Psyche, Science, and Society

Terry Jones on the treatment of British captives

Terry Jones on the outrageous treatment of the British sailors by the Iranians:

Call that humiliation?
No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this – allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world – have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. Of course they’d probably find it even harder to breathe – especially with a bag over their head – but at least they wouldn’t be humiliated.

And what’s all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It’s time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That’s one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn’t rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it’s just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What’s more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting “stress positions”, which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It’s all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is “unhappy and stressed”.

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed”. She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer – whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
www.terry-jones.net

2 comments March 31st, 2007

Zimbardo to speak in Cambridge MA on Lucifer Effect

Renowned scholar, writer, and speaker Dr. Phil Zimbardo, will speak about his new book, the Lucifer Effect, at MIT on April 2, 2007 and at Harvard Law School on April 3. Professor Zimbardo’s talk will take its audience on a journey through the psychological processes of character transformation that are engaged when ordinary, good people turn into perpetrators of evil. The abuses and tortures of Abu Ghraib prison serve as the case study for understanding such horrors not as the work of a “few bad apples,” but rather as the consequence of a set of identifiable Situational variables and Systemic forces – “the bad barrel” and “the bad barrel makers.” I posted on his recent talk at Stanford on these issues here.

MIT Business School
Wong Auditorium, Building E51
Monday, April 2nd, 2007from 4:00 to 6:00
Further information here.

Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School
1563 Massachusetts Ave.
Tuesday, April 3rd, from 4:45 – 6:30
(followed by cheese, wine, and book-signing reception, until 7:00)
Further information here.

Dr. Zimbardo has created a web site dealing with the issues raised in his new book: www.lucifereffect.com.

March 29th, 2007

Memory disorder: SA Administrator Lurita Doan being grilled in Congress

Here is the video of GSA Administrator Lurita Doan being grilled by Rep. Braley of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding the GSA’s holding a meeting on how to use the GSA to boost Republican candidates. If her memory is as poor as she claims, she has no business collecting a paycheck from taxpayers. If her memory isn’t really that bad, she’s guilty of lying to Congress:

March 28th, 2007

Public overwhelmingly realizes global warming threat

A new survey released earlier this month shows that the American public is far ahead of its leadership in understanding the dangers posed by global warming, and in willingness to address it:

Sea Change in Public Attitudes Toward Global Warming Emerges
Climate Change Seen as Big a Threat as Terrorism

NEW HAVEN, Conn.—A new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a “serious” problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. More Americans than ever say they have serious concerns about environmental threats, such as toxic soil and water (92 percent, up from 85 percent in 2004), deforestation (89 percent, up from 78 percent), air pollution (93 percent, up from 87 percent) and the extinction of wildlife (83 percent, up from 72 percent in 2005).

Most dramatically, the survey of 1,000 adults nationwide shows that 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States “is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists.” It reveals growing concern about dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with 96 percent of the public saying this is a serious problem. As a result, the public overwhelmingly supports increasing the use of alternative energy, including solar and wind power, as well as investing more in energy efficiency.

The survey indicates that while 70 percent of Americans believe that President Bush doesn’t do enough for the environment and should do more, many citizens are ready to act on their own. Seventy-five percent recognize that their own behavior can help to reduce global warming, and 81 percent believe it is their responsibility to do so.

The results further suggest that many Americans want greener products and are ready to spend money to try new technologies that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Seventy percent of the public indicates a willingness to buy solar panels, and 67 percent would consider buying a hybrid car.

Note especially 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States “is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists.” . Of course, with so much of the corporate “leaders” concerned about profits before survival, don’t expect much from the corporate-controlled politicians unless corporations are certain of a profit. While there may be large profits in green products and technology, dealing with global warming may also require changes in lifestyle that will not increase profits. The question facing the human race is whether such changes can nonetheless be made. We may be at the point where capitalism (the “free market”) and human survival are in conflict. Can new forms of social organization be developed? Stay tuned.

Here are the Key Findings:

MEMORANDUM

To: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
From: Global Strategy Group
Re: 2007 Environment Survey – Key Findings
Date: March 5, 2007

The 2007 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy Survey on American Attitudes on the Environment reveals that Americans want action on global warming and energy conservation – and most agree that they have a responsibility to do their part.

• Close to two-thirds (63%) of Americans agree that our country “is in as much danger from environmental hazards such as air pollution and global warming as it is from terrorists.”
– Women (70%) are more likely to agree with this statement than are men (56%).

• The percentage of Americans who say global warming is a serious problem has risen to 83% from 70% in 2004.
– Slightly fewer Americans (79%) are concerned about ‘climate change,’ though concern about this issue has increased from 61% in 2004.

• More than two out of three (68%) Americans agree that global warming is something people can control. And fully 81% agree with the statement, “It is my responsibility to help reduce the impacts of global warming.”
– 62% of Americans agree that we need more laws to enforce energy efficiency.
– 87% agree that they look for new ways to save energy.
– 90% adjust the temperature in their house to save energy.
– Just 27% agree that “the need to conserve energy is exaggerated.”

• Two of three Americans (67%) say that, if they had to, they could explain global warming or climate change “to someone I meet in passing.”
– Men (71%), younger Americans age 18-44 (74%) and college graduates (76%) are more likely than women (63%) or seniors (55%) to say they could explain global warming to others.

• Just 33% of Americans say they are familiar with the phrase “carbon neutral.”
– Younger Americans and those between the ages 45 and 64 are more likely (36% and 34%, respectively) to say they are familiar with the term than are seniors (26%).
– Men (38%) are more likely to say they are familiar with “carbon neutral” than are women (27%).
– Just 39% of college graduates are familiar with the phrase.

The National outlook is worsening

• Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans believe the environment in the United States is getting worse. Just 11% think it is getting better. In 2005, 52% believed the environment was getting worse and 15% thought it was getting better.
– Women continue to be more downbeat about the direction of the environment than are men. 67% of women (up from 56% in 2005) believe the environment is getting worse, while 56% of men believe it is getting worse (compared to 47% in 2005).

• Just one in three Americans (33%) rate the overall quality of the environment in the United States as excellent or good. 65% rate the country’s environment as only fair or poor.
– In 2004 and 2005 surveys, 39% rated the overall quality of the environment in the United States as excellent or good.

• Fully 70% of Americans say President Bush doesn’t do enough for the environment and should do more. 53% say President Bush should do ‘much more.’ In our 2005 survey, 63% believed the President wasn’t doing enough for the environment.
– Compared to data from the 2004 and 2005 surveys, fewer Americans trust President Bush as a source of information about environmental issues. Just 37% say they trust President Bush at least somewhat, while as recently as 2005, the president was trusted by more than half of Americans (52% in both 2004 and 2005).

• The most-trusted sources of information about environmental issues are:
– Scientists at major universities (trusted by 76%),
– Universities (74%),
– The Environmental Protection Agency (63%, but down from 73% in 2004), and
– Industry scientists (56%).

• Nightly television news is trusted by 50% of Americans, but this is down significantly from 2004, when 69% of Americans said they trusted the television news as a source of information about the environment. 23% say they do not trust the nightly television news at all – up from 13% in 2004.
– Major newspapers have also taken a major hit. In 2004, two-thirds of Americans trusted major newspapers as sources of information about environmental issues. Today, just 45% of Americans say they trust newspapers. Fully 27% say they do not trust major newspapers at all – up from just 16% in 2004.

• When it comes to the environment, Democrats in Congress are slightly more trusted than Republicans in Congress, 45% to 39%. Both parties’ numbers are down significantly since 2004, when 57% trusted the Democrats in Congress, and 49% trusted Republicans.

Top Concerns: Dependence on Imported Oil

• Americans continue to be nearly unanimous in the belief that dependence on imported oil is a very serious problem. Fully 93% say it is a serious problem and 70% say it is a ‘very’ serious problem.

• The most popular remedy to America’s dependence on imported oil is to require the auto industry to make cars that get better gas mileage. 94% of Americans say this is a good idea. 61% say it is a ‘very good’ idea.

• 90% of Americans support building more wind-turbine farms, and 90% say it is a good idea to build more solar power facilities.
– 86% want increased funding for renewable energy research.

Americans are more interested than ever in higher-mileage and hybrid cars
• In 2005, 23% of Americans said they would ‘never’ buy a hybrid car. Today, just 13% say they would never buy a hybrid.

• 78% of Americans (and 86% of men age 18-54) would consider buying a vehicle powered by an alternative fuel like ethanol.

• 37% of Americans say they would never buy an S.U.V., down from 43% in 2005.
– 46% say they have bought or would consider buying an S.U.V., compared to 42% in 2005.

Other findings
• 56% of Americans believe it is a bad idea to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration and drilling.

• 86% of Americans think it is a good idea to increase funding for renewable energy research.
– 90% think building more solar power facilities is a good idea for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil.

ABOUT THE POLL

The nationwide survey of 1017 American adults was conducted on behalf of the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy by Global Strategy Group from February 5-11, 2007.

• The survey was conducted using professional phone interviewers.
• The nationwide sample was drawn from a random digit dial (RDD) process.
• Respondents were screened on the basis of age, i.e., to be over the age of 18.
• The survey has an overall margin of error of ±3.07% at the 95% confidence level. That is, if the same survey were conducted among similar respondents, the results would fall within the range of ±3.07% in 19 out of 20 cases.

March 28th, 2007

Mark Benjamin interviewed on the APA and psychological torture

Dori Smith, producer of Talk Nation Radio (who interviewed me last week), interviewed Mark Benjamin of Salon this Monday. Benjamin, as you may recall, has written about the SERE-BSCT connection, and on the APA controversy. He was the first reporter to publish the entire membership of the PENS Task Force, which he got from Congressional sources.

The interview can be listened to or downloaded (at 128 bitrate) here. For downloading, most people will want the smaller 64 bitrate file here. Usually the interview eventually shows up transcribed on the Talk Nation Radio site.

This interview focuses on the APA and psychologists in interrogations. Dori quotes me a couple of times during it.

March 28th, 2007

Zizek on the damage of torture

Psychoanalyst and social critic Slavoj Zizek wrote, in a recent New York Times op-ed on the damage the American regime of torture is doing to all of us:

Knight of the Living Dead

By Slavoj Zizek

SINCE the release of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s dramatic confessions, moral outrage at the extent of his crimes has been mixed with doubts. Can his claims be trusted? What if he confessed to more than he really did, either because of a vain desire to be remembered as the big terrorist mastermind, or because he was ready to confess anything in order to stop the water boarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

If there was one surprising aspect to this situation it has less to do with the confessions themselves than with the fact that for the first time in a great many years, torture was normalized — presented as something acceptable. The ethical consequences of it should worry us all.

While the scope of Mr. Mohammed’s crimes is clear and horrifying, it is worth noting that the United States seems incapable of treating him even as it would the hardest criminal — in the civilized Western world, even the most depraved child murderer gets judged and punished. But any legal trial and punishment of Mr. Mohammed is now impossible — no court that operates within the frames of Western legal systems can deal with illegal detentions, confessions obtained by torture and the like. (And this conforms, perversely, to Mr. Mohammed’s desire to be treated as an enemy rather than a criminal.)

It is as if not only the terrorists themselves, but also the fight against them, now has to proceed in a gray zone of legality. We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who are to be treated with legal procedures (using lawyers and the like), and those who are outside legality, subject to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarceration.

Mr. Mohammed has become what the Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls “homo sacer”: a creature legally dead while biologically still alive. And he’s not the only one living in an in-between world. The American authorities who deal with detainees have become a sort of counterpart to homo sacer: acting as a legal power, they operate in an empty space that is sustained by the law and yet not regulated by the rule of law.

Some don’t find this troubling. The realistic counterargument goes: The war on terrorism is dirty, one is put in situations where the lives of thousands may depend on information we can get from our prisoners, and one must take extreme steps. As Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School puts it: “I’m not in favor of torture, but if you’re going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.” Well, if this is “honesty,” I think I’ll stick with hypocrisy.

Yes, most of us can imagine a singular situation in which we might resort to torture — to save a loved one from immediate, unspeakable harm perhaps. I can. In such a case, however, it is crucial that I do not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle. In the unavoidable brutal urgency of the moment, I should simply do it. But it cannot become an acceptable standard; I must retain the proper sense of the horror of what I did. And when torture becomes just another in the list of counterterrorism techniques, all sense of horror is lost.

When, in the fifth season of the TV show “24,” it became clear that the mastermind behind the terrorist plot was none other than the president himself, many of us were eagerly waiting to see whether Jack Bauer would apply to the “leader of the free world” his standard technique in dealing with terrorists who do not want to divulge a secret that may save thousands. Will he torture the president?

Reality has now surpassed TV. What “24” still had the decency to present as Jack Bauer’s disturbing and desperate choice is now rendered business as usual.

In a way, those who refuse to advocate torture outright but still accept it as a legitimate topic of debate are more dangerous than those who explicitly endorse it. Morality is never just a matter of individual conscience. It thrives only if it is sustained by what Hegel called “objective spirit,” the set of unwritten rules that form the background of every individual’s activity, telling us what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

For example, a clear sign of progress in Western society is that one does not need to argue against rape: it is “dogmatically” clear to everyone that rape is wrong. If someone were to advocate the legitimacy of rape, he would appear so ridiculous as to disqualify himself from any further consideration. And the same should hold for torture.

Are we aware what lies at the end of the road opened up by the normalization of torture? A significant detail of Mr. Mohammed’s confession gives a hint. It was reported that the interrogators submitted to waterboarding and were able to endure it for less than 15 seconds on average before being ready to confess anything and everything. Mr. Mohammed, however, gained their grudging admiration by enduring it for two and a half minutes.

Are we aware that the last time such things were part of public discourse was back in the late Middle Ages, when torture was still a public spectacle, an honorable way to test a captured enemy who might gain the admiration of the crowd if he bore the pain with dignity? Do we really want to return to this kind of primitive warrior ethics?

This is why, in the end, the greatest victims of torture-as-usual are the rest of us, the informed public. A precious part of our collective identity has been irretrievably lost. We are in the middle of a process of moral corruption: those in power are literally trying to break a part of our ethical backbone, to dampen and undo what is arguably our civilization’s greatest achievement, the growth of our spontaneous moral sensitivity.

Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of “The Parallax View.”

1 comment March 27th, 2007

Support Lt.Watada!

Psychologist Laura Brown appeals for fincial support for the defense of Lt. Watada, who is being court-martialed for refusing deployment to Iraq. This is a worthy and important cause. Please consider giving:

UI would like to ask for your support for the case of Lt. Ehren Watada, who is being court-martialed (again; they declared a mistrial and then went at him a second time) for refusing illegal orders to serve in Iraq.

This week two lawyers who I have worked with in the past, and who I respect enormously, have agreed to take on his defense. James Lobsenz and Kenneth Kagan of the Carney Badley Law Firm in Seattle each have a long history of doing social justice law (and are decent, caring human beings).

Lt. Watada’s case needs financial support for the many expenses involved (not the attorneys). Because I know Ken and Jim and value their work so much I’ve told them that I’d be glad to what I can to raise funds to support this effort.

So if you are moved to contribute to the costs of Lt. Watada’s struggle to do the right thing, you can send checks made out to Carney Badley Spellman Law Firm, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600, Seattle, Washington 98104-7010, attn either of these two attorneys, marked as for the Watada case. They will deposit the funds into a trust account for costs.

Please pass this word along. Lt. Watada is doing what we want people to do-standup and do the right thing.

For updates on the status off his case, and on support efforts, go to Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada.

March 27th, 2007

Lancet editor on BBC report that Lancet mortality study “robust”

In response to yesterday’s report that the British government’s own advisers had told the Foreign Office that the 2006 Lancet mortality study was “robust”, Lancet editor Richard Horton wrote, in the Guardian‘s Comment Is Free section:

Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government’s own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003.

Immediately after publication, the prime minister’s official spokesman said that The Lancet’s study “was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate”. The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were “extrapolated” and a “leap”. President Bush said: “I don’t consider it a credible report”.

Scientists at the UK’s Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study’s methods were “tried and tested”. Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an “underestimation of mortality”.

The Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific advisor said the research was “robust”, close to “best practice”, and “balanced”. He recommended “caution in publicly criticising the study”.

When these recommendations went to the prime minister’s advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: “are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?” A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government “should not be rubbishing The Lancet”.

The prime minister’s adviser finally gave in. He wrote: “the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones”.

How would the government respond?

Would it welcome the Hopkins study as an important contribution to understanding the military threat to Iraqi civilians? Would it ask for urgent independent verification? Would it invite the Iraqi government to upgrade civilian security?

Of course, our government did none of these things. Tony Blair was advised to say: “the overriding message is that there are no accurate or reliable figures of deaths in Iraq”.

His official spokesman went further and rejected the Hopkins report entirely. It was a shameful and cowardly dissembling by a Labour – yes, by a Labour – prime minister.

Indeed, it was even contrary to the Americans’ own Iraq Study Group report, which concluded last year that “there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq”.

This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony Blair, is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralysed by its own indifference.

At a time when we are celebrating our enlightened abolition of slavery 200 years ago, we are continuing to commit one of the worst international abuses of human rights of the past half-century. It is inexplicable how we allowed this to happen. It is inexplicable why we are not demanding this government’s mass resignation.

Two hundred years from now, the Iraq war will be mourned as the moment when Britain violated its delicate democratic constitution and joined the ranks of nations that use extreme pre-emptive killing as a tactic of foreign policy. Some anniversary that will be.

March 27th, 2007

Valtin’s new blog and latest on APA and torture

Valtin, long-time Daily Kos blogger on psychological torture and other matters has started his own blog — Invctus. One of his first pieces is a reprise of the APA-torture relationship, taking as springboard a recent letter by the APA’s military psychology division opposing a Moratorium on psychologist participation in interrogations of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

I expect I’ll mention Invictus often.

1 comment March 26th, 2007

Bioethicist Steven Miles on Hicks trial

The Australian television show Lateline has an extensive interview with bioethicist Steven Miles [see his response to the letter by Michael Gelles] on issues arising in the “trial” of David Hicks. Dr. Miles knows perhaps more than anyone not in the government what goes on in US detention through his reading of tens of thousands of pages of government documents.

In the interview he demolishes the government claims. He also describes the roles of the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) and the policies in support of the american Psychological association.

You can watch it here. [Actually, I tried the Windows Media Player and got a blank web page. But when I posted the URL directly into WMP, it worked fine.]

March 26th, 2007