Reprint: FBI & American Psychological Association Attack Patient Confidentiality

[The following was first posted on January 7, 2007 at the Daily Kos website. It is being reprinted here as of significant interest to readers of this blog. I have no reason to believe that anything important has changed since this article was originally written. One exception might be the peregrinations undertaken by the American Psychological Association on the question of interrogations, which can be followed in numerous other articles at this site. Another exception would be revelations that emerged during the year regarding psychologist participation in U.S. government torture, and this additional material is included in the following text in the form of an editorial emendation.]

I recently came across an FBI report on a conference jointly sponsored by the FBI and the American Psychological Association. Given the recent and ongoing controversies over the use of psychologists and other medical personnel in U.S. torture programs abroad, I thought a close examination of the matter of this conference could be interesting. -- What you will read may shock you (especially if you are interested in mental health practice). It will certainly enlighten you, and help fill in the gaps that exist in our understanding of U.S. interrogation techniques, the "war on terror", and the government campaign to curtail our liberties.

Countering Terrorism: Integration of Practice and Theory
An Invitational Conference
FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia
February 28, 2002
Sponsored by: Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy Science Directorate,
American Psychological Association
University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts & Sciences
and the Solomon Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict
Decade of Behavior Initiative

It was during a meeting of members of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) and members of the American Psychological Association, two large and complex bureaucracies, when the idea of an invitational conference on countering terrorism was born. The excitement of bringing together highly qualified law enforcement officers with various terrorism experts and academics was palpable.

(All quotes from the report are linked here, and found on the FBI's own servers.)

Susan Brandon: Top Psychologist for the Bush Administration?

The FBI report begins with an introduction by a member of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) and two members of the American Psychological Association (APA). Of the latter, the first listed is Susan Brandon, Ph.D., "Senior Scientist". The second is Geoffrey K. Mumford, Ph.D., "Director of Science Policy" at APA.

Susan Brandon, it should be noted, is:

...the Behavioral & Social Science Principal at the Mitre Corporation [a company highly linked to U.S. Air Defense]. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Dr. Brandon served as APA's senior scientist, and later as Assistant Director of Social, Behavioral, and Educational Sciences for the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.... In December 2005, she was awarded the American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Citation in "recognition of her visionary efforts to promote the value of the psychological and behavioral sciences as they apply to our counter-terrorism, homeland security, and national security interests". [LINK]

Brandon went on to become an instrumental member of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBES) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's Committees on Science and Homeland and National Security. As Geoffrey Mumford wrote in an article for the APA in 2005, Brandon

... joined the SBES Subcommittee to guide the interagency initiative on behalf of President Bush's science adviser. At APA, Brandon had helped steer much of the association's scientific outreach relevant to counter-terrorism after 9/11.

Reflecting on her role and the ongoing work being conducted through NSTC, Brandon noted "the SBES Subcommittee is an opportunity for the social and behavioral sciences to have a voice and a presence at the table that is unique in recent Washington policy processes."

The result of Brandon's participation was a report, Combating Terrorism: Research Priorities in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Much in this fairly innocuous and insubstantial report came from material discussed at the Quantico conference, which is the subject of this diary.

What was left out, as always, is what is most telling: the concrete policies and roles determined for psychologists in the U.S. Homeland Security apparatus, and the changes that will have to take place in American psychology for this to take place.

What emerges is a portrait of institutional American psychology -- and its top leadership -- eager to have front seats at the spoils table that is capturing the billions of dollars flowing into national security in the wake of 9/11. (One is reminded of the participation of former APA president and top U.S. psychologist, Martin Seligman, in discussions on psychological debility via learned helplessness at SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape], a military program implicated in a famous New Yorker expose in the development of torture techniques used by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.)

[Author's Note: Since this article was originally written, the development of torture techniques by psychologists working for SERE and the CIA was confirmed in a report by the Department of Defense's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The story had earlier been pieced together in large part by journalists Jane Mayer and Michael Otterman. Their work was put into context of the OIG report by psychologist-activst Stephen Soldz in a terrific article last May.]

The Quantico Conference "Scenarios"

On February 28, 2002, more than 70 academic scholars and researchers, and personnel from justice, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, met at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia....

The participants, roughly half academic scholars and researchers and half law enforcement personnel, dispersed into seven small groups to discuss scenarios that had been developed before the conference by the FBI. These scenarios described some of the current problems that the FBI, other law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are facing as they try to discover cadres of terrorists or those who harbor them, as well as deter support for terrorism by individuals, designated groups, and communities.

What kind of scenarios were discussed?

Scenario 1: A trustworthy local businessman reports suspicious activity by an apparently Middle Eastern neighbor....

Problem: This scenario was viewed as quite typical of the many that have come through local police and FBI offices since 9/11. The problem is how to develop an effective triage system...

Strategies: Make use of data gathering/vetting systems already in use in other situations, such as in the medical and legal professions.

In other words, here the FBI is describing the need to develop better Information Evaluation Systems.

Other scenarios posit other intelligence conundrums and proposes strategies to address the problems involved (on community relations, interrogation, data mining, etc.).

Confidentiality, Ethics Codes, and the Need for Government Informers

Of interest are those scenarios that touch on issues of how mental health professionals conduct their business, especially when it comes to issues of confidentiality.

Scenario 2a: ....A woman contacts her psychologist from whom she has been receiving therapy for the past year for bouts with depression. She reports that she has just learned that a friend of her 19-year-old son appears to be recruiting her son for a martyrdom mission. This friend has voiced some fundamental Islamic beliefs that are very anti-American. The woman has overheard worrisome conversations between her son and his friend but had tried to discount their significance until her son revealed today that he was asked to become a Martyr for an unspecified attack against the United States. He is very concerned that his friend is involved in something that may be planned for the near future. They are afraid to report this to the police because her son has a juvenile record and he is somewhat anti-American himself. They are naturalized citizens of the United States after having moved here from Iran many years ago.

The joint FBI/APA report purports that this situation described in this scenario "is not covered explicitly by the American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." What does that code say?

5.05 Disclosures. (a) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose, such as (1) to provide needed professional services to the patient or the individual or organizational client, (2) to obtain appropriate professional consultations, (3) to protect the patient or client or others from harm, or (4) to obtain payment for services, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose.

So, what is not clear here? There are no individuals here who are identified as being harmed. But, if the patient or her son are concerned about future developments, they can always go on their own to the police or FBI. Scenarios such as these are routinely discussed in ethics courses. Most state laws mandate a disclosure under Tarasoff rules, which state that "a psychotherapist has a duty to protect or warn a third party only if the therapist actually believed or predicted that the patient posed a serious risk of inflicting serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identifiable victim".

Quantico and the Recent Judicial Attacks on Confidentiality

In a recent development, in 2004 the California Appeals Court, in Ewing v Goldstein, expanded the Tarasoff rules in a way that may affect the discussion here. In this decision, the Appeals Court upheld a case, wherein "The court saw no difference between threats conveyed directly by the patient and those related by an immediate family member of the patient."

But, in all the years before this decision, the psychologist had no obligation to report the client's son's friend to anybody. Indeed, it would have been unethical, if not illegal, to do so! Robert Kinscherff, a forensic psychologist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School wrote to Susan Brandon:

The law that permits or requires a psychologist to break confidentiality in order to protect third parties from potential violence is the closest body of law to the scenario. However, this law contemplates that it is the client/patient who poses the serious threat of harm to a third party; it does not contemplate violation of the confidentiality of the client/patient if the client/patient is not the source of the risk of harm.
There is no specific mention of national-security related issues in the Code, and I am unaware of any APA policy document or guidelines document that refers to national security issues as they might arise in the practice of psychology.
The Code as currently worded would actually permit breaking of confidentiality despite the patient's/client's wishes in the "national security risk from a third party" scenario BUT ONLY IF there were applicable state or federal law that MANDATED the breaking of confidentiality or PERMITTED the breaking of confidentiality in order to protect the client/patient or others (see, for example, 5.05(3) which permits disclosure to protect others if mandated or permitted by law).

Gee, too bad there is no such law.... Oops -- with the recent ruling, Ewing v Goldstein, now there is! As the Church Lady used to say, Isn't that precious?

But, seriously, is there any connection between the FBI/APA discussion in 2002 and the decisions made narrowing confidentiality laws for psychotherapists two years later? I don't know. But in the Quantico conference document, the FBI explicitly lays out its strategies on this:

Seek guidance from the American Psychological Association and state psychological associations to consider:

􀂃 Including statements regarding information related to national security in its code of ethics;

􀂃 Broadening training programs to include instruction on how to deal with such situations, and

􀂃 Teaching clinicians and clinical students how to become familiar with various law enforcement agencies and rules, and how to deal with third parties such as probation officers.

APA: Agents for the Government?
To make matters even more clear, the FBI tells the APA what it should be doing. And not only the APA, but teachers, the clergy, and anyone else who might be a source of solace, confession, and counseling in this country, making the latter into spies for the "war on terror":

There is a need for the American Psychological Association and state psychological associations to develop an ethical code for practitioners for instances where a client may have information relevant to terrorism (similar to other mandates that already exist, such as those for instances of abuse of children and the elderly and a client’s intention to harm himself or another person). Such instances are peculiar because they involve third-party harm. Psychologists need to be trained for what behaviors to look for, and how to report information to law enforcement while protecting the client and their family and community. This may include some kinds of cross-cultural training. The APA may have to work with legislatures and licensing boards regarding some of these issues. Similar training and issues of confidentiality need to be considered for the training of clergy, teachers, and physicians.

Even more amazing, given the joint FBI/APA nature of the report, is the FBI's "suggestion" to the APA:

It was suggested that the APA might develop guidelines for such reporting, and offer these to other agencies (school systems, social services), where appropriate.

HIPAA and National Security Disclosures
Then, a year or so after Quantico, the federal government implemented its new rules on privacy and medical information. The new privacy rule of the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), now effective law since April 2003, states:

Patients have the right to receive an accounting of disclosures of protected health information made by their providers in the six years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested, except for disclosures....

4. for national security or intelligence purposes

5. to correctional institutions or law inforcement officers

[emphasis in original]

I don't know when this language was put in, but it correlates perfectly with the intent of the authors of the Quantico document. In any case, the developments regarding patient confidentiality have eroded the latter significantly in the past ten years, and the leadership of the American Psychological Association, while giving lip service to protecting confidentiality, has been quick to chuck its scruples when anything regarding national security -- or big bucks to get in on the hogfeed that is national science funding -- is at stake.

My Main Point

When the APA published its own article on the conference in November 2003, it never mentioned the changes in confidentiality laws and ethics codes proposed by the FBI, neither opposing or supporting them. You would never know from reading the APA's account that such tremendous changes in standard ethical practice were being proposed, or that the APA was to take the lead in making these changes throughout the larger medical and social services field.

The silence of the APA on this issue is deafening. The leaders of the APA have fudged the question of use of psychologists in national security interrogations that hold "enemy combatants", and where torture has taken place. The leaders of the APA would allow use of psychologists in Army interrogations where use of isolation, sleep deprivation, and inducement of fear and debility take place (see my earlier article on the "new" Army field interrogation manual). The leaders of the APA would like to be seen as enthusiastic cheerleaders of the neocon war on terror, as handmaidens to the organization of state security, in the name of providing "knowledge". In the meantime, they would turn every psychologist, psychiatrist, doctor, counselor, clergyman and teacher into government informants and spies.

I invite members of the APA, especially from its hierarchy, to respond to this diary/article.

New Report Warns "Afghanistan on the Brink"

Reuters has just posted a story that should make Americans stand up and take notice -- assuming they can bestir their self-interested torpor -- as the Senlis Council, a well-respected international think-tank, has released a report, "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink", which argues the situation in Afghanistan has reached "crisis proportions". This follows the revelations last month from a top British politician and former UN representative in the Balkans that the war in Afghanistan is "lost".

Canadian Television summed up the conclusions in the Senlis report this way (all emphases in quotes throughout are mine):

*** The Taliban are winning hearts and minds in southern Afghanistan; the international community is not. NATO-ISAF troops are forced to fight in an increasingly hostile environment because of the international community’s blunt political errors.
*** The absence of comprehensive development aid plans has given a strategic advantage to the Taliban.
*** Time for a well-planned village by village hearts and minds campaign to re-engage the Afghan population and make NATO’s mission a successful one.

What's that? A "hearts and minds" campaign to "re-engage" the population against the native opposition? Where have I heard that kind of language before?

Meanwhile, the Reuters article elaborates:

If NATO, the lead force operating in Afghanistan, is to have any impact against the insurgency, troop numbers will have to be doubled to at least 80,000, the report said.

Despite the alarms and the suggestions, the Taliban is likely to retake Kabul next year.

Senlis said its research had established that the Taliban, driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. invasion in late 2001, had rebuilt a permanent presence in 54 percent of the country and was finding it easy to recruit new followers.

It was also increasingly using Iraq-style tactics, such as roadside and suicide bombs, to powerful effect, and had built a stable network of financial support, funding its operations with the proceeds from Afghanistan's booming opium trade.

"It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when," the report said.

Putting it all together, we can see that like its neighbor to the east, Pakistan, Afghanistan is headed for greater turbulence and a higher amount of Western intervention -- although perhaps we should drop the polite language and call "intervention" by its real name: invasion.

The "hearts and minds" language, when combined with the call to double troop presence, points to plans for a large-scale military counterinsurgency campaign, as in Vietnam... or in Iraq. Such a campaign cannot really win popular support in the target country, as a prominent international humanitarian representative explains:

David Curtis, head of mission for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Somalia, explains: “When military and humanitarian groups are doing similar work it is hard for people… to differentiate between them. Yet the objectives of the two are utterly dissimilar; humanitarian agencies aid the population without taking sides and based on need, while the US military serve their own political and military objectives alone. The two are incompatible.”

Why U.S./NATO Troops Must Withdraw from Afghanistan

The U.S. "war on terror" has always been a cover for imperialist maneuvering between Western nations, the drive to secure capital markets and natural resources, like gas and oil, and to beat out your opponents while doing it. For instance, despite their putative "alliance," the U.S., France, Germany, and the U.K. all have strong reasons to see the other nations of the group as competitors, particularly the U.S. and Germany.

The one thing that keeps them together is a lingering fear of Russia, and the political decision that the time has not yet come to split the alliance (as France almost did five years ago over Iraq). Well, I suppose there's also the profits, as a Daily Kos diarist noted the other day:

More than $20 billion in U.S. Government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone to "... foreign companies whose identities – at least so far – are impossible to determine, according to a new study from the Center for Public Integrity.

The sufferings of the Afghan people has been immense. The Taliban are a truly awful political organization, one which will enslave much of the population in barbaric medieval religious laws and institutions. But the U.S. and its allies are incapable of "liberating" this country, as the predatory Iraq War has made clear to all Muslims in the region.

Only the complete defeat of the political leadership in the U.S. and Europe, and the institution of a new one, dedicated to punishing the militarists, politicians and businessmen, particularly those responsible for the illegal intervention into Iraq and the use of torture throughout the region, will begin the massive repair job needed to truly win the "hearts and minds" of impoverished and oppressed people around the globe. Such an overturn in leadership and political policy will not be without its reflection within the countries undergoing such change, and there will be both pain and sacrifice, and a feeling of liberation and a future free of fear.

For now, 2008 looks to be a year of further defeats on the battlefield for Bush and the neo-cons, followed by strained attempts to ratchet up the military machinery in the most explosive corner of the world. It is not too late to throw out this rancid bunch, but I fear the current political opposition is too subservient, too inured to a sterile electoralist platform, and too afraid, frankly, of necessary change, because too indebted to the large corporations that feed off the military machine, to lead as it should.

The conclusion will be messy, but as always in history, unforgiving, especially for those candidates and politicians that cannot embrace impeachment and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan -- Withdrawal from Afghanistan?? you cry. Yes. NATO cannot save the anti-fundamentalist opposition in Afghanistan. They are ensuring a Taliban victory. They are irrevocably tainted by war crimes and torture. If a truly domestic opposition is to form and beat the Taliban and the warlords -- and I strongly oppose both Taliban and the vicious warlords and obscurantist mullahs -- then the U.S. and its allies must pull out.

Hamlet, Act IV, Scene IV

                           What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused....

Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake.

How stand I then... while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain?

APA Critics Plumb New Gitmo Revelations

Once again, the indefatigable Stephen Soldz has jumped out on the Guantanamo SOP story, providing readers with important analysis on exactly what is in that document, and how it links to what we already know about U.S. torture policies. He also discusses the document in the light of the struggle he and other psychologists have waged in the American Psychological Association against the latter's collaborationist policy of staffing the interrogation rooms and prisons of Bush's anti-democratic and bloody "war on terror".

This is from his latest article, "Leaked Guantanamo Document Confirms Routine Use of Isolation as Psychological Torture", posted yesterday at ZNet.

The Guantanamo SOP now provides official documentation that, at the time of the Rumsfeld memo and despite its warnings regarding the techniques' potential illegality and physical and psychological dangers, isolation was routinely used by the Defense Department at Guantanamo on all new detainees. The Rumsfeld memo complements the SOP in that it documents the central role of "medical and psychological review," and, thus, medical and psychological personnel in the administration of this technique....

Of relevance to those of us struggling to change American Psychological Association policy on psychologist participation in interrogations, the APA included clauses in its 2007 resolution against torture that allows continued participation in the use of isolation [and sensory deprivation] in certain circumstances:

"This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against... the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: ... isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm." (emphasis added)

The APA inclusion of this carefully-qualified language led many APA critics, as well as certain reporters to wonder will psychologists still abet torture? It is therefore essential that the APA clarify the meaning of these apparent "loopholes."

Recent attempts by the APA to address the meaning of these "loopholes" raise the possibility that APA leaders, reeling under the impact of massive protests among members and criticism in the press, are looking to resolve any ambiguities in the 2007 Resolution. But so far, the APA leadership have failed to make a clear, unequivocal statement that this use of isolation at Guantanamo is unethical.

As always, the entire article is must reading. Meanwhile, Scott Horton over at Harper's has covered much of the same territory, taking on the APA in vigorous, impassioned fashion in his article, "The Psychologists and Gitmo". Horton draws upon Soldz's work:

Of all the major professional organizations addressing the torture and prisoner abuse issue, one has an unbroken record of clear ethical evasion. It has adopted a new professional mantra, it seems: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Just a few days ago Major General Geoffrey Miller’s operations manual for Guantánamo was posted on the internet. It got a lot of attention because it contained provisions making clear that certain detainees were not to be identified to or permitted access to the Red Cross. That was, of course, a criminal act. And why was the Red Cross being kept away? The circumstances make the answer to that question readily apparent: they were being tortured, and the Bush Administration was extremely eager to conceal that fact as long as it could.

But this manual contains a number of less dramatic, but still extremely important disclosures. And among them is the use of isolation and sensory deprivation techniques as a means of “preparing” detainees. It’s been clear for some time that the CIA favors this over the truly “rough stuff.” And legal scholars and ethicists have also been clear that these practices may also constitute torture over sustained periods, and certainly constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Now psychologist Dr. Stephen Soldz has taken a close look at the manual, and applied it retroactively to the debate inside of the American Psychological Association. And it provides further information suggesting that the organization’s leadership, which is filled with individuals with unmistakable financial and business ties to the U.S. Government, has misled the membership in an effort to protect the Bush Administration and its torture practices.

Meanwhile, in the back alleys and byways of the Internet, in private emails and on listservs, the analysis of the Gitmo SOP continues. One astute observer -- a psychologist working with others to change APA policy -- noted in mailing that the SOP describes the use of marathon interrogations, while not allowing for use of towels, as they might cover the sensory bombardment of constant 24-hour-a-day light in prisoner cells.

There will be no limit as to the duration of the interrogation/interview. (10-2) (Pg. 58 of the SOP Manual)

Wikileaks reports that the Pentagon asked the site to censor the material a week after it was initially posted. Apparently, the ACLU had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain the document for some time. In posting this document, Wikileaks (and the anonymous whistleblower who provided this document) provided a real service for American democracy and open government. It remains to be seen how much this dart will serve to help bring down Bush's gulag and end the campaign of torture the military and clandestine services have engaged in for far too long.

Consequences of Gitmo SOP Leak: the Pentagon Replies

I can't access the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures manual leaked the other day. It could be demand is so high it crashed the servers at Wikileaks. [Here's an alternate link.] I wanted to check more on what I'm hearing is in all those hundreds of pages, including the fact that the initial period of isolation of prisoners is four, not two weeks in length. Also, other reports are describing, for instance, the use of military dogs with prisoners to "enhance physical security and as a psychological deterrent". Both the ACLU and the Center for Human Rights are reported to have lawyers looking carefully at the document.

For those of use who have been protesting within the American Psychological Association (APA) about its policy of permitting psychologists to work in "war on terror" interrogation centers like Guantanamo, the Delta SOP is of more than passing interest. Colonel Larry James, who spoke against a moratorium resolution (banning psychologist participation in interrogations at places like Guantanamo) at the last APA conference, warning that without psychologists involved in the interrogation process "people are going to die" (meaning prisoners, I suppose; he wasn't clear), was Chief Psychologist with the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantanamo during the period the controversial SOP was in operation. The APA has defended Colonel James to the present day, and even put him forward as someone who helped blunt human rights abuses at the facility.

It's evident from the documentary material now that everything was not kosher (to say the least) at Guantanamo during James's stint. It will be interesting to see how APA spins this. This is especially so now as certain APA leaders have initiated a charm offensive with the internal opposition, making allowances on the torture issue that are supposed to placate the critics, even as they refuse to ban psychologist presence in a non-medical capacity at facilities that allow indefinite detention and other forms of human rights abuses. Meanwhile, none of the current crop of candidates for APA President are willing to endorse any change of direction on APA and the interrogations issue.

The military has also given its statement on the leak and the manual itself (military acronyms include JTF-GTMO, for Joint Task Force-Guantánamo and SOP for Standard Operating Procedures):

On 14 November 2007, JTF-GTMO became aware that, what appears to be a 2003 Camp Delta SOP, had been posted on the World Wide Web.

While the document was "Unclassified" it had been designated "For Official Use Only" and for many reasons (to include the safety and security of U.S. service members) was not intended for mass distribution.

It is important to understand that SOPs by definition, undergo periodic review and change as situations warrant. Detention operations at JTF-GTMO have evolved significantly since 2003, prompting many SOP changes.

Additionally, there have been three changes in Command leadership since 2003; [Army] Maj. Gen. [Jay] Hood, [Navy] Rear Adm. [Harry] Harris, and [Navy] Rear Adm. [Mark] Buzby.

As a general rule, for reasons of personnel safety and operational security, the U.S. military will not publicly discuss the specific contents of SOP's.

JTF-GTMO policy is clear -- we treat all detainees humanely.

The JTF operates safe, humane and professional detention operations for unlawful enemy combatants. These enemy combatants are dangerous men and are providing valuable information in preventing further terrorist attacksaround the world.

In essence, the military is saying, don't look at what we did or said, just believe us now: trust us.

But the amount of people who trust the military in these matters is growing smaller and smaller with each passing day.

Gitmo SOP Manual Leaked

From Wired.com:

A never-before-seen military manual detailing the day-to-day operations of the U.S. military's Guantánamo Bay detention facility has been leaked to the web, affording a rare inside glimpse into the institution where the United States has imprisoned hundreds of suspected terrorists since 2002.

The 238-page document, "Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures," is dated March 28, 2003. [Here's an alternate link.] It is unclassified, but designated "For Official Use Only." It hit the web last Wednesday on Wikileaks.org....

The Camp Delta document includes schematics of the camp, detailed checklists of what "comfort items" such as extra toilet paper can be given to detainees as rewards, six pages of instructions on how to process new detainees, instructions on how to psychologically manipulate prisoners, and rules for dealing with hunger strikes....

The Pentagon did not reply to a request for comment on the document.

One piece from the manual is already raising some eyebrows, as it documents that it was literally SOP (standard operating procedure) to hide detainees from visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who are the final word on documenting conditions in prisons, and are by law supposed to have access to all prisoners. Emphasis below in bold in mine:

17-4 Levels of Visitation
All detainees will have a level of ICRC contact designated for them. These different levels are as follows:
a. No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes the delivery of ICRC mail.
b. Restricted: ICRC is allowed to ask the detainee about health and welfare only. No prolonged questions.
c. Unrestricted: ICRC is allowed full access to talk to the detainee.
d. Visual: Access is restricted to visual inspection of the detainee's physical condition. No form of communication is permitted. No delivery of ICRC mail.

According to a report from Reuters, posted at Yahoo News:

...incoming prisoners are to be held in near-isolation for the first two weeks to foster dependence on interrogators and "enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process."

Styrofoam cups must be confiscated if prisoners have written on them, apparently because prisoners have used cups to pass notes to other captives. "If the cup is damaged or destroyed, the detainee will be disciplined for destruction of government property," the rules say. (emphasis mine)

The use of isolation techniques to foster dependency and induce mental disorganization is a hallmark of the CIA-Military developed torture paradigm of the 1950s-1960s, known by the acroynm DDD (dependency, debility, dread), which I've described in other articles.

It's one outrageous revelation after another, and still this sickening government and its meretricious, malignantly narcissitic and war-mongering leaders still stand in office. What a dark, dark era this is!

[Follow-up to this story at "Consequences of Gitmo Leak: the Pentagon Replies".]

Outrage! NATO Transfers Prisoners to Afghan Torture

The latest in a series of scandals around use of torture by the U.S. and its allies concerns yesterday's revelations by Amnesty International (AI) that Nato-led forces have turned prisoners captured in Afghanistan over to certain torture by that country's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS). AI specifically named "members of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) – particularly those from Belgium, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway."

Today, the executive head of the ISAF troops in Afghanistan, German General Egon Ramms, has confirmed the AI reports, adding NATO had received such reports. Canadian forces had even stopped handing over prisoners in the Kandahar province unless their safety could be vouchsafed. But the spin doctors are already on duty, as Reuters is reporting that a NATO spokesman is denying any "systematic mistreatment or torture of detainees" handed over to Afghanistan authorites.

But Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week ordered authorities to stop torturing suspects in a tacit admission that the practice had been carried out.

Amnesty International's press release gets more specific (and, of course, the full report, "Detainees Transferred to Torture: ISAF Complicity?", even more so):

Over the past two years, Amnesty International has received repeated reports of torture and other ill-treatment at the hands of the NDS, including detainees being whipped, exposed to extreme cold and deprived of food. Many of them have been arrested arbitrarily and detained incommunicado, without access to lawyers and families.

AI dates concerns about detention practices in Afghanistan back to 2002. They cite "failures by all parties to the conflict", including both the U.S. and the Taliban, to meet international norms and obligations regarding prisoners and detention. From the full report:

The two international agreements on the future of Afghanistan - the Bonn Agreement and the Afghanistan Compact - include clear international human rights obligations. Thus the Bonn Agreement provides for the establishment of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission,(14) as well as providing, in Article V(2):

"The Interim Authority and the Emergency Loya Jirga shall act in accordance with basic principles and provisions contained in international instruments on human rights and international humanitarian law to which Afghanistan is a party"..."

The Afghanistan Compact lists "Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights" among the "three critical and interdependent areas or pillars of activity for the five years from the adoption of this Compact".(16) The Compact provides, among other things, that by 2010:

"Government security and law enforcement agencies will adopt corrective measures including codes of conduct and procedures aimed at preventing arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, extortion and illegal expropriation of property with a view to the elimination of these practices"...

International Cover-Up

Needless to say, this story has been met with deafening silence in the country that initiated "Operation Enduring Freedom". In Canada, there was a more circumspect response from some, with Michael Byers of the Toronto Star opining:

The world's most respected human rights organization has just accused this country of complicity in torture. Canadians should hang their heads in shame....

One alleged victim claimed to have been taken to a room in the NDS compound in Kandahar where "the walls were covered with blood." There, he was hung from a hook on the ceiling and repeatedly beaten into unconsciousness.

As Amnesty International explains, Canada's current reliance on occasional verification visits is misplaced. Monitoring "is a technique to detect torture only after it happens, and cannot substitute for prior precautions that prevent torture from happening in the first place."

The human rights organization also criticizes Canada for downplaying the number of transfers that occur. (emphasis mine)

But the press is one thing, and the State another, and Stephen Harper's Canadian government has announced that endorses NATO's official pronouncement that there is "no evidence" of any such mistreatment given transferred prisoners. [I've been made aware that blueness at Daily Kos wrote a diary on the controversy in Canada over this issue some months ago. It complements the material in this diary very well: "Torture? What Torture?"] Not to be outdone, the Dutch have also backed NATO's see-no-evil stance, and refuse, moreover, to stop handing prisoners over to the NDS until the situation is remedied, as AI is demanding. I guess someone should tell General Ramms to get with the program!

While all this denial can be chalked up to a knee-jerk defensive reaction, all the evidence points to a long-term cover-up. Reading the U.S. State Department's own Human Rights report on Afghanistan, one wonders who ever reads these things, unless you work for AI, Human Rights First, the UN, or some such agency. Certainly NATO personnel haven't read them (except that damn General Ramms). Here's a bit from the last such report, dated March 6, 2007:

In November 2005 Kabul's Police Chief General Abdul Jamil Junbesh, allegedly tortured and killed a civilian named Hussain. In December 2005 police beat and killed a detainee at the Kabul police station. In both cases human rights activists characterized official investigations as ineffective and no formal charges were made....

Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, unconfirmed reports of torture, and illegal detention were numerous.

There were allegations that local commanders operated private prisons where they abused individuals in detention, in some cases resulting in their death....

For example, human rights organizations reported that local authorities in Herat, Helmand, Badakhshan, and other locations continued to routinely torture and abuse detainees. Torture and abuse consisted of pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation, and sodomy. (emphasis mine)

Not surprisingly, the role of the NDS is never mentioned, unless to place it in a positive light. Also not surprisingly, as a "media alert" by Human Rights First pointed out last March, the U.S. State Department report remains mum on "the detention and interrogation activities of the United States in the country". The U.S. is believed to hold hundreds if not thousands of individuals in uncertain legal status in unknown prisons and holding centers around Afghanistan.

The full AI report details how the ISAF coalition signed Memorandums of Understanding around the transfer of prisoners to the Afghanistan government. These MoUs are routinely have failed to guarantee the rights of transferred detainees. In many cases, it's not even certain to whom a prisoner will be turned over, although AI reports it's usually the NDS.

In practice, however, even the monitoring safeguards contained in such agreements are not met. The AIHRC (Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission) has indicated that it has often been denied access to detention centres run by the NDS, and lacks the resources and capacity to carry out extensive monitoring. An AIHRC Commissioner stated that "the AIHRC has monitored NDS detention centres, but we had to contact them in advance. It is not free access, although recently we received a letter signed by the head of NDS to provide access to AIHRC’s monitors, but this is not happening at the moment…in Kandahar, we have not [been] provided [with] full access and still we don’t feel confident about their full cooperation"...

AI is concerned that provisions in the MoUs governing monitoring are only implemented in part. More fundamentally, the organisation emphasises that - even where carried out by a professional, independent and dedicated organization - visits to places of detention, while constituting a crucial element in the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, are far from being sufficient on their own. These concerns are reinforced by the experiences of the ICRC in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay – and indeed in relation to Bagram in Afghanistan, where torture and other ill-treatment were inflicted extensively despite ICRC’s regular visits, monitoring of reported abuse and relaying of concerns. (emphases mine)

A "Good" War Goes Rotten

The war in Afghanistan is often positively compared to the travesty of an occupation by the U.S. and its faux-coalition in Iraq. It's supposed to be the "good" war, fighting the Taliban, helping the Afghans, etc. But recent reports from top officials outside the U.S. are saying the war may already be lost. Well, now we can get some idea why. Just as Abu Ghraib belied the supposed U.S. good intentions in Iraq, a similar scandal surfaces in the war everybody is supposed to support. (Not one U.S. politician running for president is calling for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, as far as I can tell.)

One keeps thinking that the scandals around torture can't get any worse. Oh, sure, some of the pictures and videos from Abu Ghraib, showing the worst forms of rape and torture in that prison, have been suppressed. And, yes, the Democrats failed to even discipline their own members to prevent Congressional approval of a new Attorney General for Bush who knows how to read the script on legal double-talk when it comes to U.S. torture. But now the precious adventure in Afghanistan is shown to be an international travesty, with supposed liberal countries like Canada and the Netherlands, complicit in the rendition of detainees to a country that tortures. In this case, it's the same country they are supposedly fighting to protect.

How much tortured can the logic of support for this sick country and the existing international order can it get? When you recover from the vertiginous vertigo instilled by the latest revelation of crimes by this government and its allies, send a letter or email of protest to NATO, asking it to "1. Revise all detainee transfer policies and provide support to member states in the creation of minimum standards regarding detainee transfers for ISAF states operating in Afghanistan; and 2. Work with relevant partners including member states, the EU, UN, ICRC and AIHRC to develop a national plan for the Afghan prison system in line with UN Security Council resolution 1776."

NATO Headquarters
Blvd Leopold III
1110 Brussels, Belgium
natodoc@hq.nato.int

And while you're at it, send a little loving AI's way. (And lest anyone think AI is unfair or one-sided in its coverage, read its April 2007 report, "All who are not friends, are enemies: Taliban abuses against civilians". I haven't bothered to cover it here, as coverage of Taliban atrocities are widely reported already in the mainstream press.)

PBS Documentary Exposes "Intelligent Design" Fraud

PBS has aired an important documentary in its NOVA series, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". The program, NOVA describes the controversy that emerged from the 2004 decision by the Dover, Pennsylvania school board indicating science teachers must tell their students that "intelligent design" was an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution (or natural selection). This led to a teacher revolt, and parent's filing a lawsuit alleging violation of the separation of church and state.

Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen's Vulcan Productions, Inc....

"There was a blow-up like you couldn't believe," Bill Buckingham, head of the school board's curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, "laced with Darwinism."

NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?" Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature....

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems—the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.

"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive Producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools."

The NOVA website should be visited, not just to check your local broadcast times (though do that, too!), but because it also has a lot of interactive features related to the documentary, including audio of the judge and various scientific experts, an interview with Philip Johnson (the "father of intelligent design"), and an interactive documentary on Darwin's theories. (And a tip of the hat to U.J. for forwarding me information about the show.)

Right-Wing Evangelicals Target U.S. Military

Troutfishing has a very good article over at Daily Kos on the near-takeover by right-wing Christian evangelicals of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Religious ideology and imagery has long mingled with military rhetoric, as my article yesterday on General Matthew Ridgway and the Korean War demonstrates. But as recent investigations make clear, there is an organizational effort to maximize religious influence in the U.S. military, something beyond the chiliastic comments of a 1950s Cold War general.

In a July 12, 2005 interview with the New York Times, Brig. Gen. Cecil Richardson, Air Force deputy chief of chaplains, stated, "...we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched." For over a decade, the official [US Air Force] academy newspaper ran ads stating: "We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the World. If you would like to discuss Jesus, feel free to contact one of us! There is salvation in no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." The ads were signed by 16 department heads, nine permanent professors, both the incoming and outgoing deans of faculty, the athletic director and more than 200 academy senior officers and their spouses.

[from an article published on Truthdig, The Cancer From Within, by Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) board member and decorated Vietnam War pilot David Antoon]

U.S. Air Force Academy Chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, who was removed from her post for complaining about Christian proselytizing among recruits, explained what happened to her when she complained about undue influence at the Academy by evangelicals in a Washington Post article:

"They fired me," said Capt. Melinda Morton, a Lutheran minister who was removed as executive officer of the chaplain unit on May 4. "They said I should be angry about these outside groups who reported on the strident evangelicalism at the academy. The problem is, I agreed with those reports"....

"The evangelicals want to subvert the system," Morton said. "They have a very clear social and political agenda. The evangelical tone is pervasive at the academy, and it's aimed at converting these young people who are under intense pressure anyway."

In his Daily Kos piece, Troutfishing summed up the situation:

In short, US Basic training facilities of the United States military are being co-opted, by fundamentalist organizations, such as Campus Crusade For Christ, to indoctrinate military personnel and basic training recruits in a form of Christianity that is almost certainly heavily politicized, if quietly so.

This should concern all Americans; as I've recently described, the Founder Of Campus Crusade For Christ rejected the Theory Of Evolution (and even co-authored a book in "Intelligent Design" and held that American public education had been co-opted as part of a vast "anti-God" conspiracy that went back to the Renaissance and included communist and socialist ideology, atheism, and the ACLU.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation released a report last October 31 on Government Paid Missionaries for Christ. The report details the activities of the Military Ministry of the Campus Crusade for Christ, which reportedly seeks to "Evangelise and Disciple All Enlisted Members of the U.S. Military":

Describing their ministries at Lackland Air Force Base and Fort Sam Houston, the Military Ministry website states:

"Responsibilities include working with Chaplains and Military personnel to bring lost soldiers closer to Christ, build them in their faith and send them out into the world as GOVERNMENT PAID MISSIONARIES."

I looked, and couldn't find this quote at the website itself, though I have no reason to doubt MRFF's truthfulness. Here's a few quotes from MilitaryMinistry.org that were there when I looked today:

Picture yourself as a new recruit in Basic Training, or in Advanced Training, or in a Senior Service School for further training. What are your needs? Basic Training and Advanced Training are tough, rigorous, demanding experiences. You’ll come out of it knowing you can be and do much more than you ever dreamed. You’ll be ready for more than you ever imagined. But what about spiritual readiness–will you gain that, too?

Spiritual readiness means having the inner resources to face all that life has to throw at you, and even all that death could throw at you besides. It means being connected with the God of the universe in such a way that you know, whatever happens, you are ready.

Military Ministry has staff at many of the basic and advanced training locations in the Armed Forces, and we want to help you be ready.]

For more on this right wing group, go look at their video online, "Global War on Terror, Winning the Long War", with Bob Dees, U.S. Major General, Retired, and Executive Director of Military Ministry. Notably, Dees was, up until a few years ago, Executive Director of Defense Strategies at Microsoft Corporation.

The blog, The Blue Voice, reviews the video, explaining:

[Dees] presents a highly ideological version of the "global war on terror" with generous snippets from some FOX News propaganda film. It's very clear in this talk that Dees' right wing view of the "war on terror" as a religious war against Islam is an integral part of his version of the Christian message. It's a highly, explicitly political message, political as in a very narrow, conservative ideological view of foreign and military policy.

Dees says, "These troops that are gathering before a patrol in Baghdad, they're not worried about being politically correct, they are worried about being God-correct." And, "Our mission is to transform the nations of the world through the militaries of the world starting with the United States armed forces."

I encourage all my readers to pursue in some detail the links herein. The mixture of apocalyptic religious evangelism and militarist imperialism, both in the hands of a government that has thousands of nuclear weapons, constitutes a force that threatens the entire planet.