

    public.affairs@apa.org

    Phone the Ethics Office directly at (202) 336-5930 or use APA's toll free number (800) 374-2721, extension 5930, and give them a piece of your mind.

    And finally, write to the President of the APA, Dr. Sharon Stephens Brehm. Be nice, be polite, but be firm (this is true for ALL communications).

    Dr. Brehm has a web page, Ask the President. Follow the link to leave an email message directly for her.

    If we apply enough pressure, it might make the APA stand up and take notice. Don't forget to write your congressman/congresswoman and senator, too!

    WE CAN DO IT!

    We don't have to be powerless. We aren't helpless. Write, call, email today. Copy this diary's URL and send it to your friends.

    I want to see APA inundated with thousands of messages saying "Stop torture. Stop psychologist participation in coercive interrogations.

    Wednesday, May 2, 2007

    Feinstein Introduces Bill to Close Gitmo in One Year

    Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has introduced a bill to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The closure would be slated for one year after the passage of the bill -- a long time if you are a detainee being held in solitary confinement, or otherwise.

    A recent Amnesty International report, quoted by Turkana in a diary over at Daily Kos on this issue, describes the current conditions for those imprisoned at "Gitmo":

    The isolated prisoners are now spending 22 hours alone in a windowless cell with no natural light or fresh air. They exercise alone, often at night and can go for days without seeing daylight. Inmates have their meals alone in their cells, which are constantly lit, and they are observed 24 hours a day.

    Senator Feinstein has previously supported both the Patriot Act and the incarceration of "war on terror" detainees at Guantanamo Bay. (Her bill says nothing about other U.S.-run prisons abroad that hold similar "enemy combatants", and also are similarly tarred with reports of torture.)

    In her website statement, she declares:

    “Guantanamo Bay has become a lightning rod for international condemnation.... This has greatly damaged the nation’s credibility around the world. Rather than make the United States safer, the image projected by this facility puts us at greater risk. The time has come to close it down.”

    “I want to be clear. I am absolutely opposed to releasing any terrorists, Taliban fighters or anyone else held at Guantanamo who is committed to harming the United States.

    “At the same time, we must recognize the sustained damage this facility is doing to our international standing. We are better served by closing this facility and transferring the detainees elsewhere.”

    Feinstein's language, oddly, shows greater concern for the image of the United States than for the human beings broken by coercive interrogation, isolation, sensory deprivation, beatings, and other forms of torture. Her bill would call for a transfer of detainees to U.S. courts to be charged with crimes, or turned over to an international tribunal, or returned to their own or a third country, with "guarantees" of no torture if returned.

    As an example of the kind of pressure being exerted upon the politicians of this country around the torture issue, Feinstein's bill represents a victory, albeit only one step in a long and arduous process. It may be the best bill that can be expected at this time out of this Congress. George W. Bush will be hard pressed to veto this bill, but sabotage it or veto it he will.

    Or, will he go ahead and let Gitmo close, as a damage control operation, transferring the prisoners elsewhere in his gulag? It will be a symbolic defeat. But hell, they can handle symbolic defeats. They don't challenge the raw naked power of the military state.

    I nevertheless cannot help but feel heartened by Feinstein's bill. Her website contains a detailed timeline that discusses the torture that has taken place at Guantanamo at the hands of U.S. agencies. I don't know of any other Congressional website that does that. Here's a sampling:

    November 30, 2004: The New York Times reported that the International Committee of the Red Cross charged, in confidential reports to the United States government, that the American military had intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on Guantanamo Bay detainees. The report said detainees were forced to endure "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions." The story also revealed that a January 2003 confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross raised questions whether “psychological torture” had taken place at Guantanamo Bay.

    December 21, 2004: The Washington Post reported that FBI agents, in memos spanning a two-year period, witnessed a variety of abuses at Guantanamo Bay. The newspaper reported that one FBI agent, on August 2, 2004, wrote: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." In once case, the agent continued, "the detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."

    June 2005: An official Department of Defense report by Air Force Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt, launched in response to the FBI concerns, found three instances of “degrading and abusive treatment” in violation of Department of Defense guidelines. These included the use of dogs in interrogations, extended period of solitary confinement and sleep deprivation. The report concluded that these acts did not constitute torture or inhumane treatment, and that some of the abuses alleged to have been witnessed by the FBI could not be corroborated.

    If you feel so inclined, call Sen. Feinstein's office and give her your support, and maybe you'll want to add that the legislation doesn't go far enough. Tell her you want the restoration of habeas corpus and the outlawing of all forms of psychological torture, and that you want those who authorized the torture held accountable. Tell her you want an end to secret renditions and the closing of the black prisons. Who knows? She may be inclined to listen (though I wouldn't hold my breath).

    Washington, DC - (202) 224-3841
    San Francisco - (415) 393-0707
    Los Angeles - (310) 914-7300
    San Diego - (619) 231-9712
    Fresno - (559) 485-7430

    (tip of the hat to Turkana)

    Search for Info/News on Torture

    Google Custom Search
    Add to Google ">View blog reactions

    This site can contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.