|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
|
Hezbollah's Rise, Israel's Fall |
|
Today's Stories September 6, 2006 Dave
Zirin John
Ross September 5, 2006 Jonathan Cook Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney
Roland Sheppard James Petras Alexander Cockburn
September 4, 2006 Clancy Sigal Jeffrey St.
Clair Anthony Alessandrini Dennis Perrin
Daniel Cassidy
Paul Craig
Roberts
September 2 / 3, 2006 Uri Avnery Jeffrey St.
Clair Ralph Nader Noam Chomsky Allan Lichtman Stanley Heller Rana el-Khatib Peter Montague Laura Carlsen Dr. Susan Block Joe Bageant Scott Stedjan / Matt Schaaf Gary Leupp Stephen Fleischman Paul Balles Ingmar Lee Jane Stillwater Ron Jacobs St. Clair /
Bossert Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
September 1, 2006 Uri Avnery Paul Craig
Roberts Bill Ayers Kevin Zeese Xochitl Bervera Norman Solomon Alexander Cockburn Richard Neville Website of the Day
August 31, 2006 David MacMichael John Ross Edward Said Amira Hass Missy Comley
Beattie Lee Sustar Jonathan Cook Website of the Day
August 30, 2006 Paul Craig
Roberts George Salzman Dave Lindorff Leigh Davis Alan Maass Mike Whitney Eliza Ernshire Website of
the Day
Saul Landau Jeffrey Buchanan Dave Lindorff James Brooks John F. Burnett Walter A. Davis Rich Gibson Amira Hass Paul Craig
Roberts
August 28, 2006 John Walsh Sibel Edmonds
/ William Weaver Ramzy Kysia Ron Jacobs Gideon Levy Missy Beattie Virginia Tilley
Uri Avnery Alexander Cockburn Jordan Green Azmi Bishara Ray Close Gary Leupp Ralph Nader Joe Allen Fred Gardner Dave Lindorff David Krieger Stephen Fleischman Mary Turck Walter Brasch Jim Scharplaz Israel Shamir Alexander Cockburn Charles Henderson Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement
August 25, 2006 Elena Everett Juan Cole Chris Moore James Marc Leas Salah Obeid Claudio Albertani Tom Barry Website of
the Day
CounterPunch
News Service Uri Avnery Nermeen al-Mufti Norman Solomon Megan Wiles Laura Santina Mike Whitney Seth Sandronsky Christopher
Brauchli
August 23, 2006 Dr. Trudy Bond Ramzy Baroud Ron Jacobs Heather Gray Amira Hass Mavis Anderson Ingmar Lee Francis Boyle John Ross
Gilad Atzmon Jack Heyman Eamon McCann Sharon Smith Edward S. Herman Ramzi Kysia Bill Quigley August 21, 2006 Jonathan Cook Paul Craig
Roberts Kathy Kelly Mike Roselle Lenni Brenner Maher Osseiran
August 19 /
20, 2006 Uri Avnery Eliza Ernshire Virginia Tilley Kathy Kelly Marc Levy Stephen Bradberry / Barbara Rose
Johnston William Blum Stephen Fleischman Ralph Nader Dave Lindorff Fred Gardner David Krieger Dan La Botz Poets' Basement
August 18, 2006 Brian M. Downing John Blair Alan Hart Craig Murray Chris Dols Emily Kirksey Joaquín Bustelo William S.
Lind Podcast of the Day Website of
the Day
August 17, 2006 CounterPunch
News Service Barucha Peller Ramzy Baroud Rothem Shtarkman Craig Murray Samar Assad Mike Ferner Arnold Kohen Kevin Zeese Missy Comley Beattie Uri Avnery Video of the Day Website of
the Day
August 16, 2006 Merav Yudilovitch Robert Fisk Mark Williams John Ross Christopher
Brauchli John Walsh Ron Jacobs Rachard Itani Felice Pace Niranjan Ramakrishnan Frank, Sharma
and Peterson Jonathan Cook Website of
the Day
August 15, 2006 Andrew Ford
Lyons Binoy Kampmark Robert Fisk Ralph Nader Todd Chretien Chris Floyd Mark Engler George Galloway Laray Polk Trish Schuh Website of the Day
Uri Avnery Karim Makdisi Kathy Kelly Robert Fisk Norman Solomon Sunsara Taylor Robert Jensen Mike Whitney P. Sainath Goretti Horgan Christopher
Reed
August 12 /
13, 2006 Jean Bricmont Norman Finkelstein Robert Fisk Adrian Grima Barucha Peller Omar Barghouti Adam Engel Conn Hallinan John Stauber Rev. William
Alberts Fred Gardner Lucinda Marshall Ron Jacobs CounterPunch
News Service Poets' Basement
Col. Dan Smith John Ross Michael Donnelly William S.
Lind Linda Milazzo Rep. Cynthia
McKinney Azmi Bishara Henri Picciotto CounterPunch News Wire Dave Lindorff Jonathan Cook
Uri Avnery Dave Marsh Gabriel Kolko Arthur Versluis Jennifer Loewenstein
Linda Schade Jackie Mason Jonathan Cook Gilad Atzmon
Charles Hirschkind
Tom Barry Cockburn &
St. Clair
August 8, 2006 Patrick Cockburn Paul Larudee Joan Roelofs Dimi Reider John A. Murphy Tim Llewellyn Website of the Day
August 7, 2006 Uri Avnery Karim Makdisi Nadia Hijab Sharon Smith Magan Wiles George Beres Rachard Itani Norman Solomon Stan Cox Mickey Z. Jonathan Cook Website of
the Day
August 5 / 6, 2006 Virginia Tilley Uri Avnery Patrick Cockburn Sgt. Martin Smith Gary Leupp Neve Gordon Ralph Nader Peter Bouckaert Peter Montague David Krieger Michael Donnelly Fred Gardner Catherine Norris Imraan Siddiqi Missy Comley
Beattie Ira Kay Dave Lindorff Pratyush Chandra Ron Jacobs St. Clair / Donnelly Poets' Basement Website of the Day Video of the
Weekend
August 4, 2006 Ralph Nader Brian Cloughley Eliza Ernshire Roger Assaf George Bisharat Remi Kanazi Laura Carlsen Niranjan Ramakrishnan Derrick O'Keefe Mickey Z. Col. Dan Smith Website of the Day
Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Saree Makdisi Robert Fisk Farrah Hassen Nicola Nasser Ron Jacobs Mitchel Cohen Seth Sandronsky Bruce K. Gagnon Alexander Cockburn
John Ross Chip Mitchell Saul Landau Naseer Aruri Winslow T.
Wheeler Matthias Gebauer Joshua Frank Bill Quigley Manuel Yang Shamai Leibowitz David Himmelstein Lara Marlowe Website of
the Day
August 1, 2006 Michael Neumann Robert Fisk Omar Barghouti Marc Levy Diana Barahona / Jeb Sprague Claud Cockburn Ross Eisenbrey Dave Lindorff John Chuckman Francis Boyle Phil Doe Stephen Soldz Website of the Day
July 31, 2006 Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Robert Fisk Amina Mire Marjorie Cohn Sibel Edmonds / William Weaver John Ross Stanley Rogouski Gideon Levy Ron Jacobs James Ridgeway
/ Alicia Ng Brian Tokar Alexander Cockburn
July 29 / 30,
2006 Michael Neuman Vijay Prashad Ramzi Kysia Werther Robert Fisk Patrick Cockburn Ralph Nader Rachard Itani Eduardo Galeano Gary Leupp Eve Poretsky John Chuckman Fred Gardner Juan Santos Punyapriya Dasgupta Liaquat Ali
Khan Israel Shamir William A.
Cook Stanley Heller Dave Lindorff Moshe Adler Susie Day Pat Williams Anthony Papa John V. Whitbeck Jackie Corr Myles Palmer Tom D'Antoni Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
July 28, 2006 Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Renee Bowyer Robert Fisk Patrick Cockburn Ramzy Baroud Don Fitz Elaine Cassel David Price Mike Whitney Mickey Z. Niranjan Ramakrishnan Charles Glass Website of
the Day
July 27, 2006 Tanya Reinhart Saul Landau Ramzi Kysia Tom Barry Joseph Grosso Sharon Smith Gale Courey
Toensing Christopher Reed Werther Yusuf Mansur Richard Harth Website of the Day
Norman
Solomon Barbara
Olshanksy David
Nally Jonathan
Cook Patrick
Cockburn William
Blum Joshua
Frank Gabriel
Kolko Daniel
Cassidy Michael
Dickinson Robert
Fisk Uri
Avnery Website
of the Day
July 25, 2006 Harry
Browne Marjorie
Cohn Robert
Bryce Sharat
G. Lin George
Bisharat CounterPunch
News Desk Zena
El-Khalil Larry
Lack Mike
Mejia Ashraf
Isma'il Website
of the Day
July 24, 2006 Mark
Levy Robert
Fisk Maher
Osseiran Paul
Craig Roberts Patrick
Cockburn Website
of the Day
July 22-23, 2006 Jonathan
Cook Paul
Craig Roberts Gilad
Atzmon Robert
Fisk Ralph
Nader Fred
Gardner Christopher
Reed Dr.
Susan Block Najla
Said Uri
Avnery July 21, 2006 George
Galloway P.
Sainath Aseem
Shrivastava Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day July 20, 2006 William
S. Lind Robert
Jensen John
Ross Tom
Hayden Paul
Craig Roberts July 19, 2006 Patrick
Cockburn Trish
Schuh Jonathan
Cook Vicente
Navarro
Subscribe Online
|
September 6, 2006 Bad Faith and Distortions From the American Psychological AssociationProtecting the TorturersBy STEPHEN SOLDZ
Bahraini national al-Dossari has been imprisoned at Guantánamo Naval Base for over four-and-a-half years. Amnesty International has obtained his account of his treatment in United States care in Afghanistan and in Guantánamo Naval Base. Here is one excerpt:
Al-Dossari's account is far from unique. Treatment such as that described has been routine at Guantánamo and other United States detention centers in the Global War Against Terrorism. A significant aspect of the treatment at Guantánamo constitutes what Physicians for Human Rights has called (in their report Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces) "psychological torture." Included under this term are "techniques such as sensory deprivation, forced nudity, forced grooming, isolation, and use of detainees' phobias, such as fear of dogs" (p. 25). Integral to the interrogations at Guantánamo, and to the psychological torture that commonly occurred during them, has been the participation of members of the so-called "helping professions," including physicians, nurses, and psychologists. Perhaps most innovative is the existence of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams, or BSCT (pronounced "biscuits" in military jargon) consisting of psychologists and psychiatrists participating in interrogations and consulting on interrogation strategies for particular detainees. A July 2004 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer presented circumstantial evidence that these BSCT staff received specialized training by psychologists from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program. This SERE program teaches military officers how to resist torture by subjecting them to a brief period of extreme psychological abuse. At the time of Mayer's article, hard evidence that Guantánamo interrogators had been trained in SERE techniques was lacking, despite the fact that top SERE staff were kown to have consulted at Guantánamo. Recently Salon found direct evidence that SERE techniques were indeed taught to Guantánamo interrogators. The Salon article details some SERE techniques reportedly utilized at Guantánamo (and at Abu Ghraib): "forced nudity, stress positions, isolation, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and exhaustion from exercise." Also used were extremely loud music and prolonged cold. Physician and bioethicist Steven Miles has reported the participation of BSCT psychologist Maj. John Leso in the brutal and prolonged interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani. (See also the detailed interrogation log on al-Qahtani, referred to as Detainee 063.) During al-Qahtani's interrogation he was subjected to extreme cold to the point where his heart slowed and he was hospitalized (he was then warmed up and again subjected to extreme cold), he was injected with several bags of saline solution while being strapped to a table until he urinated on himself, and he was forced to bark like a dog; we are not told what was done to him to get him to bark. As the nature of the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo was revealed, this treatment was condemned as an illegal violation of human rights by numerous international organizations including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the European Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Amnesty International. Al-Dossari described the involvement of psychiatrists, other doctors, and nurses in his interrogation. As a result of repeated accounts like these, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have barred the participation of psychiatrists and, indeed, all medical doctors in interrogations. Unlike the medical and psychiatric associations, the American Psychological Association, as I documented in my recent article, A Profession Struggles to Save Its Soul: Psychologists, Guantánamo and Torture, has steadfastly refused to condemn (mis)use of psychological techniques to break detainees at Guantánamo or elsewhere and has consistently refused to forbid members to participate in interrogations at these facilities. In fact, the Association leadership has worked persistently to protect the ability of psychologists to participate in "national security" interrogations, even, at times, claiming an ethical obligation to do so to prevent harm to society, presumably from the "terrorists" imprisoned there for the last four-and-a-half years. (See also Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter's report on the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) she chaired: "as experts in human behavior, psychologists contribute to effective interrogations.") In recent months the opposition to Association policy from within has strengthened. However, these efforts have been limited in nature and opponents have, in every instance, been outmaneuvered by the Association leadership. In addition to the disturbing events reported in my previous article, more evidence on the smokescreen of manipulations, distortions and downright lies used by the Association raises additional questions as to what the Association leadership is up to. Ethics Code Exempts Government and Military Employees: Endorsing the Nuremberg Defense
One questionable action concerns the Association ethics code that governs members' professional behavior, which was changed in 2002 so as to exempt psychologists working for the government (including the military) from being bound by the Association code. Thus, the 1992 code had a somewhat ambiguous clause:
In 2002 this clause was changed to read:
Note that the new wording explicitly exempts psychologists aiding torture or abuse under military or government orders from being charged with ethics violations as long as they can claim they took steps to resolve the conflict. By this change the Association in 2002 would have implicitly endorsed the defense of Lieutenant William Calley (convicted for ordering the My Lai massacre), Adolf Eichmann and other Nazi war criminals, and many others who claimed they were simply following orders, a defense that was rejected by the United States and the world through the Nuremberg and other war crimes trials. In addition to directly incorporating the Nuremberg Defense into the ethics code, this change also has other harmful effects. By weakening the prohibition against acting in conflict with the ethics code, the Association significantly weakened the standing of any military psychologists desiring to refuse an immoral order or to refuse orders that violate international law. They could no longer call upon the ethics code as requiring refusal. While military personnel are allowed to refuse illegal or immoral orders, they do so at profound risk to themselves. In the case of military psychologists contemplating refusal of orders, the Association has increased this risk tremendously. This change in the Association's ethics code has the effect of making other Association statements on allowable psychologist behavior largely irrelevant. Thus, statements forbidding psychologists from participating in torture or other abusive behavior have no standing if the psychologists are ordered to participate by a "governing legal authority," e.g., a commanding officer. As long as Section 1.02 remains in the Association ethics code, efforts to get the Association to adopt statements on torture, coercive interrogations and the like (see next section) are essentially exercises in futility as these statements would not be binding on psychologist members working for the military or other government agencies (e.g., the CIA). Association critics working for such changes should realize that they have been wasting their time for the last several years pursuing what would have been ineffective changes in the ethics code. Some critics have recognized the problem and have tried for years, unsuccessfully, to get Section 1.02 amended to require adherence to international human rights standards when following laws or government orders. Given the long history of discussion of the "following orders" defense, there is no possibility that the Association "ethics" leadership did not know exactly what they were doing. The only question is why they felt the need to build the Nuremberg Defense directly into the ethics code. Were there particular ethics violations they were aware of and were trying to protect, or did they have a more general goal of allowing free reign to psychologists enlisted in the then-beginning "Global War on Terror?" It is interesting that this revision occurred just as the first information was coming out about the torture occurring at Guantánamo and in Afghanistan and prior to the public awareness that psychologists were an intimate part of the interrogation apparatus there. Revising Anti-torture Statement to Reduce Influence of International Law
At the APA Convention this August, the Association's Peace Psychology Division introduced a resolution to reaffirm long-standing APA opposition to torture. At the same time, this Division and the Association's Divisions for Social Justice (a coalition of 10 divisions supporting social justice initiatives) declined to put forward a resolution banning psychologists' participation in coercive interrogations, at least partially out of concern that such a resolution would be defeated. Between the final draft version of the anti-torture resolution prepared by proponents and the version that was actually adopted and published, crucial wording defining proscribed behavior was changed in a subtle, but profound way. The original Final Draft clearly defined torture and abuse using the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It contained the following language:
The inclusion of this statement would seem to be a clear and unambiguous acceptance by the Association of international law and understandings as to what constitutes torture. However, in the published version the following paragraph defining "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment" was added:
This all sounds relatively benign. But the phrase "United States Reservations" should raise one's interest. Just what are these Reservations and what are they doing in the Association's resolution? It turns out that, when the United States ratified this UN Convention, the U.S. government took steps to significantly reduce or even eliminate its potential impact. (Several countries, namely Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland took exception to the U.S. Reservations at the time.) As I, a non-lawyer, read these Reservations, there are two potentially relevant clauses (Daily Kos diarist Valtin provides a somewhat different discussion of the impact of the second of these clauses but seems to have missed the first). The first of these clauses states:
That is, for behavior not rising to the level of "torture," U.S. ratification of this Convention did not make anything illegal that was not already illegal according to U.S. law. No international understandings will be binding. Interpretations of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment" by other countries, by the United Nations, or by other international organizations and institutions are irrelevant. By this means, also, the U.S. made its obligations under the Convention subject to the vagaries of U.S. law in this area. If U.S. courts interpret U.S. law as constitutionally allowing a certain type of behavior, that behavior would then by definition not be banned by U.S. adherence to the Convention. As long as that behavior was not quite "torture," it wouldn't matter if it was proscribed by every other country on earth. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that the "psychological torture" techniques used by U.S. interrogators are violations of the U.S. Constitution. As John Shifton argued in a recent article in Slate (Criminal, Immunize Thyself: The Bush administration's get out of jail card for torturers; see also Marty Lederman: The CIA Cruelty Authorization Act of 2006), the Bush administration is currently pushing to amend the U.S. War Crimes Act to legalize all abusive behavior that fails to meet the legal definition of torture. The added paragraph in the Association resolution will thus pass any new immunity down to psychologists engaged in interrogations. As U.S. law changes with regard to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment," so potentially will the ethical obligations of psychologists. The second potentially relevant clause in the U.S. Reservations is concerned with limiting the definition of the most severe behaviors, those that are clearly proscribed by U.S. ratification of the UN Convention:
Interestingly for psychologists, this, the longest clause in the U.S. Reservations, is explicitly designed to circumscribe the definition of torture so as to exclude most psychological torture. With the exception of attempts to create a "profound" disruption of "senses or the personality" or of threats to self or others of death or severe physical pain, the prolonged mental harm has to arise from the infliction of "severe physical pain or suffering." Further, the requirement of "prolonged mental harm" allows for great interpretive creativity. If a person recovers in a year, or in five years, was the harm "prolonged?" Is it OK to subject resilient individuals to more severe treatment? Further, as psychologists should know well, proving that a given behavior was the cause of a given negative psychological outcome can prove difficult, if not impossible? The clever phrasing of this Reservation makes sure that the types of psychological torture that have historically been employed by the CIA and have been utilized by the American military in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere are not considered to be torture. (Alfred McCoy has detailed the critical role of psychologists in developing these techniques.) Thus, much of the treatment al-Dossari describes receiving or that described in the interrogation log for al-Qahtani would likely not be considered torture under this definition. In fact, it appears that, according to the US reservations, Saddam Hussein's technique of having a man's daughter raped in front of him would not constitute torture as long as the daughter didn't suffer severe physical pain. If one reads the Association resolution very literally, it appears that this second Reservation may not apply to the resolution, as the document only includes the phrase "U.S. Reservations" in the section defining "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." Thus, a lawyer might reasonably argue that these Reservations may not apply to the definition of torture and thus the exclusion of many forms of psychological torture may not apply. However, this interpretation is not certain. As Nat Hentoff points out, the recent McCain Amendment supposedly banning torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment provides that the standard applicable to accused interrogators is that a "person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful." Any aspects of the new resolution which muddy its interpretation increase the chances of such a successful defense. At a minimum, it is extremely disturbing that the Association would include in its resolution any reference to the U.S. Reservations, a document which attempts to protect the right to use psychological torture. The Association's Press Release, entitled "American Psychological Association Reaffirms Unequivocal Position Against Torture and Abuse" states:
Unfortunately, as we have seen, this new Resolution is anything but an unequivocal position against torture and abuse. Further, "United Nations human rights documents," except in the most literal sense, were decidedly not the basis of the resolution's policy toward "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." Not surprisingly, the Association's Military Psychology Division, which had reportedly succeeded in defeating a related resolution the previous year supported this one. Further, the Association's leadership, which has steadfastly acted to protect psychologists' participation in national security interrogations, threw no roadblocks in the path to passage of this resolution. Presumably they realized that the new resolution was, at best, an abstract and very equivocal public relations effort with little or no actual impact on interrogations. Steven Reisner, an activist against involvement of psychologists in coercive national security interrogations who addressed the Association Council meeting on the issue, was mortified when he became aware of the addition of the U.S. Reservations to the resolution. He asserts that he and others at the Association Council meeting became aware of the absence of a definition of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" and that he, in consultation with others, drafted a "friendly amendment" tying the definition of these behaviors to the May 2006 report of the United Nations Committee Against Torture. When he tried to describe it to the Council, he was cut off by Association President Gerald Koocher, allegedly because he was not a Council member, even though he had earlier, by invitation, addressed the Council on the interrogation issue. Dr. Reisner then sought a Council member to introduce the amendment, but was turned down by three members. As Dr. Reisner relates in an email, there was then a short break, "during which time a small group changed some minor wording based on the Council debate, which had focused on the words 'knowingly' and 'punishment.' During the break, the resolution was revised, a new version was typed up and printed, and placed on a table for people who wanted to read [it]. No one raised the idea of more specific definitions of CID ["cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment"] and I thought the point was lost. The Council members reconvened, were told about additions of one 'knowingly' and two 'or punishment's. A vote was called and the resolution passed unanimously." Only later did Reisner discover to his horror that, apparently during that break, the resolution was revised by the addition of the U.S. Reservations, thus severely weakening it. A number of others involved in anti-torture efforts were similarly horrified. Others associated with the development of the resolution from the leadership of the Association's Peace Division have asserted that the reference to the U.S. Reservations was included because the Reservations contain the only definition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in international law. It appears that this absence may be intentional as some in the human rights community feel that there should not be an explicit definition of these behaviors. The Peace Division leadership has not explained how references to the American Constitution, which has been subject to over two hundred years of complex and ever changing interpretation provides any kind of clear definition for the resolution. They also have not explained why, if they valued clarity so much, they did not include a clear list of proscribed behaviors in the resolution. Both the Association President, Gerald Koocher, and its Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke, have denied, in emails to me, having any knowledge of these revisions or any view as to their interpretation. Both declined to respond, claiming lack of knowledge, to explicit questions as to which of the clauses in the United States Reservations were relevant to interpreting the Association resolution. Both also denied any intent to weaken the prohibition against torture. If they and other Association leaders are indeed correct that the inclusion of the U.S. Reservations does not weaken the Resolution and that the Association stands "unequivocally" against torture and abusive interrogation, they can demonstrate this by swiftly adopting new ethics code statements that specify exactly which interrogation techniques (e.g. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, heat and cold, exploitation of phobias, forced nudity, sexual abuse, etc.) are actually proscribed. If it was critical to include a definition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in the resolution, then surely it is even more important to clearly state what is proscribed. If Association leaders refuse to issue such a list we should presume that the new resolution was just a public relations gambit and the U.S. Reservations were included to weaken, not to strengthen it. While the Association Council overwhelmingly adopted the equivocal anti-torture resolution that makes no mention, in its text or in its Justification Statement, of the reports of psychologist participation in torture at Guantánamo and elsewhere, only a few members of the Association Council were willing to stand up and propose a moratorium on psychologists' participation in national security interrogations. Without a bending of the rules, any such proposal now will require at least another year to be considered by the Association Council. At that point it will have been almost five years since psychologist Maj. Leso took part in the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani, Detainee 063. The unwillingness of the Association leadership to unambiguously cut the ties to the torturers runs deep. Distorting the Position of Other Organizations
As the criticism of the Association has mounted, its leadership has engaged in a concerted public relations effort. Allowing the passage at their recent Convention of the abstract and seriously weakened anti-torture resolution that made no mention of the claims of psychologist participation in abuses was one part of this effort. Another was the repeated claim that the Association's position did not substantively differ from that of the American Medical Association. This claim was asserted by Association President Gerald Koocher in a June 16, 2006 debate on Democracy Now! But its most full statement came in the form of an extended comparison of the position of the Association with those of the American Medical and Psychiatric Associations (Ethics and interrogations: Comparing and contrasting the American Psychological, American Medical and American Psychiatric Association positions) by Stephen Behnke, Director of the Association's Ethics Office. The AMA policy statement adopted at their June 2006 meeting states unequivocally:
It further states that:
It does allow that:
In the face of this text sounding strikingly different than anything coming from the American Psychological Association , Behnke states:
Thus, Behnke claims that the AMA policy recommendations do not mean what they appear to mean, or what they actually say. In both written and verbal statements, AMA officials claim otherwise. On August 22, the President of the AMA wrote a letter to the Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights reiterating these differences. The letter states:
In the letter by Sade referred to, he explicitly takes issue with Behnke's quote from the AMA which Behnke claims allows physician participation in interrogations:
Sade goes on to state:
(To be fair, it should be noted that Behnke, in his original article as well as in his response to Sade's letter, refers to the "body of the [AMA] report" and insists that this report must be read in its entirety. I have so far not been able to get access to the text of this full report. AMA officials state that the report is being prepared for publication in a medical journal. Most such journals have a strict policy against publishing papers that have already been reported in the popular press. Thus, they refuse to release the report prior to publication (a position I find understandable yet troubling in matters with significant public policy import). I was told by the AMA officials, however, that the report has no official standing with the AMA. Only the Recommendations were adopted by vote, the report was not voted on but simply "filed." These officials stated that the Recommendations stand on their own. Only with the publication of this full report can we be certain, but, at this point, it certainly looks like the claim that the Association's and AMA's policies are virtually identical is yet another smokescreen thrown up to obscure the Association's long-standing practice of protecting psychologists' participating in the abuses at Guantánamo and elsewhere. A detailed article in Psychiatric News, a publication of the American Psychiatric Association (note for non-mental health professionals: psychiatrists are medical doctors specializing in mental health treatment, psychologists are not medical doctors), also tends to refute Behnke's interpretation of AMA policy and supports the interpretation that the AMA policy means what it appear to say: no participation in interrogations. For example, the article quotes Steven Sharfstein, the Psychiatric Association's immediate past President, as saying "I really think this is a very strong statement that closely corresponds to and reinforces the APA [American Psychiatric Association] position that physicians, including psychiatrists, should not be participating in any way in the interrogation of individual detainees." (emphasis added) This article also indicates that the wording of the AMA statement was changed the day before approval to strengthen the prohibition against physician participation:
Why? The pattern of behaviors going back at least to 2002 documented here and in my previous article by the American Psychological Association leadership supportive of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations strongly suggests that sections of the leadership are working, probably intentionally, to avoid the development of any position, guideline, or ethics code statement that would unambiguously forbid members from engaging in national security interrogation, even though these interrogations frequently involve the kinds of psychological torture documented as occurring at Guantánamo and elsewhere by Physicians for Human Rights and condemned by numerous United States and international organizations. This effort appears to have begun before the issue became controversial among the membership or the public. Thus, the 2002 ethics code revision was pushed through before the controversy regarding health professionals' roles in interrogation became a major issue, resulting in pressure for Association change. (For early works on these issues, see 2004's New York Times article by Neil Lewis: Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo; 2005's Bloche & Marks: Doctors and Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay; and Susan Okie: Glimpses of Guantánamo - Medical Ethics and the War on Terror). Let's put together in one place what is known about Association protection of psychologist participation in torture and inhumane treatment:
There is thus a long history of bad faith and active efforts to resist calls for the Association to take a clear, unequivocal stand against psychologists' participation in coercive national security interrogations, to respond in any way to persistent reports of torture and abuse during those interrogations, or to strongly condemn psychological torture. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Association leadership is committed to doing everything they can to protect psychologists' involvement in torture under the guise of national security interrogations. They are thus in the role of enablers of that torture. Association critics have largely addressed this issue as one of professional ethics. They have been very polite, forming committees, writing letters, introducing motions, and asking for case examples to be added to the ethics code. At every step these polite critics have been stymied, manipulated, and out-maneuvered. It is time for Association critics to accept that the issue is larger than one of ethics statements. Yes, the Nuremberg Defense needs to be excised from the ethics code and involvement in national security interrogations needs to be unambiguously banned. But reform needs to go far deeper. There is something truly rotten in the Association. The organization has had a long-standing symbiotic relationship with the American "defense" establishment which has led it to go all out to support the participation of psychologists in national security interrogations, and to avoid any Association investigation into reports of psychological torture. Its leadership apparently has acted in bad faith in their efforts to protect the torturers. The leadership's actions have undermined the faith of many Association members in the entire Association. After my first article appeared, many members wrote asking if it was time to resign membership in such an organization. I suggested that they wait, in hopes that the Association could be changed from within. The August Convention with the Association Council not interested in even discussing ending psychologist participation in abusive interrogations and the experience of an anti-torture resolution being surreptitiously substantially weakened raises questions for me as to whether reform is possible. It remains for the Association's members to decide what kind of organization we are going to allow to represent us. At this point, mere resolutions or even a change in the ethics code are not enough to save the Association. Nothing less than a leadership change in conjunction with an independent investigation of the entire involvement of the Association with the national security state and its torture apparatus can possibly excise the rot. We have learned from South Africa and Latin America the importance of public testimony and the pursuit of truth to the ability to successfully move on. As psychologists we know all too well that mental health cannot be built on a foundation of either lies or denial. Al-Dossari's Torment Continues Let's return to al-Dossari's treatment
In October 2005, Mr. al-Dossari was found by his attorney hanging by his neck in an apparent suicide attempt. Though other Guantánamo detainees succeeded in their suicide attempts, this time al-Dossari was revived in time. Al-Dossari had left a suicide note for his attorney. In it he states:
The American Psychological Association still believes it is appropriate for psychologists to participate in interrogations at the institution where, less than a year ago, Mr. al-Dossari was tortured till he lost the will to live. Mr. al-Dossari made at least one more suicide attempt in 2006, his 12th. Does this constitute enough evidence of "prolonged mental harm" to move psychologists? Those psychologists and citizens of goodwill who don't believe in torture as public policy should cry out with one voice at such indifference to human barbarity. If we fail to act we cannot claim, as did so many Germans, "We didn't know!" Stephen Soldz, a researcher and psychoanalyst, is
Director of the Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program
Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis.
He is a member of Roslindale Neighbors for Peace and Justice
and founder of Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice. He maintains
the Iraq
Occupation and Resistance Report web page. He can be reached
at: ssoldz@bgsp.edu.
|
from CounterPunch Books! The Case Against Israel By Michael Neumann  Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair          Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid? CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues, as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.                     |
