Psyche, Science, and Society

Norwegian Association of Psychologists statement on Gaza. Can anyone translate?

The Norwegian Association of Psychologists (Norsk psykologforening - NPF) has issued a statement on the Gaza fighting. I am unable to read. If I get a translation, I will post it. This is waht I was told in an email:

NPF is strongly protesting against the israelis bloccade and aggressions, and against the destruction of the veterans rehabilitation centre in Gaza. The NPF is a contributor to this rehab centre. The associations spokeswoman for human rights issues, Nora Sveaas, is now being interviewed by Norgewian media, so this press release has already been picked up by the main media in Norway.

Add comment January 6th, 2009

OLC, other Justice appointees, anti-torture

There is good news in Obama’s choices for several key positions in the Justice Department, especially for the key position 0f head of the Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC — infamously associated with torture apologists John Yoo and James Bybee –  interprets the law for the gocvernment. Obama’s appointee, Dawn Johnsen, is likely to overturn the infamous torture memos and the authorization of warantless wiretapping. She will also likely reign in the Unitary Executive theory that says the President can do virtually anything in a time of war.

The McClachy headline tells all, we hope:  Obama’s Justice nominees signal end of Bush terror tactics. From the article:

In filling four senior Justice Department positions Monday, President-elect Barack Obama signaled that he intends to roll back Bush administration counterterrorism policies authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, warrantless spying and indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects.

The most startling shift was Obama’s pick of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to take charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit that’s churned out the legal opinions that provided a foundation for expanding President George W. Bush’s national security powers.

Johnsen, who spent five years in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and served as its acting chief, has publicly assailed “Bush’s corruption of our American ideals.” Upon the release last spring of a secret Office of Legal Counsel memo that backed tactics approaching torture for interrogations of terrorism suspects, she excoriated the unit’s lawyers for encouraging “horrific acts” and for advising Bush “that in fighting the war on terror, he is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted.”

“One of the refreshing things about Dawn Johnsen’s appointment is that she’s almost a 180-degree shift from John Yoo and David Addington and (Vice President) Dick Cheney,” said Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, referring to the main legal architects of the administration’s approval of harsh interrogation tactics.

Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor, said that Johnsen’s appointment “sends a very strong message that the administration intends to make sure that its power is exercised in conformity with constitutional rights and respect for civil liberties.”

Add comment January 6th, 2009

Intell Senators object to Panetta for CIA; Intel professional hails choice

Senior Senators on the Intelligence Committee, incoming Chair Dianne Feinstein and outgoing chair John D. Rockefeller, are criticizing the selection of Leon Panetta as CIA chief. It appears that they, like many in the CIA, don’t want any changes in the system. After all, these Senators closed their eyes to horrible abuses for years, and never dared stand up to Richard Cheney.

At TPM, Josh quotes a career intelligence professional on why these distinguished Senators object and why the Panetta choice is a good one:

I have 29 years of experience in the intel business both in government and as a consultant / contractor to the government. I recently retired after those 29 years as a Navy Captain (Intel). I have served with many in the “national intel community” and served on the WMD commission in 2004-05. This is my cred, now for my comment.

I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.

I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the “premier” agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.

The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don’t have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.

We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.

I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill — much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.

Add comment January 6th, 2009

Norwegian doctor and UNRWA on civilian casualties in Gaza

CBS News account of heroic a Norwegian doctor, Mads Gilbert, from the Norwegian Aid Society in Gaza on what he calls al all-out attack on the civilian population there. Elsewhere, he reports that six medics have been killed in ambulances. This is clearly an attack on the entire population.

The London Times quotes a text message sent by Dr. Gilbert:

“We are wading in death, blood, and amputees. Many children. A pregnant woman. I have never experienced anything so terrible. Now we hear tanks. Pass it on, send it around, shout it out. Anything. DO SOMETHING! DO MORE! We are living in a history book now, all of us.”

Watch these, and do something to stop the slaughter:

Here is another report, from British Channel 4, showing Dr. Gilbert at work:
And another Channel 4 report, interviewing Christopher Gunness from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees who are operating in Gaza:

Add comment January 5th, 2009

Negotiate with Hamas says US War College professor

In light of the current fighting, a new report from the US Army War College on Hamas shows the counterproductive nature of Isarel’s attack. The report, by Professor Sherifa Zuhur, is entitled: HAMAS and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics. [I have just discovered it and hve not read it yet.]

Thomas Ricks at Foreign Policy says about it:

The Army War College chose this week to release a report that has some surprisingly kind words for Israel’s foes in the Gaza Strip: “HAMAS’ political and strategic development has been both ignored and misreported in Israeli and Western sources which villainize the group, much as the PLO was once characterized as an anti-Semitic terrorist group,” writes Sherifa Zuhur, a research professor at the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. “Negotiating solely with the weaker Palestinian party-Fatah-cannot deliver the security Israel requires. . . . The underlying strategies of Israel and HAMAS appear mutually exclusive . . . . Yet each side is still capable of revising its desired endstate and of necessary concessions to establish and preserve a long-term truce, or even a longer-term peace.”

Among her timely if impolitic recommendations: “Israel and the United States need to abandon their policies of non-negotiation and non-communication with HAMAS.”

Here are some extracts from the report’s Summary:

Israel’s stance towards the democratically-elected Palestinian government headed by HAMAS in 2006, and towards Palestinian national coherence–legal, territorial, political, and economic–has been a major obstacle to substantive peacemaking. The reasons for recalcitrant Israeli and HAMAS stances illustrate both continuities and changes in the dynamics of conflict since the Oslo period (roughly 1994 to the al-Aqsa Intifadha of 2000). Now, more than ever, a long-term truce and negotiations are necessary. These could lead in stages to that mirage-like peace, and a new type of security regime.

The rise in popularity and strength of the HAMAS (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Movement of the Islamic Resistance) Organization and its interaction with Israel is important to an understanding of Israel’s “Arab” policies and its approach to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The crisis brought about by the electoral success of HAMAS in 2006 also challenged Western powers’ commitment to democratic change in the Middle East because Palestinians had supported the organization in the polls. Thus, the viability of a two-state solution rested on an Israeli acknowledgement of the Islamist movement, HAMAS, and on Fatah’s ceding power to it….

(more…)

Add comment January 5th, 2009

Leon Panetta selected for CIA Director; insiders rejected

It is now reported that former Congressman and Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta has been chosen as the new CIA Director. Remember, we opposed his first choice, John Brennan, for the post, with our Open Letter.

Panetta looks far better. as he wrote in his March 9, 2008 article Americans Reject Fear Tactics:

More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

The president says the rules are too restrictive, implying that the use of some forms of torture just could help avoid another Sept. 11.

But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

Our forefathers prohibited “cruel and unusual punishment” because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear.

With his selection Obama has apparently decided that any senior CIA insider would not be free of taint from the tactics utilized these last seven years.

Panetta has a strong background in economics but little hands-on experience in intelligence. However, he is known as a strong manager with solid organizational skills.

This is one reason we need a Truth Commission to investigate and lay out the full historical record of US torture and abuse. Only then will we know who was involved and who was not. to do otherwise is to do a great disservice to those who acted honorably. Only the truth shall set them free.

As for the one’s who failed to act honorably, they, too, need to come to terms with the enormity of what they did. Only that process can reduce the likelihood of a recurrence with the next crisis.

Add comment January 5th, 2009

London Times reports White Phosphorous likely being used

The Times of London is now reporting that Israel is likely using White Phosphorous, as I suggested last night. Note their picture. these weapons are clearly raining down on densely populated areas. They are not simply a “smokescreen.” Rather, that claim appears to be the smokescreen:

Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells

By Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem and Michael Evans, Defence Editor

Israel is believed to be using controversial white phosphorus shells to screen its assault on the heavily populated Gaza Strip yesterday. The weapon, used by British and US forces in Iraq, can cause horrific burns but is not illegal if used as a smokescreen.

As the Israeli army stormed to the edges of Gaza City and the Palestinian death toll topped 500, the tell-tale shells could be seen spreading tentacles of thick white smoke to cover the troops’ advance. “These explosions are fantastic looking, and produce a great deal of smoke that blinds the enemy so that our forces can move in,” said one Israeli security expert. Burning blobs of phosphorus would cause severe injuries to anyone caught beneath them and force would-be snipers or operators of remote-controlled booby traps to take cover. Israel admitted using white phosphorus during its 2006 war with Lebanon.

The use of the weapon in the Gaza Strip, one of the world’s mostly densely population areas, is likely to ignite yet more controversy over Israel’s offensive, in which more than 2,300 Palestinians have been wounded.

The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.”

(more…)

Add comment January 5th, 2009

Are Israelis using White Phosphorous & depleted uranium against Gaza?

Are Israeli forces using White Phosphorous in Gaza?  Go here and click on picture 3. Also look here.

And watch this, which is reportedly film from Gaza:

The US admitted, and the BBC reported .that the US used White Phosphorous against Fallujah in Iraq. As I reported at that time, the US described White Phosphorous as a banned “chemical weapon” when it was used by Saddam Hussein.

Lebanon’s President accused Israel of using White Phosphorous in the 2006 Lebanon invasion.

Meanwhile, Norwegian medics told Press TV that depleted uranium was being found in Gazan victims:

Norwegian medics told Press TV correspondent Akram al-Sattari that some of the victims who have been wounded since Israel began its attacks on the Gaza Strip on December 27 have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies.

1 comment January 4th, 2009

Did push issue Executive Order authorizing torture?

Jason Leopold reminds us of  an FBI email that referred to an Executive Order authorizing some of the most brutal torture techniques:

According to the e-mail, Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq.

The May 2004 FBI e-mail stated that the FBI interrogation team in Iraq understood that despite revisions in the Executive Order that occurred after the furor over the Abu Ghraib abuses, the presidential sanctioning of harsh interrogation tactics had not been rescinded.

“I have been told that all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive Order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted,” the author of the FBI e-mail said.

“We have also instructed our personnel not to participate in interrogations by military personnel which might include techniques authorized by Executive Order but beyond the bounds of FBI practices.”

Leopold doesn’t make clear that this email is not new. It was released a couple of years ago, as best I can tell.The administration denied the accuracy of the reference to the Executive Order in the email.  But it is useful to be reminded of this report as we push for accountability for US torture. The administration’s denial is not evidence. Only a thorough investigation can determine if this EO exists.

Add comment January 4th, 2009

Israelis protest Gaza attaack

Aljazeera reports on a mass demonstration in Tel Aviv against the Israeli attack on Gaza:

Tel Aviv rally decries Gaza assault

By Rachel Shabi in Tel Aviv

Amid cries of “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies!” and banners reading, “Enough!” thousands of Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv on Saturday night to protest against the country’s war on Gaza.

Protesters called for an immediate end to the Israeli attacks, in which more than 450 Palestinians have been killed and around 2,100 injured since air assaults on Gaza began last Saturday.

Organisers, a coalition of groups such as Gush Shalom, the Hadash party and the Coalition of Women for Peace, were encouraged by the turnout.

“We have experience from the last war, in Lebanon, and this time the public outcry is much quicker and much bigger,” said veteran Gush Shalom campaigner Uri Avnery.

“It is a cynical war, for political reasons and people are very much aware of that.”

Palestinian-Israelis who demonstrated alongside Jewish co-nationalists waved the Palestinian flag, as police attempt to ban such a practice before the protest was overruled by the Israeli high court.

Earlier on Saturday, about 10,000 demonstrators, predominantly Palestinian-Israelis, protested in the northern Galilee village of Sakhnin.

Many of the demonstrators expressed a desire show another side of the Israeli equation amid overwhelming public support for the current attacks.

“There are people who think differently,” said 24-year-old Iya Michlin, from Tel Aviv.

“It is important that the world, and especially the Arab world, sees that.”

Others were clear in their requirements from the Israeli government.

“I want them to start talking,” said Raquel Mendelson, 65, from the central Israeli town, Rehovot.

“You can’t continue to believe that you can fight attacks with more attacks. It’s time to talk, not to die - not here and not there.”

Balance sought

Some demonstrators were critical of the Hamas government in Gaza, but argued for a sense of balance.

“It is pathetic that Hamas provoked Israel,” said Ada Bilu, 46, from Jerusalem.

“But there is no proportion and no equality in the power relations, of what Israelis can do and what Palestinians can do. Gaza is a terrible place to live and Israel has a lot more responsibility for that than it would like to take.”

A group of counter-demonstrators also attended the event and were cordoned off from the main demonstrations by police on numerous occasions.

The event sporadically turned into a contest of slogans, as counter-demonstrators shouted “Shame on you!” and “Let the Israeli army win!” while anti-war protesters responding with “The army is a terror organisation!” and “Children in Gaza and in Sderot want to live!”

Such demonstrations by the Israeli left-wing are typically dismissed as unrepresentative within Israeli society. According to a poll commissioned by Haaretz newspaper days ago, 53 per cent of Israelis believe that the air force should continue its assaults on Gaza, and only 19 per cent thought the government should negotiate a ceasefire as soon as possible.

The poll also showed low support – 19 per cent – for a ground invasion of Gaza.

Analysts suggest that this figure reflects public sentiment about the defence forces, which are more at risk in ground attacks.

“The value of a soldier’s life is perceived as worth more than a civilian,” says professor Tamara Hermann, co-author of a monthly peace poll monitoring Israeli public opinion.

“There is an understanding in the public discourse that Israeli soldiers are all our children – that is why they are so dear to us.”

But it is concern over residents in southern Israel, 700,000 of whom are now within range of rocket attacks from Gaza, that has kept some left-wing groups silent over the current Israeli assaults on the strip.

“There is a lot of solidarity and empathy with the people in Gaza and all the talk is of Israeli action being disproportionate,” says Yael Patir, Israeli co-ordinator of the Peace NGO forum, a Palestinian-Israeli affiliation group established to campaign against the current war.

“But there have been internal arguments inside our camp, because some say that, if Qassams [rockets] are falling on residents in the south, we can’t claim that Israel shouldn’t attack Hamas at any price.

Israelis don’t want to see other Israelis bombarded by Hamas and this is causing a serious dilemma.”

Add comment January 4th, 2009