Psyche, Science, and Society

Kaye confirms Army Field Manual, Appendix M still used at Guantanamo

Jeff Kaye, at Firedoglake reminds us that the Army Field Manual, Appendix M, allowing sleep deprivation and other abusive techniques, is still in effect. Further, he finds out that interrogations based on these techniques are still occurring at Guantanamo. This post is evidently the first of a series on the Army Field manual:

Torture Confirmed at Guantanamo; Army Field Manual Codified Abuse

By Jeff Kaye

Recently, it occurred to me that, with all the debate or controversy over the Obama administration’s policies on torture, no one had asked the military, and in particular those running America’s “terror” prisons, if they had been using the Army Field Manual’s Appendix M. So, I called Guantanamo’s Public Affairs Officer, Lt. Commander Brook DeWalt, and asked him if Appendix M interrogations had taken place at Guantanamo.

This question may have more than intrinsic interest, as the administration has now announced that it is pursuing moving over a hundred Guantanamo “detainees” to a prison in Illinois. (The actions of Umar Abdulmutallab on an American Airliners jet on Christmas Day may have thrown a monkey-wrench into the “closing” of Guantanamo, but, most likely, Obama’s plans will move forward.)

Lt. Commander DeWalt took a few days to get confirmation, but when he spoke to me on December 11, he confirmed that while “not routine,” Appendix M interrogations are conducted at Guantanamo “as authorized,” “in accordance with DOD directives and U.S. law.” He would not go into operational specifics. Officer-In-Charge of the 4th Public Affairs Detachment (Guantanamo Forward), Lt. Col. James Crabtree, whom was also contacted, declined to be more forthcoming about dates when asked for more specific dates of operational usage.

Appendix M is the portion of the 2006 revised Army Field Manual that covers “unlawful enemy combatants” who don’t meet the U.S. government’s criteria for Geneva treatment as prisoners of war. Obama doesn’t want to call them illegal combatants anymore, so the government doesn’t call them anything, except people with lesser rights.

Famously, President Obama has proclaimed, as did his predecessor, that he was against torture, and was banning it in his administration. As a result, the Obama administration closed down the CIA secret black site prisons, though not, as it turns out, all secret black site prisons.

Obama also rescinded the torture memos of Bybee/Yoo/Bradbury/Addington/Levin, and replaced them with an interrogation policy oriented around the Bush-era Army Field Manual (AFM), whose latest incarnation was the brainchild of Donald Rumsfeld’s assistant, Stephen Cambone. At first, the new AFM was supposed to have a secret annex, so the “worst of the worst” could be grilled in U.S. military prisons, and not have any bleeding hearts or Al Qaeda types getting wind of what was going on.

But, brilliantly, one has to admit, they hit on the idea of simply laying the document openly among the people, and when there was no protest, and the politicians dutifully saluted, the new torture policy was ready to go. First, they had to line up some right-wingers to protest the new AFM was “too soft,” especially for use by the CIA. Then, they had to conduct a PR campaign that sold the AFM to the public, as humane, Geneva-compliant, and the negation of former Bush torture policies. Hence hoary old Senator Feinstein was rolled out to give the stamp of approval from “pragmatic liberal” types. No one else around the Beltway would peep boo from the left.

Appendix M was certainly not the old “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but they weren’t exactly not them either. The new AFM was supposed to be better than the old one, like any new product, but in fact, old prohibitions against abusive interrogation techniques were removed, and in some cases, the techniques formally reintroduced. An example of the latter is sleep deprivation, which used to be explicitly proscribed, but is now part of Appendix M procedure. “Fear Up” procedures are strengthened. Modes of sensory deprivation are introduced. The ban against drugs that cause serious derangement of the senses or temporary psychosis is replaced by a ban against drugs that cause “permanent damage.” Stress positions are, notably, not explicitly banned.

Next: “Will Military Torture Be Transferred to the United States?”

January 4th, 2010

NYT: Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal

The New York Times knows torture when they hear of it, unlike the Obama administration or the Supreme Court:

Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal

New York Times Editorial

Bush administration officials came up with all kinds of ridiculously offensive rationalizations for torturing prisoners. It’s not torture if you don’t mean it to be. It’s not torture if you don’t nearly kill the victim. It’s not torture if the president says it’s not torture.

It was deeply distressing to watch the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sink to that standard in April when it dismissed a civil case brought by four former Guantánamo detainees never charged with any offense. The court said former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the senior military officers charged in the complaint could not be held responsible for violating the plaintiffs’ rights because at the time of their detention, between 2002 and 2004, it was not “clearly established” that torture was illegal.

The Supreme Court could have corrected that outlandish reading of the Constitution, legal precedent, and domestic and international statutes and treaties. Instead, last month, the justices abdicated their legal and moral duty and declined to review the case.

A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits. But the justices surely understood that their failure to accept the case would further undermine the rule of law.

In effect, the Supreme Court has granted the government immunity for subjecting people in its custody to terrible mistreatment. It has deprived victims of a remedy and Americans of government accountability, while further damaging the country’s standing in the world.

Contrary to the view of the lower appellate court, it was crystal clear that torture inflicted anywhere is illegal long before the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that prisoners at Guantánamo, de facto United States territory, have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. Moreover, the shield of qualified immunity was not raised in good faith. Officials decided to hold detainees offshore at Guantánamo precisely to try to avoid claims from victims for conduct the officials knew was illegal.

Reversing the Circuit Court would not have ended the matter. The plaintiffs would still have had to prove their case at trial. They deserved that chance. There are those who oppose trying to punish Bush-era lawlessness — some who argue that America should not look backward and some who excuse that lawlessness. But the rule of law rests on scrutinizing evidence of past behavior to establish accountability, confer justice and deter bad behavior in the future.

President Obama, much to his credit, has forsworn the use of torture, but politics and policy makers change and democracy cannot rely merely on the good will of one president and his aides. Such good will did not exist in the last administration. And the inhumane and illegal treatment of detainees could make a return in a future administration unless the Supreme Court sends a firm message that ordering torture is a grievous violation of fundamental rights.

Anyone who doubts the degree of executive branch pliability in this realm needs to consider this: The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims’ appeal because the illegality of torture was not “clearly established” was the Obama Justice Department.

January 4th, 2010

Dreger: Human rights of LGBTs too expensive for American Psychological Association

UPDATE: Dreger’s piece has been picked up by Dan Savage at his blog.

In addition to the negative attention the American Psychological Association has received for what many of us see as its collusion with torture, they are now under fire by human rights advocates in a completely different area. One of the prime sites where they are to hold their convention next summer in San Diego is a hotel under boycott by LGBT groups for the owner’s $100,000 contribution to 2008′s anti-gay marriage campaign, Proposition 8. APA has refused to honor the boycott, despite calls from activists among its membership.

A couple of weeks ago, Psychologists for Social Responsibility [note: I'm President-Elect] issued a statement urging the APA to at least arrange the Convention so no one has to violate the boycott to participate in official events. APA has so far not responded.

Now Guggenheim-ward-winning bioethicist Alice Dreger weights in on the Bioethics Forum:

Attention Shoppers: LBGT Rights Apparently Not Worth $6.67 to the American Psychological Association

By Alice Dreger

Using the power of one’s wallet to effect social change: that’s got to be one of the best-loved steps in the beautiful dance we call American democracy. And so leaders in the LBGT activist community have called for a boycott of businesses owned by individuals who contributed to California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that rolled back the right to marriage for same-sex couples in California.

The Manchester Hyatt Hotel, in San Diego, is one of those businesses. Its owner, Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 in an effort to stop gay and lesbian Californians from being allowed to marry. Nevertheless, executives of the American Psychological Association (APA) have opted to go ahead and use the Manchester Hyatt as a headquarter hotel for the APA’s 2010 meeting, against the vocal objections of many of the APA’s own members.

What’s especially striking is that the APA seems to be violating its own policies in this matter. As Psychologists for Social Responsibility noted on its blog, “the APA’s 2004 policy statement on sexual orientation and marriage includes a specific resolution that the association ‘shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples.’” Meanwhile, the APA’s own ethics code specifically states as a principle that “psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights.” So what gives?

Apparently, the APA is just not willing to put its money where its mouth is. A letter from APA President Carol Goodheart indicates that it would cost the APA about a million dollars to reneg on its contract, made years earlier, with the Manchester Hyatt. Sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but that amount comes to only about 1.03% of the APA’s annual budget. This was pointed out to me by James Cantor, a psychologist at the University of Toronto and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, who is among those now calling for a reactive boycott of the APA’s meeting.

Cantor writes, “That APA would trade its support of civil rights for a (max) 1.03% budgetary interest is unacceptable to me as an APA member.” Moreover, “The APA President wrote recently that $3.5 million in unanticipated funds had been acquired.” Yet the APA still won’t consider pulling out of the Manchester Hyatt? Concludes Cantor, “This isn’t financial stewardship; this is civil rights having lost its place as an APA priority.”

As a consequence, those calling for a boycott of the APA’s meeting are hoping to convince at least 3,700 APA members who would otherwise attend the conference to skip it. (Usually about 14,000 attend.) The cost to the APA would come to about the million dollars they are claiming is at stake.

What’s particularly troubling in this whole controversy is that the APA leadership has refused to provide copies of the contract with the Manchester Hyatt to those members who have wanted to see if there might be a viable “escape” clause in the contract. Where’s the transparency? Writes Cantor, “this blocks any kind of independent review. Moreover, there have been no statements regarding why the APA legal office would have failed to protect APA by using such clauses, nor how APA might review its procedures for handling million dollar contracts.”

Other professional associations have backed out of holding their meetings at the Manchester Hyatt, including the American Association of Law Schools, the American Association of Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the California Nurses Association, the Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations, and the International Foundation of Employee Benefits.

That the APA would choose to put its members’ money in the pockets of Doug Manchester seems especially ironic given that psychological studies suggest sexual minorities’ mental health is negatively affected by discrimination. Imagine if the most prominent association of pulmonologists held their meeting at a hotel owned by a tobacco pusher. Only here we’re talking not just about health, but about civil rights. It’s really hard to imagine the APA knowingly funneling its members’ dollars into the coffers of someone who supported legislation to roll back the civil rights of, say, African-Americans or Jews.

As a member of the American Historical Association (AHA), I’d be remiss if I did not mention that the AHA went through with its contract to use the Manchester Hyatt, but, as Cantor notes, the AHA “allocated $100,000, or $6.67/member, for educational campaigns regarding same-sex marriage. Had the 150,000-member APA also allocated $6.67 per member, it would have covered the costs of a worst-case Hyatt lawsuit.”

Apparently, the APA has decided that civil rights for LBGT people comes at a cost, and that the cost is just too high at $6.67 per member. Talk is cheaper.

January 4th, 2010

Worthington: Definitive Guantanamo Prisoner List

Andy Worthington, whose writings on Guantanamo and its prisoners have been absolutely invaluable resources over the years, has just issued an update of his Guantanamo Prisoner List [BTW, why not go to his site and contribute to support his work.]

Guantánamo: The Definitive Prisoner List
(Updated for 2010)

By Andy Worthington

Back in March, I published a four-part list identifying all 779 prisoners held at Guantánamo since the prison opened on January 11, 2002, as “the culmination of a three-year project to record the stories of all the prisoners held at the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.” Now updated (as my ongoing project nears its four-year mark), the four parts of the list are available here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four.

As I explained at the time, the first fruit of my research was my book The Guantánamo Files, in which, based on an exhaustive analysis of 8,000 pages of documents released by the Pentagon (plus other sources), I related the story of Guantánamo, established a chronology explaining where and when the prisoners were seized, told the stories of around 450 of these men (and boys), and provided a context for the circumstances in which the remainder of the prisoners were captured.

The list provided references to the chapters in The Guantánamo Files where the prisoners’ stories can be found, and also provided numerous links to the hundreds of articles that I wrote between May 2007 and March 2009, for a variety of publications, expanding on and updating the stories of all 779 prisoners. In particular, I covered the stories of the 143 prisoners released from Guantánamo from June 2007 onwards in unprecedented depth, and also covered the stories of the 27 prisoners charged in Guantánamo’s Military Commission trial system in more detail than was available from most, if not all other sources.

In addition, the list also included links to the 12 online chapters, published between November 2007 and February 2009, in which I told the stories of over 250 prisoners that I was unable to include in the book (either because they were not available at the time of writing, or to keep the book at a manageable length).

As a result — and notwithstanding the fact that the New York Times had made a list of documents relating to each prisoner available online — I believe that I was justified in stating that the list was “the most comprehensive list ever published of the 779 prisoners who have been held at Guantánamo,” providing details of the 533 prisoners released at that point (and the dates of their release), and the 241 prisoners who were still held (including the 59 prisoners who had been cleared for release by military review boards under the Bush administration), for the same reason that my book provides what I have been told is an unparalleled introduction to Guantánamo and the stories of the men held there: because it provides a much-needed context for these stories that is difficult to discern in the Pentagon’s documents without detailed analysis.

When I first published the list in March, I promised — perhaps rather rashly — that I would update the list as more prisoners were released, a task that proved easier to promise than to accomplish. As a result, this update to the four parts of the list draws on the 290 or so articles that I have published in the last ten months, tracking the Obama administration’s stumbling progress towards closing the prison, reporting the stories of the 41 prisoners released since March, and covering other aspects of the Guantánamo story; in particular, the prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions in the US courts, in which, since March, nine prisoners have had their habeas corpus petitions granted by the US courts, and six have had their petitions refused (the total, to date, is 32 victories for the prisoners, and just nine for the government). Overall, as it stood at December 31, 2009, 574 prisoners had been released from Guantánamo (42 under Obama), one — Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — had been transferred to the US mainland to face a federal court trial, six had died, and 198 remained, including one man, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, who is serving a life sentence after a one-sided trial by Military Commission in 2008.

As for my intention, it remains the same as it did when I first published the list. As I explained at the time:

It is my hope that this project will provide an invaluable research tool for those seeking to understand how it came to pass that the government of the United States turned its back on domestic and international law, establishing torture as official US policy, and holding men without charge or trial neither as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor as criminal suspects to be put forward for trial in a federal court, but as “illegal enemy combatants.”

I also hope that it provides a compelling explanation of how that same government, under the leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, established a prison in which the overwhelming majority of those held — at least 93 percent of the 779 men and boys imprisoned in total — were either completely innocent people, seized as a result of dubious intelligence or sold for bounty payments, or Taliban foot soldiers, recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or international terrorism.

To this I would only add that, nearly a year after President Obama took office, I hope that the list and its references provide a useful antidote to the current scaremongering regarding the failed Christmas plane bomber, Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his alleged ties with one — just one — of the 574 prisoners released from Guantánamo, in a Yemen-based al-Qaeda cell. This purported connection is being used by those who want the evil stain of Guantánamo to endure forever (still led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, but also including a number of spineless Democrats) to argue that no more of the Yemenis — who make up nearly half of the remaining prisoners — should be released, even though the ex-prisoner in question is a Saudi, even though no more than a dozen or so of the 574 prisoners released have gone on to have any involvement whatsoever with terrorism, and even though all of these men were released during the presidency of George W. Bush.

One year ago, it looked feasible that Guantánamo would close by January 2010. We now know that President Obama’s self-imposed deadline will be missed, partly through the unprincipled agitating of opportunistic opponents in Congress and the media, and partly through the government’s own lack of courage in the face of this opposition, but this is no reason for complacency. As the eighth anniversary of the prison’s opening approaches, it remains imperative that those who oppose the existence of indefinite detention without charge or trial — and who call, instead, for the full reinstatement of the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war, and federal court trials for terrorists — maintain the pressure to close Guantánamo, and to charge or release the prisoners held there, as swiftly as possible.

Andy Worthington
London
January 2010

***********

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and launched in October 2009), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

January 4th, 2010