Psyche, Science, and Society

The Global War on Freedom, UK front arrests student for conducting his research

The Global War on Freedom has struck the UK front again. A graduate student at Nottingham University, Rizwaan Sabir, was arrested and held for six days because he downloaded an Al Qaeda manual from a US government web site for his research on Al Qaeda tactics. HJis friend, university staff member Hisham Yezza, whom Sabir had asked to print the 1,500 page manual to save costs, is scheduled to be deported to Algeria. If deported, Yezza is in danger of being detained and, possibly, tortured.

Here is a Guardian article. Below the article is a Press Release from concerned Nottingham  students and faculty:

Student researching al-Qaida tactics held for six days

By Polly Curtis and Martin Hodgson

A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the “psychological torture” he endured in custody.

Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.

The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a “prevent agenda” against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.

Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator’s computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. The pair were arrested under the Terrorism Act, Sabir’s family home was searched and their computer and mobile phones seized. They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation.

Dr Alf Nilsen, a research fellow at the university’s school of politics and international relations, said that Yezza is being held at Colnbrook immigration removal centre, due to be deported on Tuesday.

“If he is taken to Algeria, he may be subjected to severe human rights violations after his involvement in this case. He has been in the UK for 13 years. His work is here, his friends are here, his life is here.”

Of his detention, Sabir said: “I was absolutely broken. I didn’t sleep. I’d close my eyes then hear the keys clanking and I would be up again. As I realised the severity I thought I’d end up in Belmarsh with the nutcases. It was psychological torture.

“On Tuesday they read me a statement confirming it was an illegal document which shouldn’t be used for research purposes. To this day no one has ever clarified that point. They released me. I was shaking violently, I fell against the wall, then on the floor and I just cried.”

Bettina Rentz, a lecturer in international security and Sabir’s personal tutor, said: “He’s a serious student, who works very hard and wants a career in academia. This is a great concern for our academic freedom but also for the climate on campus.”

Students have begun a petition calling on the university to acknowledge the “disproportionate nature of [its] response to the possession of legitimate research materials”.

A spokesman for Nottingham University said it had a duty to inform police of “material of this nature”. The spokesman said it was “not legitimate research material”, but later amended that view, saying: “If you’re an academic or a registered student then you have very good cause to access whatever material your scholarship requires. But there is an expectation that you will act sensibly within current UK law and wouldn’t send it on to any Tom, Dick or Harry.”

At its annual conference next week the University and College Union will debate a motion on “assaults on academic freedom by the DIUS [Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]“. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said: “If we really want to tackle problems like extremism and terrorism, then we need to be safe to explore the issues and get a better understanding. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue or research a subject because they fear being arrested or reported.”

The higher education minister, Bill Rammell, said: “The government does not want to or has never asked for staff or students to spy on their colleagues or friends. We want universities to work with staff and students on campus to isolate and challenge the very small minority who promote violent extremism.”

Sabir’s solicitor, Tayab Ali, said: “This could have been dealt with sensibly if the university had discussed the issue with Rizwaan and his tutors. This is the worrying aspect of the extension of detention [under the Terrorism Act]. They can use hugely powerful arrest powers before investigating.”

Press Release:

Contact: Sam Walton, 07948590262

From: a group of concerned students and academics at the University of
Nottingham.

For immediate use, 24/05/08 SATURDAY

Notts Uni detainee innocent but still facing deportation

Hicham Yezza, a popular, respected and valued former PhD student and
current employee of the University of Nottingham faces deportation to
Algeria on Sunday 1st June. This follows his unjust arrest under the
Terrorism Act 2000 on Wednesday 14th May alongside Rizwaan Sabir and
their release without charge six days later.

On his release Hicham was re-arrested under immigration legislation and,
due to confusion over his visa documentation, charged with offences
relating to his immigration status. He sought legal advice and
representation over these matters whilst in custody. On Friday 23rd May,
he was suddenly served with a deportation notice and moved to an
immigration detention centre. The deportation is being urgently
appealed.

Hicham has been resident in the U.K. for 13 years, during which time he
has studied for both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in
Nottingham. He is an active member of debating societies, a prominent
member of an arts and theatre group, and has been writing editorials for
the Student Peace Movement magazine for the last five years. He is well
known and popular on campus amongst the university community and has
established himself as a voracious reader and an authority on literature
and music. An application for British citizenship was underway, and he
had been planning to make his yearly trip to Wales for the Hay Festival
when he was suddenly arrested.

Alf Nilsen, a research fellow at in the school of Politics and
International Relations says “This is a clear case of the police trying
to cover up their completely unjustified targeting of these two innocent
men by making Hicham look guilty by deporting him. Hicham is entirely
innocent and the rushed and heavy-handed way in which the authorities
are dealing with this matter is outrageous.”

[ENDS]

Contact: Sam Walton 07814683906, samdreddude@hotmail.com; or Musab
Younis: 078901018073, musabz@gmail.com

***************************

We’re focussing our campaigning on the following areas:

1) Lobbying the Home Office We have been made aware that a call from
an MP to the Home Office, in particular Liam Byrne, the relevant
minister, has the possibility to stop the deportation in its tracks. One
of our
major focuses is trying to get particular MPs to make this
representation. If the MPs we have close contact with are unsuccessful
in the immediate short term, we will be encouraging more and more people
to contact their MPs to make representations.

Direct representations to the Home Office are presumably relevant as
well, as are representations to other parts of government (up to and
including Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown etc.), which we will be pursuing if
our initial efforts are not successful.
-
please keep us informed of any such contact as we will be trying to keep
track of which MPs have been ‘lobbied’ and whether this has been
successful.

2) Legal challenge The main legal avenue is to seek an injunction,
which would basically grant a stay of deportation. Whilst the cost of
this is minimal we are seeking to build up a legal fund as we anticipate
that future legal costs may mount. If an initial stay of deportation is
received it seems likely that there would be much more legal work to be
done to ensure Hicham’s release. Our understanding is that if Hicham’s
immediate deportation was stopped he would then have to face the
immigration charges.

We are looking to get the best possible legal advice and would
appreciate any recommendations for relevant specialist solicitors that
may be available. That said we are receiving recommendations all the
time and have many avenues to explore through the experience of some of
our members in anti-deportation campaigns in relation to asylum.

3) Media We are working to mount a coherent and sustained media campaign
and we’re already off to a flying start. We are seeking first to work
through known reliable journalists so that we get the right message out
first, before moving on to sending out press releases en masse. We would
very much appreciate contact details for journalists which people can
vouch for.

We would appreciate help from yourselves in any way you feel possible.
However here are a few things we have thought of:

First of all money to cover legal costs is a huge concern of us at the
moment. We would appreciate any contributions either from the Party
itself or personal donations and if you were able to spread this message
throughout the party we would be very grateful. We are in a situation
where even small amounts would make a real difference with the added
benefit that it is a clear demonstration of solidarity which will
inevitably boost moral and make a reality our aim of having the broadest
possible base of support.

Also if sitting MEPs or councillors were able to use their positions in
any way to either make formal representations, or simply to raise the
profile of the campaign we would be very grateful. We are already
working on model motions and resolutions for unions and similar
organisations, which could also be used in councils or parliaments.

Please send us any thoughts you have on these ideas and please pass on
this email address (staffandstudents@gmail.com) and our phone number
(07948 590262)

Add comment May 25th, 2008

North Carolina considering banning torture and “enforced disappearance”

As our federal government openly engages in torture as official policy, albeit under different names (”enhanced interrogations,” “coercive interrogations”), various initiative in state legislatures are attempting to counter this policy. In California, the Senate has passed the Ridley-Thomas Resolution reminding state licensed health professionals of the risks of future prosecution if they participate in torture (or “coercive” or “enhanced” interrogations). The bill will move to the State Assembly in June. [See our comment here and that of Physician's for Human Rights. Also read of the American Psychological association's largely successful efforts to weaken the resolution.]

Now word comes that North Carolina is considering a bill that would ban torture in that state.

This week, legislators, including Reps. Paul Luebke of Durham and Linda Coleman of Knightdale, submitted a bill to create statutory offenses of “torture” and “enforced disappearance.”

Here is a News & Observer article on the effort:

N.C. revisits torture ban

By Peggy Lim

RALEIGH - State legislators are still hoping to get a law on the books banning torture in North Carolina.

This week, legislators, including Reps. Paul Luebke of Durham and Linda Coleman of Knightdale, submitted a bill to create statutory offenses of “torture” and “enforced disappearance.”

A similar bill, “North Carolina No Place for Torture Act,” languished in the House last session until Luebke moved it to the N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission for study. The 30-member commission makes recommendations to the state legislature about sentencing laws.

Luebke said the impetus for the bill was the state Attorney General’s refusal to investigate Johnston County-based Aero Contractors’ role in allegedly helping the CIA ferry terrorism suspects to secret prisons overseas for interrogation and possible torture.

“The Attorney General’s office said they were unable to ask the SBI to investigate Aero Contractors because there wasn’t a torture statute,” Luebke said.

So lawmakers began crafting a law. Luebke thinks the new bill is stronger because the language was fine-tuned and approved by the sentencing commission’s wide membership of judges, sheriffs, district attorneys and other lawyers across the state.

The sentencing commission came down hard against torture. Not only is torture “not who we are,” but it betrays American military personnel who might become prisoners of war and be at risk of torture themselves, said Locke Clifford, a commission member and a Greensboro lawyer.

But John Madler, the commission’s associate policy director, said that the recommendations represent neither an endorsement of or opposition to the bill.

“The recommendations are for technical issues only,” he said.

For instance, the commission recommended the offense of torture be a felony two classes less severe than what lawmakers had originally suggested.

Still, anti-torture activists hail the bill as a big step forward.

“The real point in getting this bill sponsored is to put some elected officials on record in this state for saying this is wrong,” said Christina Cowger of N.C. Stop Torture Now.

Proponents said they were not aware of any other state with a similar torture ban. Several laws at the federal level prohibit torture, such as the Detainee Treatment Act. But the enforcement of such laws has hit stumbling blocks, especially when the CIA is involved.

A 437-page report, released Tuesday by the U.S. Justice Department, disclosed dissension between agencies when prisoner mistreatment has been alleged. In 2002, for instance, some FBI agents tried to document accusations of prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay in a “war crimes file.” The agents expressed concerns about the military and CIA intimidating inmates with dogs, parading them nude before female soldiers and shackling prisoners to the floor for hours in extreme cold or heat. But a senior FBI official ordered the file closed in 2003 because “investigating detainee allegations of abuse was not the FBI’s mission.”

Last year, the Bush administration also invoked the state secrets privilege to boot out the case of a German citizen of Lebanese descent, Khaled El-Masri, from the U.S. court system. El-Masri’s lawyers allege he had been abducted in 2003, flown to Afghanistan in an Aero-operated plane and abused. The CIA had mistakenly identified him as an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers, they said.

Khaled al-Maqtari, another released detainee, has recently come forward with a similar story. Al-Maqtari said he was arrested in 2004 in Fallujah, detained in Abu Ghraib for nine days and then flown by jet plane to Afghanistan, where he was interrogated and tortured. Nine days after his arrest, a Gulfstream V executive jet operated by Aero Contractors took a similar route from Baghdad to Kabul, according to Amnesty International.

peggy.lim@newsobserver.com or (919) 836-5799

Add comment May 25th, 2008

Prison rape as American as cherry pie

More on the prison horrors we accept in our name. Ezra Klein writes in the LA Times of the cultural acceptance of prison rape. Apparently, it’s even the subject of video games. As Gandi supposedly said when asked what he thought about Western Civilization: “It would be a good idea.” Civilization begins with the closing of most of our prisons and jails and the radical reform of the remaining. Civilization is measured in how we treat the most despised.

[BTW, if you missed Craig Haney's piece I posted the other day, on our cultural acceptance of prison brutality and psychologists' failure to confront it, make sure and go read it. A Must Read!]

There’s nothing funny about prison rape
Smirking at sexual attacks on inmates makes us all less safe

By Ezra Klein

From the studio that brought you ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ ” intones the preview for the light comedy “Let’s Go To Prison,” “comes a penetrating look at the American penal system.” In case that was too subtle for you, the DVD box features a dropped bar of soap, just waiting for some poor inmate to bend over to pick it up — and suffer a hilarious sexual assault in the process.

Or maybe you’re not feeling up for a movie. It’s more of a board-game afternoon. How about picking up “Don’t Drop the Soap,” a board game created by the son of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. The game “is simply intended for entertainment,” said Nicole Corcoran, the governor’s spokeswoman. What, after all, could be more entertaining then trying to “avoid being cornered by the Aryans in the shower room” (one of the goals of the game, according to its promotional material)?

Here in Washington, however, the weather has been beautiful lately, so if you were bored last week, you might have wanted to do something out of the house. One option would have been going down to the Department of Justice, where, on the third floor, officials were holding hearings on prison rape, interrogating administrators from some of the worst prisons in the nation about the abuses that go on within their walls.

These hearings are held annually. This year’s transcripts aren’t online yet, but in 2006 you could have heard a man named Clinton explain, “I had no choice but to enter into a relationship with another inmate in my dorm in order to keep the rest of them off of me. In exchange for his protection from other inmates, I had to be with him sexually any time he demanded it. It was so humiliating, and I often cried silently at night in my bed … but dealing with one is better than having 10 or more men demanding sex from you at any given time.”

Clinton’s testimony wasn’t very funny, and it wasn’t for entertainment. Nor was the 2001 report by Human Rights Watch, “No Escape,” which included a letter from an inmate confessing that “I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to five black men and two white men at a time. I’ve had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn’t ever think I’d see straight again.”

Prison rape occupies a fairly odd space in our culture. It is, all at once, a cherished source of humor, a tacitly accepted form of punishment and a broadly understood human rights abuse. We pass legislation called the Prison Rape Elimination Act at the same time that we produce films meant to explore the funny side of inmate sexual brutality.

Occasionally, we even admit that prison rape is a quietly honored part of the punishment structure for criminals. When Enron’s Ken Lay was sentenced to jail, for instance, Bill Lockyer, then the attorney general of California, spoke dreamily of his desire “to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi, my name is Spike, honey.’ ”

The culture is rife with similar comments. Although it would be unthinkable for the government today to institute corporal punishment in prisons, there is little or no outrage when the government interns prisoners in institutions where their fellow inmates will brutally violate them. We won’t touch you, but we can’t be held accountable for the behavior of Spike, now can we?

As our jokes and cultural products show, we can claim no ignorance. We know of the abuses, and we know of the rapes. Research by the University of South Dakota’s Cindy Struckman-Johnson found that 20% of prisoners reported being coerced or pressured into sex, and 10% said they were violently raped. In a 2007 survey by the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 60,000 inmates claimed to have been sexually victimized by other inmates during the previous 12 months. Given the stigma around admitting such harms, the true numbers are probably substantially higher.

But by and large, we seem to find more humor than outrage in these crimes. In part, this simply reflects the nature of our criminal justice system, which has become decreasingly rehabilitative and increasingly retributive.

In the 1970s, as economist Glenn Loury has written, “the corrections system was commonly seen as a way to prepare offenders to rejoin society. Since then, the focus has shifted from rehabilitation to punishment and stayed there.”

On the campaign trail, Mike Huckabee put it even more pithily. “We lock up a lot of people that we’re mad at,” he liked to say. “Not the ones we’re really afraid of.” Criminals aren’t sent to prison so they can learn to live outside of prison; they’re sent to prison to get what they deserve. And that paves the way for the acceptance of all manners of brutal abuses. It’s not that we condone prison rape per se, but it doesn’t exactly concern us, and occasionally, as in the comments made by Lockyer, we take a perverse satisfaction in its existence.

Morally, our tacit acceptance of violence within prisons is grotesque. But it’s also counterproductive. Research by economists Jesse Shapiro and Keith Chen suggests that violent prisons make prisoners more violent after they leave. When your choice is between the trauma of hardening yourself so no one will touch you or the trauma of prostituting yourself so you’re protected from attack, either path leads away from rehabilitation and psychological adjustment.

And we, as a society, endure the consequences — both because it leads ex-cons to commit more crime on the streets and because more of them end up back to jail. A recent report released by the Pew Center on the States revealed that more than one in 100 Americans is now behind bars. California alone spends $8.8 billion a year on its imprisoned population — a 216% increase over what it paid 20 years ago, even after adjusting for inflation.

That’s money, of course, that can’t be spent on schools, on job training, on wage supports and drug treatment. Money, in other words, that can’t be spent on all the priorities that keep people out of prison. Money that’s spent instead on housing prisoners in a violent, brutal and counterproductive atmosphere. And there’s nothing funny about that.

Ezra Klein is an associate editor at the American Prospect. His blog is at EzraKlein.com.

Add comment May 25th, 2008

Support our troops. Bring them home.

For Memorial Day. Don’t let more soldiers die in vain. And take care of them when they’re home.
Bruce Springsteen - Bring Them Home - San Francisco 2006:

Add comment May 25th, 2008

No Torture. No Exceptions.

Scott Horton has launched the No Torture. No Exceptions. campaign. On his blog he explains why:

It’s an initiative with which I am deeply involved, dedicated to making certain that each presidential candidate makes stopping torture part of their campaign platform.

In its self-declared war on terror, the Bush Administration overturned an American legacy that stretched back to General Washington’s orders at Trenton and Princeton in 1776. The administration repudiated the order that the first and greatest Republican president issued in the heat of the Civil War, in 1863, prohibiting torture and official cruelty. The consequences have been nothing less than disastrous. Americans have been struggling back to regain the nation’s legacy of integrity, and the struggle starts within the Party of Lincoln. As the field of contenders narrowed, it surely was not coincidental that the three survivors—McCain, Huckabee and Paul—were united by one point: their rejection of the torture dogma.

The moral issue hovering over the 2008 election is the Bush Administration’s embrace of torture as a tool of statecraft. This mistake must be thoroughly repudiated, and the nation must undertake a vow never to repeat it. And this issue should not be allowed to divide the nation as a premise of partisan rancor. There is hope in this election year to reverse one of the most fateful decisions in our nation’s history–the decision after 9/11 to disregard America’s historic values and to use torture in the “war on terror.”

All the remaining Presidential candidates–John McCain in the Republican Party, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party–have publicly stated their opposition to the use of torture. Now each of these presidential candidates must get their parties to adopt at their Conventions a party platform plank that returns America to its historic position of absolutely rejecting torture–anywhere, on anyone, for any reason.

“No Torture. No Exceptions” means:

• Reaffirming America’s commitment to existing federal laws and international treaties that ban torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under all circumstances.
• Renouncing all legal interpretations and executive orders that redefine torture and permit such acts as sensory or sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, mock executions.
• Enforcing full transparency of information about how America treats any and all detainees held by our personnel and those in our employ anywhere in the world.
• Rejecting and abolishing the practice of rendering detainees abroad.
• Establishing a single standard of interrogation procedures to apply to all persons held in U.S. custody or by those under U.S. control, whether C.I.A., military, or civilian.
• Treating our detainees as we would have others treat detained Americans.

What can we do?

• Click on www.rejecttorture.org to join the national initiative to Reject Torture, and pass it on to your friends and acquaintances
• Call each and every presidential candidate now. Insist: “No Torture. No Exceptions.”

John McCain: Phone: (202) 224-2235 Fax: (202) 228-2862
Barack Obama: Phone: (202) 224-2854 Fax: (202) 228-4260
Hillary Clinton: Phone: (202) 224-4451 Fax: (202) 228-0282

Join up!

Add comment May 25th, 2008