Archive for January, 2008

Mukasey clarifies that waterboarding is not torture

Marty Lederman at Balkinization points out that Michael Mukasey in his testimony yesterday clearly implied that waterboarding is not torture:

How Can the Legality of Waterboarding Depend on the Circumstances?

Marty Lederman

Senator Biden just asked the Attorney General how it could be that the legality of waterboarding depends on the “circumstances,” as Mukasey wrote in his letter. Mukasey’s response was revealing: He pointed to the “shocks the conscience” test under the Due Process Clause and the McCain Amendment, under which, Mukasey argued, the “cruelty” of the technique must be weighed against the potential benefits. (For more on the “shocks conscience” test, see David L.’s post here, and part 2 of this post of mine.)

Senator Biden did not understand how such sliding-scale variables could affect whether the technique is torture or not. Mukasey began to respond that he was not talking about the torture statute. He plainly thought the only relevant question was the “shocks the conscience” test. But that more fact-specific test is only relevant if one has already concluded that the broader, and more unequivocal prohibition of the Torture Act is inapposite.

What this reveals is that DOJ and Mukasey have concluded that waterboarding is categorically not torture, and is not “cruel treatment” under Common Article 3 (even though it is, by Mukasey’s own lights, “cruel” — go figure). Therefore the only question, in their view, is whether it shocks the conscience under the Due Process Clause. A careful parsing of Mukasey’s letter confirms this: Mukasey did not write that whether waterboarding is torture depends on the circumstances; instead, he wrote that there are circumstances where “current law” would (and would not) prohibit waterboarding.

Mukasey apparently has concluded that OLC was correct that waterboarding is not torture because it does not entail physical suffering of “extended duration or persistence” (an untenable theory I discuss here).

Add comment January 31st, 2008

Waterboarding is Torture 2.0, young experimenters discover

The Wall Street Journal reports on three young men who decided to waterboard themselves to decide experientially if it was torture:

Three Young Men Try Waterboarding And Tell the Tale

By Yochi J. Dreazen

RIO RANCHO, N.M. — One night last month, Jean-Pierre Larroque drove into the desert here, lay down in the road and waited for one of his best friends to waterboard him.

Just a few hours earlier, the 26-year-old Peace Corps volunteer had been debating with two close friends whether waterboarding is torture. Finishing up a pizza dinner, Mr. Larroque casually suggested that the three settle the matter by trying it out for themselves.

They filled a two-liter Coke bottle with water, grabbed a small towel and headed to a vacant patch of dirt road in this suburb of Albuquerque. With a video camera rolling, one of the friends draped the towel over Mr. Larroque’s face and began to pour.

Waterboarding is the centerpiece of a bitter political debate about the Bush administration’s methods of interrogating terrorist suspects. The nomination of Attorney General Michael Mukasey was almost derailed by his refusal to take a clear stance on the technique, and Mr. Mukasey angered Democratic lawmakers anew yesterday by again refusing to say whether waterboarding is illegal. The Central Intelligence Agency has been embroiled in controversy over the destruction of tapes showing CIA officers waterboarding terrorist suspects. Waterboarding has been a subject in recent Hollywood movies, including the Matt Damon film “The Bourne Ultimatum” and Reese Witherspoon’s “Rendition.”

But waterboarding, which induces the sensation of drowning, is an abstract issue for most Americans. Few are familiar with the details. Even fewer know anyone who has been interrogated, let alone tortured.

Some elite military personnel are waterboarded to prepare them for possible capture, but it is not part of conventional training. One civilian policy maker known to have been waterboarded is Daniel Levin, a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer who subjected himself to it in 2004 to see whether it constituted torture; he decided it did. Republican presidential front-runner John McCain, a veteran who was harshly interrogated while imprisoned in Vietnam, thinks it’s torture, too.

Curiosity

The number of regular Americans who have waterboarded themselves is small. Some do it out of curiosity, some as a prank. All are voluntarily experimenting with something the U.S. military — along with most human-rights organizations — considers torture.

Waterboarding has been in use since at least the Spanish Inquisition. Many medical professionals warn that it can be fatal. In Senate testimony last fall, Allen Keller, a physician and professor at the New York University School of Medicine, said that waterboarding creates “a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.” For those who have gone through waterboarding, the long-term effects can include panic attacks, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, Dr. Keller warned at the time.

Kaj Larsen, a military veteran and journalist, had himself waterboarded on camera for a segment on Current TV, the left-leaning, youth-oriented cable channel created by former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview on National Public Radio, Mr. Larsen said the experiment was an attempt to “let the public decide for themselves whether this is the kind of behavior we should be engaging in.” He told the interviewer it induced “sheer panic” and felt “like having a hot coal in your chest that you can’t get out.”

Wesley Sherwood, a teenager in Knoxville, Tenn., says he and his friends decided to try it to win an online dare contest hosted by the Web site Makemeking.com.

A video posted on YouTube begins with Mr. Sherwood mugging for the camera as his friends strap him to a sheet of plasterboard, cover his face with Saran wrap and douse him with water. He holds up well until they drape a towel over his face and waterboard him a second time.

After a few seconds, Mr. Sherwood begins thrashing wildly and breaks the board with his head in an effort to get loose. The video, which has been viewed nearly 60,000 times, ends with Mr. Sherwood looking pale and very somber.

“You can’t help but feel that you’re going to drown,” he says in the interview. “You get a bottomless-pit sensation in your stomach and it’s like all of the bad feelings in the world rolled into one.”

Mr. Larroque and his two friends, Walter Gaspar, 27, and Trent Toulouse, 27, had frequently talked about whether waterboarding should be considered torture.

“It doesn’t leave a mark like if someone put a cigarette out on your face, and it’s not going to kill you,” says Mr. Larroque, a rail-thin man with wavy hair and stubble on his face. “So the question we kept coming back to was whether waterboarding could be torture if it mainly affected your mind.”

Trying It Out

On Dec. 11, the three friends got together for pizza and beer at Mr. Gaspar’s house. They were watching cable-news reports about congressional efforts to ban waterboarding when Mr. Larroque and Mr. Toulouse began to joke about trying it out for themselves.

The conversations turned serious as they discovered that waterboarding required no training or equipment. Mr. Larroque found a “How To Do It” guide at Waterboarding.org, which opposes the practice. It said the only things needed were an inclined surface, a container of water and a damp towel or piece of plastic wrap. The plastic wrap is put over the mouth, leaving the nose and eyes uncovered. The water is then poured into the person’s nose, filling his sinuses. The plastic, meanwhile, prevents the person from expelling the water. With a towel, the cloth is used to cover the person’s whole face before the water is poured.

‘Saturday-Night Antics’

Mr. Larroque, who will move to Uganda in February to begin his Peace Corps work, says it was clear from the beginning that he would be the one waterboarded. Mr. Toulouse, who is studying psychology in Canada, didn’t want to be the subject. Mr. Gaspar, who works as a waiter in Albuquerque, participated reluctantly.

“I just didn’t like the idea of waterboarding my best friend,” Mr. Gaspar says. “It seemed a little outside the realm of Saturday-night antics.”

That left the question of where to do the waterboarding. Mr. Larroque, who wanted to film the experiment, proposed doing it in Mr. Gaspar’s house, where the lighting would be best. Mr. Gaspar vetoed the idea. “My fiancée would be a little unhappy with me if she found a huge puddle of water in the house with Jean-Pierre passed out next to it,” he recalls reasoning.

Mr. Gaspar suggested going to an undeveloped part of town not far away. It was just after 10 p.m. when Mr. Gaspar drove with his friends to a narrow dirt road called Progress Boulevard.

The initial plan was to have Mr. Larroque lie on the hood of the car, but he kept sliding off. Instead, they spotted a short stretch of road with a modest incline.

With Mr. Gaspar filming, Mr. Larroque lay down on the frozen ground with his arms at his sides and his head leaning back. Mr. Toulouse poured.

On the videotape, the water hits Mr. Larroque for about 10 seconds before he jerks upright, sending the towel flying.

In a posting on his blog, Mr. Larroque said he was surprised by how fast his air supply ran out. In other circumstances, he says he can hold his breath long enough to swim the length of a pool.

“Waterboarding is like a one-way valve,” he said in an interview. “You’ve got water pouring in and the cloth keeps you from spitting it out, so you can only exhale once….Even holding my breath, it felt like the air was being sucked out, like a vacuum.”

It left no lasting physical damage, making waterboarding arguably “a more humane” way of forcing information out of an otherwise uncooperative prisoner, he said.

On the other hand, Mr. Larroque remembers feeling blind panic as his air supply ran out. Willingly inducing similar feelings in another human being would be torture, he believes.

“This leaves no mark, no trace. It’s almost like the ideal way of torturing someone,” he said. “This is torture 2.0.”

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

 

 

Add comment January 31st, 2008

Remember Rachel Corrie

On March 16, it will be 5 years since American nonviolent activist Rachel Corrie was deliberately run over by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes. Anti-Palestinain forces in the US have tried to destroy the memory of Rachel Corrie, just as they have tried to get the world to turn away from the suffering of millions of Palestinians. Thanks to YouTube, here is a memorial for this martyr for peace:

Billy Bragg sings The Lonesome Death of Rachel Corrie

Interview with Rachel Corrie by the Middle East Broadcasting Company on March 14th, 2003, two days before she was murdered by the Israeli Defense Forces.

This section of the British Channel 4 documentary The Killing Zonegives background on her death:

My name is Rachel Corrie | Remember Rachel Corrie

For more information, go to www.rachel-corrie.com or www.rachelcorrie.org.

1 comment January 31st, 2008

Reuters covers new ORB Iraq mortality survey

Reuters covers new ORB survey:

Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey

LONDON (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain’s leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

The research covered 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq’s more volatile regions — Kerbala and Anbar — and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past.

Medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed report in 2004 stating that there had been 100,000 more deaths than would normally be expected since the March 2003 invasion, kicking off a storm of protest.

The widely watched Web site Iraq Body Count currently estimates that between 80,699 and 88,126 people have died in the conflict, although its methodology and figures have also been questioned by U.S. authorities and others.

ORB, a non-government-funded group founded in 1994, conducts research for the private, public and voluntary sectors.

The director of the group, Allan Hyde, said it had no objective other than to record as accurately as possible the number of deaths among the Iraqi population as a result of the invasion and ensuing conflict.

Add comment January 30th, 2008

Depression more likely in middle age

A new world-wide study finds a U-shaped curve of happiness, with those of us in “midlife” (40-60) more likely to be depressed than the young or old, the Guardian reports:

Happiness is being young or old, but middle age is misery

by Alok Jha

People are most likely to become depressed in middle age, according to a worldwide study of happiness. The team of economists leading the work found that we are happiest towards the beginning and end of our lives, leaving us most miserable in middle years between 40 and 50.

The results, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, showed that people’s levels of happiness followed a U-shaped curve, a pattern that was remarkably consistent in the vast majority of countries the researchers looked at, from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe.

For both men and women in the UK, the probability of depression peaked at around the age of 44. In the US, men were most likely to be unhappiest at 50, while for women the age was 40.

Andrew Oswald, from the University of Warwick, and David Blanchflower, from Dartmouth College in the US, led a study of more than 2 million people from 80 countries to find if happiness was related to age.

They found that the signs of mid-life depression were consistent across many groups of people, irrespective of socio-economic status, whether they had children in the house, were divorced, or were facing changes in jobs or income.

“Some people suffer more than others but in our data the average effect is large,” said Oswald.

“What causes this apparently U-shaped curve, and its similar shape in different parts of the developed and even often developing world, is unknown.

“However, one possibility is that individuals learn to adapt to their strengths and weaknesses, and in mid-life quell their infeasible aspirations. Another possibility is that cheerful people live systematically longer.”

A third possibility is that older people might compare their lives with their peers’. Seeing their friends die could mean people value their remaining years more highly.

Oswald added: “It looks from the data like something happens deep inside humans. For the average person in the modern world, the dip in mental health and happiness comes on slowly, not suddenly in a single year.

“Only in their 50s do most people emerge from the low period. But encouragingly, by the time you are 70, if you are still physically fit then on average you are as happy and mentally healthy as a 20-year-old. Perhaps realising that such feelings are completely normal in mid-life might even help individuals survive this phase better.”

A total of 72 countries were found to follow the U-shaped pattern of happiness. In the eight countries that did not seem to follow the pattern - mostly developing countries - Oswald said that the available data had been less robust, so discerning patterns had been difficult. He added that shorter lifespans might skew the results of a country.

Add comment January 29th, 2008

Palast on SOTU: One Bush Left Behind

Greg Palast on the last (we pray) Bush State of the Union:

One Bush Left Behind

by Greg Palast

Here’s your question, class:

In his State of the Union, the President asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner city. As there are, officially, 15 million children in America living in poverty, how much is that per child? Correct! $20.

Here’s your second question. The President also demanded that Congress extend his tax cuts. The cost: $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are millionaires. And the number of millionaires happens, not coincidentally, to equal the number of poor kids, roughly 15 million of them. OK class: what is the cost of the tax cut per millionaire? That’s right, Richie, $287,000 apiece.

Mr. Bush said, “In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.”

So how much educational dreaming will $20 buy?

-George Bush’s alma mater, Phillips Andover Academy, tells us their annual tuition is $37,200. The $20 “Pell Grant for Kids,” as the White House calls it, will buy a poor kid about 35 minutes of this educational dream. So they’ll have to wake up quickly.

-$20 won’t cover the cost of the final book in the Harry Potter series.
If you can’t buy a book nor pay tuition with a sawbuck, what exactly can a poor kid buy with $20 in urban America? The Palast Investigative Team donned baseball caps and big pants and discovered we could obtain what local citizens call a “rock” of crack cocaine. For $20, we were guaranteed we could fulfill any kid’s dream for at least 15 minutes.

Now we could see the incontrovertible logic in what appeared to be quixotic ravings by the President about free trade with Colombia, Pell Grant for Kids and the surge in Iraq. In Iraq, General Petraeus tells us we must continue to feed in troops for another ten years. There is no way the military can recruit these freedom fighters unless our lower income youth are high, hooked and desperate. Don’t say, ‘crack vials,’ they’re, ‘Democracy Rocks’!

The plan would have been clearer if Mr. Bush had kept in his speech the line from his original draft which read, “I have ordered 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year – and I am proud to say my military-age kids are not among them.”

Of course, there’s an effective alternative to Mr. Bush’s plan – which won’t cost a penny more. Simply turn it upside down. Let’s give each millionaire in America a $20 bill, and every poor child $287,000.

And, there’s an added benefit to this alternative. Had we turned Mr. Bush and his plan upside down, he could have spoken to Congress from his heart.

*************
Greg Palast is the author of the NY Times best-sellers, Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. View Palast’s investigative reports for BBC Television on our YouTube Channel.

1 comment January 29th, 2008

ORB polling firm reissues Iraq mortality estimate of one million dead

Last September, the British polling firm ORB issued a report estimating that 1.2 million Iraqis had died. After criticism, ORB announced that they would conduct additional surveys in rural areas to check their results. the implication was that they had undersampled rural areas, which might have inflated their mortality estimate. At that time, they stated that they expected the additional results to be available by early October. Well it’s now late January and they have just released their revised results. They now estimate that their estimate of 1.2 million deaths should be revised downward to 1,033,000 with a range of 946,000 and 1,120,000. Here is their press release:

New analysis ‘confirms’ 1 million+ Iraq casualties

January 28th 2008

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Further survey work undertaken by ORB, in association with its research partner IIACSS, confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003.

Following responses to ORB’s earlier work, which was based on survey work undertaken in primarily urban locations, we have conducted almost 600 additional interviews in rural communities. By and large the results are in line with the ‘urban results’ and we now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000. If one takes into account the margin of error associated with survey data of this nature then the estimated range is between 946,000 and 1,120,000.

Our revised estimate – which compares to a figure of 1.2 million published in August 2007 – is based on a representative sample of 2,414 adults aged 18+. They were asked the following question:-

How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e. as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof?
None

72%

One

14%

Two

3%

Three

1%

Four or more

*

Don’t know

2%

No answer

8%

  • * = figure more than zero but less than 0.5%
  • Note: Of the 251 people who declined to give an answer the large majority (66%) were interviewed in Baghdad.

Casualties Calculation:

Among the over 2,160 respondents who answered the question 20% said that there had been at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict which started in 2003. Within these households the average number of deaths was 1.26 people.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 indicated a total of 4,050,597 households. Based on this our data suggests a total of 1,033,239 deaths since March 2003. Given that the statistical margin of error on a sample of approximately 2,160 people is +1.7% (for findings at or near 20%) the possible range of casualties implied by our data is:

 

Estimated number of deaths from conflict since 2003

Margin of error on finding at or near 20% (on sample of c. 2,160)

Maximum estimated number of deaths from conflict since 2003

Minimum estimated number of deaths from conflict since 2003

% households with deaths

20.2%

1.7%

21.9%

18.5%

Mean casualties per household (of those with at least one death)

1.26

 

1.26

1.26

Est. # h/holds in Iraq

4,050,597

 

4,050,597

4,050,597

Estimated total number of casualties

1,033,239

 

1,120,220

946,258

Base: 2,163 Iraqi adults answering question

Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that over two-fifths of households in Baghdad have lost a family member, higher than in any other area of the country. Meanwhile among those willing to declare their doctrine (and for quite obvious reasons about half those interviewed prefer to simply describe themselves as Muslims) those from Sunni households (33%) were significantly more likely to say the conflict had claimed a household member. The respective figure for Shias being half that figure (16%).

Research Methodology:

§ Results based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 2,414 adults aged 18+. Interviews conducted throughout Iraq - 1,824 in urban areas and 590 around rural sampling points.

§ The survey methodology utilized multi-stage random probability sampling and covers fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen governorates. Overall 112 unique sampling points were covered – 92 in urban areas and 20 in rural locations.

§ For reasons surrounding interviewer safety Karbala and Al Anbar were not included in this research. Irbil is also excluded as the local authorities refused our fieldwork team a permit to operate. We feel that the net result of these exclusions –two areas of relatively high volatility since 2003 and one relatively stable - is that the casualty estimates reported are unlikely to overstate the actual figure.

§ The first batch of interviews was completed August 12th – 19th 2007 with the ‘rural booster’ conducted 20th – 24th September, 2007.

§ At the 95% confidence level the ‘margin of error’ on the sample who answered (2,163) is +2.1%. This figure is applicable to findings at or near 50% while for findings in the region of 20% this margin drops to +1.7%

§ Full results and data tabulations are available at www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom

§ IIACSS (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies) is a polling/ research company established in Iraq in 2003 and which has a network of interviewers covering all regions of the country. Further information about IIACSS and its founding director Dr. Munqith Dagher can be found within the relevant news article in the Newsroom section of ORB’s website.

§ ORB is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

For further information please contact Allan Hyde on 020 7611 5270 or email ahyde@opinion.co.uk

The Opinion Research Business

34 Bedford Row

London

WC1R 4JH

Tel: 020 7611 5270

www.opinion.co.uk

See also their:

New Casualty Tabs.pdf
MRS story.pdf

Add comment January 28th, 2008

Another psychologist quits APA

San Francisco psychologist Jeffrey Kaye joins those resigning from the American Psychological Association in disgust with their policies allowing psychologists to aid Bush’s interrogations, along with general APA-military/intelligence establishment ties:

January 27, 2008

Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D.
President, American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4232

Dear Dr. Kazdin,

I hereby resign my membership in the American Psychological Association (APA). I have up until now been working with Psychologists for an Ethical APA for an overturn in APA policy on psychologist involvement in national security interrogations, and I greatly respect those who are fighting via a dues boycott to influence APA policy on this matter. I hope to still work with these principled and dedicated professionals, but I cannot do it anymore from a position within APA.

Unlike some others who have left APA, my resignation is not based solely on the stance APA has taken regarding the participation of psychologists in national security interrogations. Rather, I view APA’s shifting position on interrogations to spring from a decades-long commitment to serve uncritically the national security apparatus of the United States. Recent publications and both public and closed professional events sponsored by APA have made it clear that this organization is dedicated to serving the national security interests of the American government and military, to the extent of ignoring basic human rights practice and law. The influence of the Pentagon and the CIA in APA activities is overt and pervasive, if often hidden. The revelations over the constitution and behavior of the 2005 Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) panel are a case in point. While charged with investigating the dilemmas for psychologists involved in military interrogations in the light of the scandals surrounding Guanatamo’s Camp Delta and Abu Ghraib prison, it was stacked with military and governmental personnel, and closely monitored and pressured by APA staff.

I strongly disagree with APA’s current position on interrogations, and am unimpressed with recent clarifications to that position that allows for voluntary non-participation in specifically defined cases where torture and abuse of prisoners is proved to exist. I have discussed my reasoning for this elsewhere, both blogging on the Internet and in public. In 2007, I was a panelist in the “mini-convention,” which examined the dispute over interrogations held at the APA Convention in San Francisco, presenting my findings on secret and non-secret psychologist research into isolation, sensory deprivation and sensory overload.

I will briefly review my objections to APA policy and practices, then place them in the context of current APA institutional objectives and goals. I find the latter to be antithetical to the ideals of an ethical and beneficent organization promoting psychological knowledge and practice.

*** APA’s position on non-involvement in torture allows psychologists to work in settings that do not allow the basic right of habeas corpus, in addition to practices of humane confinement as delineated in the Conventions of the Geneva Protocols and various international documents and treaties.

*** APA maintains in private communications that relegating various modes of psychological torture (sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, isolation) and the use of drugs in interrogations to something less than outright prohibition in recent APA position papers does not mean APA had any intention of providing a “loophole” for interrogators in the practice of coercive interrogations. APA also promises to clarify its position on these matters in an “ethics casebook.” When it has found it exigent, as on the PENS resolution, to step outside normal procedure to clarify its position, it has done so. I find it noteworthy that recent APA clarifications of its position are treated as something requiring less than direct organizational expression.

*** APA continues to propagate a position that it knows is not true, specifically that psychologists operate in interrogation settings to prevent abusive interrogations. While sometimes citing the compelling conclusions about context and behavior outlined by Zimbardo, and stemming from his famous Prisoner Experiment, it twists the representation of this research by making psychologists into a quasi-police force monitoring abusive interrogations. On the contrary, the Zimbardo research leads to a more unsettling conclusion, i.e., that human beings in general are susceptible to participation in abusive behavior based upon contextual factors. In fact, the Zimbardo research argues, as Dr. Zimbardo himself has done, against participation in these kinds of interrogations.

*** APA has shown precious little interest in the many revelations regarding psychologist participation in torture, or in psychologist research into abusive or coercive interrogations. Excepting only a brief period in the late 1970s, when widespread and public exposure of CIA mind control programs raised considerable scandal, APA has shown little inclination to confront the history of psychologist participation in such research, nor of its own institutional role in this research.

*** Finally, recent APA activities, such as the joint CIA/Rand Corporation/APA July 2003 workshop in the “Science of Deception,”point to questionable current participation in unethical practices and illegal governmental activities. I queried relevant actors and APA leaders as to what actually occurred at this workshop, which the APA Science Directorate described as discussing how to use “pharmacological agents to affect apparent truth-telling behavior?” Also considered was the study of “sensory overloads on the maintenance of deceptive behaviors,” with workshop participants asked, “How might we overload the system or overwhelm the senses and see how it affects deceptive behaviors?” I never received any answer from relevant APA personnel, including the current director of ethics, about what was going on at this workshop.

The latter episode captures the terrible trap into which APA has fallen. When making agreements with state intelligence and military agencies, it is usual that secrecy agreements are signed. This makes it impossible to reasonably assess and monitor the activities of psychologists in national security settings. Furthermore, the subordination of military psychologists to the chain of command of the armed forces also allows for ineffective if not impossible oversight of psychologist activities. But the problem with secrecy does not end there. Major researchers, including even a former APA president, who contracted with the government, or had their work utilized by the military, as for the latter’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape or SERE program, have told me they are unable to discuss matters beyond a certain point, or tried to restrict discussion of these matters, no doubt due in part to secrecy restrictions. Summing up this point, governmental secrecy and scientific enterprise are in direct opposition to each other, and secrecy negates the promise of effective oversight, not to mention the distortions it renders upon the scientific process itself.

In the recently APA published book, Psychology in the Service of National Security (APA Press, 2006), the book’s editor, A. David Mangelsdorff, wrote, “As the military adjusts to its changing roles in the new national security environment, psychologists have much to offer” (p. 237). He notes the recent forward military deployment of psychologists, their use in so-called anti-terrorism research, and assistance in influencing public opinion about “national security problems facing the nation.” L. Morgan Banks, himself Chief of the Psychological Applications Directorate of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, and a member of the controversial PENS panel, wrote elsewhere in the same book about the “bright future” (p. 95) for psychologists working with Special Operations Forces. Never mind that SOPs have been implicated in torture in Afghanistan, including receiving instructions in such coercive procedures from psychologists from some of the same psychologists, by the way, that attended the APA/CIA workshop noted above.) Nowhere could I find in the entire book a discussion of ethical problems surrounding these issues, nor certainly of political and social questions implicit in such outright support of governmental initiatives and military policy. Additionally, and curiously, there is no discussion of psychologist participation in military interrogations anywhere in the book.

In my opinion, and despite the otherwise notable and positive stances and activities of APA on other aspects of social note, such as work against prejudice against gays and lesbians, or against race prejudice, it is an unfortunate but urgent fact that APA as an institution has become subordinated to the state when it comes to military matters. In other words, when it comes to interrogations and psychologist military activities in general, APA acts as an arm of the Pentagon and a support agency for the CIA. The differences around interrogation policy APA has with the Bush Administration is itself a mirror of differences with the administration itself, and within different governmental departments. In such instances, APA acts as the instrument of one or another faction within government, but not as an independent actor and representative of the profession and its ideals and goals.

I would suggest the following remedies, if any are still possible, in turning around the degeneration of APA into a willing instrument for U.S. military and intelligence interests:

  1. A full opening of all APA archives related to research and participation in activities with the military, including its intelligence arms; and a call for the government to declassify all documents related to the same;
  1. The disestablishment of Division 19, the Society for Military Psychology, from the APA;
  1. The immediate recission of APA’s Ethics Code 1.02, which was changed from earlier formulations in 2002 to permit adherence “to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” when there is otherwise a conflict between the law and psychologists’ ethical practice. Opponents of 1.02 have rightly compared it to the Nazi defense of “following orders” at Nuremberg;
  1. A call for the formation of a civilian, cross-disciplinary investigatory panel to examine the past history and current collaboration of scientific and medical professionals with the government, especially its military and intelligence agencies, to encompass fields as diverse as psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and sociology, with a goal of producing recommendations on interactions between government and the scientific and medical communities;
  1. A moratorium on research into interrogations;
  1. Sever the link that ties APA’s definition of “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment” in its various resolutions from the Reagan-era Reservations to the UN Convention Against Torture, which seeks to weaken that definition by relying on suspect interpretations of U.S. law rather than international definitions;
  1. The immediate cessation of all support for involvement of psychological personnel in participation in any activity that supports national security interrogations.

The sordid history of American psychology when it comes to collaboration with governmental agencies in the research and implementation of techniques of psychological torture is one that our field will have to confront sooner or later. In a larger sense, the problems I have presented here are inherent in a larger societal dilemma regarding the uses of knowledge. This problem was recognized by the first critics of untrammeled scientific advance, and represented powerfully by Goethe’s Faust, and Mary Shelley’s Doctor Frankenstein. Human knowledge is capable of producing both good and evil. The scientist, the scholar, and the doctor hold tremendous responsibility in their hands. That they have not shown themselves, in a tragic number of instances, to ethically wield or control this responsibility has meant that the 21st century opens under the awful prospect of worldwide nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, while a sinister, behaviorally-designed torture apparatus operates as the servant of nation-states wielding these awful weapons of mass destruction.

It’s appropriate that I close with a statement about the problem of serving powerful national interests from a former president of the APA, a leading and important pioneer in our field, and also, for awhile, a member with top secret clearance in the CIA’s MKULTRA mind control program, Carl Rogers. One wonders, along with the authors of a recent study on Dr. Rogers’ CIA collaboration (see Demanchick & Kirschenbaum (2008), Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48, pp. 6-30), if Rogers’ exposure to the world of secret government military projects didn’t inform his feelings about psychologists and government, as expressed in his famous debate with another seminal psychologist, B. F. Skinner:

?To hope that the power which is being made available by the behavioral sciences will be exercised by the scientists, or by a benevolent group, seems to me a hope little supported by either recent or distant history. It seems far more likely that behavioral scientists, holding their present attitudes, will be in the position of the German rocket scientists specializing in guided missiles. First they worked devotedly for Hitler to destroy the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Now, depending on who captured them, they work devotedly for the U.S.S.R. in the interest of destroying the United States, or devotedly for the United States in the interest of destroying the U.S.S.R. If behavioral scientists are concerned solely with advancing their science, it seems most probably that they will serve the purposes of whatever individual or group has the power. (Rogers & Skinner (1956), ‘Some issues concerning the control of human behavior. A symposium.’ Science, 124, p. 1061.)”

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D.
San Francisco, CA

2 comments January 28th, 2008

Blast trauma may act at a distance

The new Science contains an important article on current thinking on traumatic brain injury (TBI) from bomb blasts:

Shell Shock Revisited: Solving the Puzzle of Blast Trauma

Even at a distance, explosions may cause lasting damage to the brain. Such findings could have big implications for arming and compensating troops

by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee

Working at the Military Hospital in Belgrade during the brutal Balkan war of the 1990s, neurologist Ibolja Cernak encountered a medical enigma. She saw soldier after soldier with memory deficits, dizziness, speech problems, and difficulties with decision-making–but no obvious injury. Cernak recalls one 19-year-old who went to a grocery store and began to weep after he couldn’t remember how to get back home. When his mother brought him to the hospital a few days later, Cernak learned what later emerged as a common element in all these cases: The soldier had survived an explosion on the battlefield.

The strange thing was that most of these patients had not suffered a direct injury to the head. And yet, in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans, Cernak saw signs of internal damage. In some cases, the brain’s ventricles–channels that carry cerebrospinal fluid– had become enlarged; and in some, there was evidence of minor bleeding.

But when Cernak dug into the medical literature for an explanation, she came up empty. According to the available research, shock waves from an explosion injure mainly air-filled organs such as the lung and the bowel, not the brain.

With a small band of collaborators in Belgrade, China, and Sweden, Cernak undertook animal studies that eventually confirmed that blast waves can cause neuronal damage. The work drew little attention until 2 years ago when hundreds of U.S. and British soldiers began returning from Iraq with symptoms similar to those of Cernak’s patients. As roadside explosions became more common, military doctors suspected that these symptoms were the likely result of mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) sustained in blasts. Seeing her observations borne out was as if “a myth had become reality,” says Cernak, who is now a researcher at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

How blasts affect the brain has since become an urgent question in military medicine. Last summer, the U.S. Congress gave $150 million to the Department of Defense (DOD) for the first year of research on TBI– both severe injuries that damage the skull and milder ones suspected of causing neurological deficits. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already launched a $9 million research program aimed specifically at understanding trauma caused by shock waves, heat, and electromagnetic radiation emanating from blasts. Another $14 million a year is going to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC), a DOD-funded agency headquartered in Washington, D.C., for research and outreach on TBI.

This flurry of interest has focused a spotlight on Cernak’s research. There is growing consensus that blasts can produce subtle injuries in the brain as suggested by Cernak several years ago. In fact, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed a new rule this month acknowledging blast-related TBI as a special neurological condition whose symptoms may have gone undetected in the past. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on 3 January, would allow for greater disability compensation to victims than is granted currently.

But many researchers are skeptical of Cernak’s ideas about how these injuries might occur. Cernak postulates that blast waves ripple through the victim’s torso up into the brain through the major blood vessels, leading to neurological effects that can be slow to appear. Although she has evidence from animal experiments to back up that hypothesis, she admits that more research is needed. If the mechanism is confirmed by future studies, Cernak says, it would mean that helmets do not protect the brain against blast injury.

Besides raising questions about the protection of troops currently in combat, Cernak’s suggestion that simply being exposed to an explosion might lead to long-lasting brain damage has opened a Pandora’s box, particularly for veterans. It implies that some could be suffering from neurological deficits that went undiagnosed or were mistakenly attributed to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Indeed, since the government began putting out information about blast-related TBI, veterans have been trickling in to seek treatment for mental problems that some have lived with for decades. “It may well be that blast injuries follow the pattern of Agent Orange and Gulf War syndrome,” says former VA psychiatrist David Trudeau, referring to ill-defined health problems that have lingered for years after battle.

Hidden trauma

If Cernak had been a doctor during World War I, she says, she might well have recognized mild TBI among the thousands of soldiers who suffered from what was simply called “shell shock.” But during World War I, many doctors and military commanders viewed shell shock as a transient psychological phenomenon that affected soldiers who, in their opinion, were mentally weak.

Cernak discovered something very different: that soldiers’ mental problems seemed to be driven by enduring physical changes in the brain. To test her hypothesis, she conducted a study of 1300 patients who had suffered penetrating wounds to the lower body but not the head. More than half had suffered injuries in a blast; the rest had been wounded by projectiles. Many of the blast victims complained of symptoms such as insomnia, vertigo, and memory deficits, and more than 36% in this group showed irregular patterns of electrical activity in the brain–as measured by electroencephalograms taken within 3 days of the injury– compared to only 12% in the other group. A year later, 30% of blast- injured patients still showed abnormal brain activity compared to 4% of the rest. Cernak says the findings, published in the Journal of Trauma in 1999, suggested that the mental problems of blast victims had a biological basis.

Her study wasn’t the first to make that point. A year earlier, VA researchers had found that among veterans with PTSD, individuals with a history of blast exposure were much more likely than others to have abnormal brain activity as well as cognitive and behavioral problems.

“Our evidence pointed to the possibility that blast injury was a long- lasting injury in combat veterans,” says Trudeau, who retired in 2000. He says he was disappointed by the lack of follow-up to the study, published in the August 1998 Journal of Neuropsychiatry. “The reception we got was pretty lukewarm,” he says.

For decades, Army researchers had been studying the effects of blast waves but with a different focus. They concentrated on how to protect the lungs and bowel because the pressure from an explosion is most likely to shear at the interface of these tissues, where densities differ. DOD was so confident that advanced body armor was protecting troops against lung and bowel injuries that it closed down this research program in 2003. “We thought, why spend more money on this when we’ve fixed the problem?” says Geoffrey Ling, a neurologist and a program manager at DARPA.

Then the bad news arrived. As blast survivors from Iraq were air-lifted to hospitals, U.S. Army doctors, including Ling, who was deployed in Iraq in late 2004, began to see patients whose brains had swelled markedly within hours of being close to a blast. Some had clear head injuries but many did not. Even in cases involving visible wounds, the extent of swelling was often much greater than expected, leading neurosurgeons to wonder whether blast waves had played a role in addition to penetrating shrapnel. Ling says the patterns of vascular enlargement seen across a range of patients showed a continuum of brain injury, suggesting that there could be milder versions that were less obvious.

That suspicion has grown stronger with hundreds of soldiers returning from the war zone complaining of a common cluster of cognitive and behavioral problems. Army doctors say they have encountered many patients who are unable to perform simple addition and subtraction, read more than one sentence at a stretch, or recall simple things like what they had for lunch. “The majority are individuals who lost consciousness or were dazed after a blast but did not sustain overt head injuries,” says Ronald Riechers, a neurologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. “Within a short time frame, they develop headaches and notice that their reaction time and concentration are not the same as before.” Based on these evaluations, DVBIC estimates that 10% to 20% of all soldiers on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered some type of TBI.

Ling says the TBI numbers prompted DOD to restart its research on blast injury, this time with a focus on the brain. DARPA is funding two main projects as part of the first basic science effort on the topic. One will study the mechanical and cellular effects of blast waves in an animal model. Another will look at the consequences of repeated exposures to low-intensity explosions among military breachers, whose job is to blast holes into buildings using shoulder-launched weapons. “Once you know for certain what in a blast is really hurting the brain and how, you can use that to develop therapies and prevention strategies,” says Ling.

A tsunami in the brain

Although it is becoming accepted that blast waves can cause TBI, Cernak’s theory about how the damage occurs is controversial, and it has implications for how best to protect troops. She hypothesizes that when blast waves strike the body, they transfer kinetic energy and cause pressure in the main blood vessels to oscillate rapidly. A pulse travels up through the neck into the brain, damaging axonal fibers and neurons in the hippocampus, brainstem, and other structures close to cerebral vessels. The shock can also injure cells farther out in the cortical regions.

That mechanism is entirely different from the more widely studied effects of acceleration or deceleration in a car crash. Researchers know that a crash impact can shake the brain so violently that axonal fibers are torn. Some say victims of explosions could be experiencing a similar whiplashing, in contrast to Cernak’s view–which would mean that helmets designed to dampen that effect could help. “I am very skeptical that kinetic energy could be transferred through the vascular system,” says J. Clay Goodman, a neuropathologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. “It is much more reasonable to consider the blast effects directly on the cranial vault and the brain.”

Cernak says her findings show the vascular route to be more plausible. In experiments that exposed rats and rabbits to a simulated blast wave in a shock tube–a cylinder through which an air pulse is transmitted at high velocity–Cernak and her colleagues found that immobilizing the animal’s head with steel plates to prevent whiplash effects did not protect against hippocampal cell damage, as they reported in the Journal of Trauma in 2001. Cernak says the vascular-transmission theory could explain the unique combination of symptoms in blast-induced TBI, as well as why neurological symptoms are seen in soldiers wearing helmets. For example, memory deficits hint at damage to the hippocampus, whereas problems in orientation reflect injuries to the cerebellum. “What’s happening in blast injury is that these inner structures are being affected,” Cernak says, in contrast to TBIs in traffic accidents and contact sports, where the cortex bears most of the brunt.

Cernak presented unpublished results last month at the Blast Injury Conference in Tampa, Florida, showing that exposure to blast waves can trigger neurodegeneration in rat brains, fragmenting the walls of neurons in the hippocampus and other regions. Similar findings have been published by Annette Saljo, a researcher at the University of Goteborg in Sweden and a collaborator of Cernak’s. Saljo and her colleagues reported in the Journal of Neurotrauma in August 2000 that rats exposed to blasts showed a buildup of neurofilament proteins in the cortex and the hippocampus during the week following the injury. This suggests that the damage can worsen over time, like a “slow cooking under the surface,” says Cernak: “One could think of it as a horribly accelerated aging of the brain.”

If blast waves indeed cause injury by vascular transmission, new types of body armor may be needed. “We would need to develop materials that completely absorb or reflect the full range of blast-wave frequencies generated by an explosion,” says Cernak, adding that current body armor only shields against some of a blast’s kinetic energy.

Cernak has done pioneering work, says John Povlishock, a neuroanatomist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, adding that she may be right that a “rapid rise and fall in venous pressure” is what stamps the blast’s signature on the brain. But more studies are needed to validate her ideas and translate the animal results into humans: “This is a topic with great economic, military, and social implications,” he says, “and as of now, the literature is extremely limited.”

Needed: A gold standard

As blast casualties from Iraq have mounted, the U.S. military has stepped up efforts to detect TBI among troops. In July 2006, the Army Surgeon General asked all unit commanders in Iraq to request TBI screening for soldiers displaying “poor marksmanship, delayed reaction times, decreased ability to concentrate, and inappropriate behavior.”
Troops who have been in a blast are evaluated by field medics using a short questionnaire that asks, among other things, if the person lost consciousness and had trouble remembering things from just before the explosion. Depending on the severity of the symptoms, they are asked to take a day off or see a neuropsychologist.

Some veterans groups believe a more aggressive screening policy is needed, especially because the symptoms of blast injury might not show up until later and because subtle injuries might not show up in standard brain scans. The ideal option, some say, would be to use a biomarker:

“We’d like to be able to do a blood test to determine the injury,” says Colonel Robert Labutta, a neurologist at the health affairs office at DOD. But until the science of blast injury is established, officials say, it does not make sense to bring home every soldier who has been in the vicinity of an explosion.

The costs of treating TBI victims from Iraq and Afghanistan could be astronomical. At last count, nearly 25,000 soldiers had been diagnosed with TBI. One estimate of the financial burden, calculated by Harvard researchers, puts the number at $14 billion over the next 20 years. But officials seem determined not to miss any cases among troops coming
home: In April, VA mandated TBI screening for all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who come to VA hospitals for any services, even if it’s a dental exam.

The spotlight on mild TBI has drawn the attention of older combat veterans who were exposed to blasts but were never treated for neurological symptoms. Many were diagnosed with PTSD; some of the symptoms–such as depression, irritability, and attention deficit– overlap with those of mild TBI. These cases, some reaching back to the Vietnam War, could have significant legal and financial implications, says Edward Kim, a psychiatrist with Bristol-Myers Squibb in Plainsboro, New Jersey, and author of a recent report from the American Neuropsychiatric Association on the mental health effects of TBI. “I question whether DOD and the VA really want to open this can of worms,”
he says. For example, a veteran with Alzheimer’s disease could make a claim pointing to research showing that TBI increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

Cernak says she has been receiving e-mails and phone calls from veterans thanking her for her research and seeking more information. Last month, she got a call from a 47-year-old woman who had served in the first Gulf War. The woman had been a teacher before she went to the combat zone, where she was exposed to repeated blasts. After she returned home, she had to stop teaching because she could not remember any facts. The story reminded Cernak why she had begun studying this obscure field 2 decades ago. “Soldiers anywhere are one of the most vulnerable populations in the world,” she says. “It is a moral obligation to help them.”

2 comments January 25th, 2008

Greg Palast explains South Carolina politics

Greg Palast explains:

The South Carolina You Won’t See on CNN
South Carolina Primary Colors: Black and White?

by Greg Palast

South Carolina 2000: Six hundred police in riot gear facing a few dozen angry-as-hell workers on the docks of Charleston. In the darkness, rocks, clubs and blood fly. The cops beat the crap out of the protesters. Of course, it’s the union men who are arrested for conspiracy to riot. And of course, of the five men handcuffed, four are Black. The prosecutor: a White, Bible-thumping Attorney General running for Governor. The result: a state ripped in half - White versus Black.

South Carolina 2008: On Saturday, the Palmetto State may well choose our President, or at least the Democrat’s idea of a President. According to CNN and the pundit-ocracy, the only question is, Will the large Black population vote their pride (for Obama) or for “experience” (Hillary)? In other words, the election comes down to a matter of racial vanity.

The story of the dockworkers charged with rioting in 2000 suggest there’s an awfully good reason for Black folk to vote for one of their own. This is the chance to even the historic score in this land of lingering Jim Crow where the Confederate Flag flew over the capital while the longshoreman faced Southern justice.

But maybe there’s more to South Carolina’s story than Black and White.

Let’s re-wind the tape of the 2000 battle between cops and Black men. It was early that morning on the 19th of January when members of International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1422 “shaped up” to unload a container ship which had just pulled into port. It was hard work for good pay. An experienced union man could earn above $60,000 a year.

In this last hold-out of the Confederacy, it was one of the few places a Black man could get decent pay. Or any man.

That day, the stevedoring contractor handling the unloading decided it would hire the beggars down the dock, without experience or skills - and without union cards - willing to work for just one-third of union scale.

That night, union workers - Black, White, Whatever - fought for their lives and livelihoods.

At the heart of the turmoil in South Carolina in 2000 then, was not so much Black versus White, but union versus non-union. It was a battle between those looking for a good day’s pay versus those looking for a way not to pay it. The issue was - and is - class war, the conflict between the movers and the shakers and the moved and shaken.

The dockworkers of Charleston could see the future of America right down the road. Literally. Because right down the highway, they could see their cousins and brothers who worked in the Carolina textile mills kiss their jobs goodbye as they loaded the mill looms onto trains for Mexico.

The President, Bill Clinton, had signed NAFTA, made China a “most favored nation” in trade and urged us, with a flirtatious grin, to “make change our friend.”

But “change,” apparently, wasn’t in a friendly mood. In 2000, Guilford Mills shuttered its Greensboro, Carolina, fabric plant and reopened it in Tampico, Mexico. Four-hundred jobs went south. Springs Mills of Rock Hill, SC, closed down and abandoned 480 workers. Fieldcrest-Cannon pulled out of York, SC, and Great America Mills simply went bust.

South Carolina, then, is the story of globalization left out of Thomas Friedman’s wonders-of-the-free-market fantasies.

This week, while US media broadcasts cute-sy photo-ops from Black churches and replay the forgettable spats between candidates, the real issues of South Carolina are, thankfully, laid out in a book released today: On the Global Waterfront, by Suzan Erem and E. Paul Durrenberger.

Erem and Durrenberger portray the case of the Charleston Five dockworkers as an exemplary, desperate act of economic resistance.

Thomas Friedman’s bestseller, The World is Flat, begins with his uplifting game of golf with a tycoon in India. Erem and Durrenberger never put on golf shoes: their book is globalization stripped down to its dirty underpants.

While Friedman made the point that he flew business class to Bangalore on his way to the greens to meet his millionaire, Global Waterfront’s authors go steerage class. And the people they write about don’t go anywhere at all. These are the stevedores who move the containers of Wal-Mart T-shirts from Guatemala to sell to customers in Virginia who can’t afford health insurance because they lost their job in the textile mill.

And the book talks about (cover the children’s ears!) - labor unions.

South Carolina is union country. And union-busting country. But who gives a flying fart about labor unions today? Only 7%, one in fourteen US workers belongs to one. That’s less than the number of Americans who believe that Elvis killed John Kennedy.

Think “longshoremen” and what comes to mind is On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando, the good guy, beating up the evil union boss. The union bosses were the thugs, mobbed-up bullies, the dockworkers’ enemies. The movie’s director, Stanley Kramer, perfectly picked up the anti-union red-baiting Joe McCarthy zeitgeist of that era of - which could go down well today.

Elected labor leaders are, in our media, always “union bosses.” But the real bosses, the CEOs, the guys who shutter factories and ship them to China … they’re never “bosses,” they’re “entrepreneurs.”

Indeed, the late and lionized King of Union Busters, Sam Walton, would be proud today, were he alive, to learn that the woman he called, “my little lady,” Hillary Clinton, whom he placed on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors, is front-runner for the presidency. She could well become America’s “Greeter,” posted at our nation’s door, to welcome the Saudis and Chinese who are buying America at a guaranteed low price.

So what happened those five union men charged felonious reioting in 2000? Through an international union campaign, they won back their freedom - and their union jobs - after the dockworkers of Spain, the true heroes of globalization, refused to unload the South Carolina scab cargoes.

Erem and Durrenberger ask themselves why they were so drawn to a story of five Carolina cargo-handlers put in prison a decade ago. Maybe it’s because the Charleston Five show how courage and heart and solidarity can lead to victory in the midst of a mad march into globalization that threatens to turn us all into the Wal-Mart Five Billion.

**************
See video of the dockworkers’ uprising and read more from the book, On the Global Waterfront, by Suzan Erem and E. Paul Durrenberger (introduction by Greg Palast) at http://www.ontheglobalwaterfront.org/.

Greg Palast is the author of the NY Times best-sellers, Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. View Palast’s investigative reports for BBC Television on our YouTube Channel (Link).

Add comment January 25th, 2008

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

January 2008
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category