The Democratic platform has nice sounding words on torture. If Obama wins, it will be up to us to keep the pressure on to make them a reality:
We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power. We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. [...]
We will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court. We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years. With these necessary changes, the attention of the world will be directed where it belongs: on what terrorists have done to us, not on how we treat suspects.
August 30th, 2008
The Society for the Scientific Study of Social Issues [SPSSI] has endorsed the APA referendum:
Forwarded for SPSSI Central Office:
Dear SPSSI and APA Division 9 Members,
There has been a great deal of professional and public debate over the role of psychologists in interrogations conducted at U.S. detention centers for foreign detainees (e.g., the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba). If you are an APA member, you should have received a ballot for a resolution on psychologists working in contexts in which people are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law or the US Constitution. Unlike previous resolutions on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment that were adopted by APA Council of Representatives in 2006 and 2007, the current resolution comes directly to members for vote through a provision in APA bylaws that provides for mail votes of Association members upon petition of 1% of the membership.
The SPSSI Executive Committee has reviewed this referendum. It has endorsed sending an email message to Division 9 members encouraging them to vote in the APA referendum on no participation in detainee camps. The referendum states:
“Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in isolation of, either International law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.”
The SPSSI recommends voting YES to the referendum, thereby limiting the conditions when psychologists shall work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in isolation of, either International law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate).
You should have received a ballot from the APA. In the event you haven’t voted but don’t have your ballot, you can obtain a ballot from Garnett Coad at gcoad@apa.org. The ballots must be received by the end of the business day, September 15.
Below, we list some APA and non-APA websites that should be helpful in learning more about the petition and previous APA actions: www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/work-settings.html, for the petition itself; www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/qa-work-settings.html, for information in a Question & Answer format; www.apa.org/ethics, for information on APA’s position on interrogations; www.ethicalapa.com, for background on the petition, frequently asked questions about its purposes and intent, and the list of original sponsors. For a brief video explaining why Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) is supporting this referendum, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GDH4V8A_Qc .
Finally, we wish to remind you of SPSSI’s work on this issue. SPSSI previously adopted a policy statement on “The Use of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment as Interrogation Devices” (see www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=1061&parentID=47 1). Among other things, this policy statement 1) condemns the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as interrogation devices, 2) calls for an independent investigation of the extent to which psychologists have been involved in using such interrogation tools, 3) calls on the APA to unambiguously condemn the use of these interrogation devices and expressly forbid psychologists from planning, designing, assisting or participating in interrogations that involve their use, and 4) calls on the APA to develop specific guidelines and explicit codes of conduct that are consistent with international treaties and human rights covenants for psychologists working in contexts of war and imprisonment.
In addition, SPSSI Council previously stated its support for a resolution that had been introduced into APA governance that called for a moratorium on all psychologist involvement, either direct or indirect, in any interrogations at U.S. detention centers for foreign detainees (see SPSSI Forward newsletter article at www.spssi.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/SPSSI%20Newsletter_Fall%202007.pdf).
In short, in this and other work, SPSSI has consistently and strongly spoken out in support of human rights. We are proud that SPSSI’s representatives (Bernice Lott, 2002-2007, Allen Omoto & Maureen O’Connor) on APA Council of Representatives have spoken out vigorously on this issue and ask that you now make your voice heard by carefully reading the petition and the pro and con arguments that accompany it and returning your ballot by September 15, 2008.
Allen Omoto, SPSSI/Division 9 Representative to APA Council of Representatives
Maureen O’Connor, SPSSI/Division 9 Representative to APA Council of Representatives
Daniel Perlman, President
Susan Opotow, President-elect
Irene Hanson Frieze, Past-President
Sally Shumaker, Secretary-Treasurer
Elizabeth Cole, SPSSI Council Representative to the Executive Committee
Kat Quina
Professor of Psychology & Women’s Studies
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
401-277-5164
KQuina@uri.edu
August 22nd, 2008
The authors of the APA referendum on participation in Bush detention centers have created an FAQ which they have just revised to address questions being raised about the wording and the intent of the referendum [see also my Vote Against Torture Collusion]:
Q. In regard to the U.S. Constitution, the referendum says, “(where appropriate)”, why was that put in there, and what does “(where appropriate)” mean?
Where appropriate means settings where the U.S. Constitution forms the law of the land and settings in which the Supreme Court has decided it applies. It therefore applies to the 50 states, embassies, and areas within the U.S.’ maritime and territorial jurisdiction - it also applies to U.S. citizens everywhere. It does not apply in, say, Canada. So a Canadian psychologist working in Canada is working ‘outside’ of the U.S. Constitution but ‘inside’ of international law.
Q. I have been told that this language will affect the work of psychologists working in jails, prisons and hospitals.
See our August 6 letter to APA members on the Psychologists for an Ethical APA homepage. www.ethicalapa.com
Q. This is a complex answer. Why don’t just answer that question with a simple and definitive ‘no’?
Because this is a complex situation. If and when Guantanamo and the black sites are closed down the ‘detainees’ could be brought to the U.S. and held under similar conditions. If Guantanamo, the facility, is ‘closed’, the equivalent of Guantanamo, the policy, could be re-established on U.S. soil. In these, and other possible cases, the referendum policy could and should still apply.
Q. If you didn’t mean to target existing U.S. prisons and jails why did you include the words ‘U.S. Constitution’ in the referendum?
We had two main reasons for doing so:
1. As we have already mentioned, we are concerned that U.S. torture policy will be brought home.
2. To make it clear that we are endorsing both the U.S. Constitution and international law, as outlined in the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, directly and without qualification.
Q. Why is that important?
Some people strongly support and value international law. However, the United States has taken an ambivalent stance towards international law by adding “reservations” to some international treaties it has ratified. For example, when it ratified the Convention against Torture, the U.S. added “reservations” that exclude the law’s ban on most forms of psychological torture:
“In its reservations to the Convention against Torture, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” only insofar as the term means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment. (Human Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm)
We find it unfortunate that the APA has reproduced the language of the U.S. “reservations” in its official statements. Since we believe these “reservations” deserve no additional legitimacy from our organization, this referendum unequivocally endorses both international and constitutional law.
Q. Why haven’t you provided a definition of torture?
A. Our first citation includes the internationally accepted definition of torture as well as an extensive discussion of the scope and applicability of international law. It is important to note that this definition - like many legal definitions - is in a state of flux, it changes as courts consider new cases. The jurisprudence surrounding this definition is as important as the definition itself. Further, the definition may change as new treaties are adopted. We would ask the question - why would we accept anything other than the internationally accepted definition?
Q. What do you mean by international law? Which treaties? What courts? Which cases?
A. The APA is a UN- recognized nongovernmental organization (NGO) and therefore is subject to the U.N.’s interpretation of international law. We believe that the question is not to which portions of international law should psychologists adhere, but rather why would we be seeking to opt out of some portions of the law?
Q. Isn’t this language vague?
A. That depends on what you mean by “vague.” If, by “vague,” you mean badly or inadequately defined, the answer is “no.” We do not believe we have offered poor or partial definitions. If you mean ‘unspecified’, then it is true that we have not specified what portions of international law to which the APA should adhere; nor do we believe that we should do so.
By way of analogy, if we had written a referendum that said: “psychologists shall at all times obey the speed limit,” we could be charged with failing to specify what speed limit psychologists should follow. In this hypothetical and admittedly absurd example it would be appropriate to respond by saying: “that information is easily found and need not be included in the referendum - it is not for us to say”. We would ask why would psychologists attempt to define torture when they could simply refer to internationally accepted definitions?
Q. I understand this referendum, but doesn’t this seem a little simple? Why have you chosen to write this in such ordinary language?
A. Two reasons:
1. We wanted the referendum be easily read and understandable by everyone.
2. Because the Bush administration has redefined everyday terms in ways that completely subvert the original meanings of the words. Take, for example, ‘participation’:
“For purposes of this recommendation the term “participating in interrogations” refers to the active participation by medical personnel during an interrogation. For example, asking questions would be active participation. Medical personnel who assist in developing the plan of interrogation are not deemed to be “participating in an interrogation.” Likewise, actual presence in the interrogation room may not constitute “participating in an interrogation.” For example, direct observation by medical personnel to ensure the health and welfare of the detainee is not deemed to be “participation in the interrogation.” ( http://www.defenselink.mil/news/detainee_investigations.html )
Further, we know that many of these definitions - including the current definition of torture - are secret. We do not know what other terms have been secretly redefined. Thus, rather than engage in an effort to define each word we were using, we chose language that is easily understood with use of a dictionary or the references we provide.
August 12th, 2008
Last summer an attempt by APA dissidents at a Moratorium on psychologist participation in interrogations at US Detention facilities was defeated at the Convention through a combination of parliamentary maneuvering and Council vote. Proponents of change have since regrouped and adopted a variety of new tactics. One was to utilize a never-before-used provision in the APA rules allowing for a referendum to be adopted by vote of the membership.
A referendum to remove psychologists from sites in violation of international law was proposed and was signed by the requisite 1one percent of the membership. Ballots will go out to the membership this week, due back in mid-September. Here is the referendum text, followed by the Pro and Con statements that will accompany the ballots:
Referendum
We the undersigned APA members in good standing, pursuant to article IV.5 of the APA bylaws, do hereby petition that the following motion be submitted to APA members for their approval or disapproval, by referendum, with all urgency:
Whereas torture is an abhorrent practice in every way contrary to the APA’s stated mission of advancing psychology as a science, as a profession, and as a means of promoting human welfare.
Whereas the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Mental Health and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture have determined that treatment equivalent to torture has been taking place at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. [1]
Whereas this torture took place in the context of interrogations under the direction and supervision of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) that included psychologists. [2, 3]
Whereas the Council of Europe has determined that persons held in CIA black sites are subject to interrogation techniques that are also equivalent to torture [4], and because psychologists helped develop abusive interrogation techniques used at these sites. [3, 5]
Whereas the International Committee of the Red Cross determined in 2003 that the conditions in the US detention facility in Guantánamo Bay are themselves tantamount to torture [6], and therefore by their presence psychologists are playing a role in maintaining these conditions.
Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights[7].
Footnotes
[1] United Nations Commission on Human Rights. (2006). Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here. The full title of the ‘Special Rapporteur on Mental Health’ is the ‘Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’.
[2] Miles, S. (2007). Medical ethics and the interrogation of Guantanamo 063. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(4), 5. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here.
[3] Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense: Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here.
[4] Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (2007). Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here.
[5] Eban, K. (2007). Rorschach and Awe. Vanity Fair. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here.
[6] Lewis, N. A. (2004, November 30). Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo. New York Times, Retrieved March 4, 2008, from here.
[7] It is understood that military clinical psychologists would still be available to provide treatment for military personnel.
Pro Statement
As psychologists, our first ethical principle is to do no harm; yet substantial documentation reveals that American psychologists have systematically designed and participated in interrogations that amount to torture. In addition, they have helped to legitimize cruel and abusive treatment in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the CIA blacksites.
Responding to these revelations, the APA has passed several resolutions barring psychologists from participating in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. These resolutions, however, are insufficient as they do not address the critical role that psychologists play in perpetuating harmful interrogation strategies and in maintaining conditions that the International Committee of the Red Cross has labeled “tantamount to torture.”
These concerns, which have propelled over a thousand APA psychologists to bring this referendum to the membership, are not hypothetical. Psychologists, as “consultants”, have been active in interrogations that have brought about extreme forms of torture. In at least one of these cases, the psychologist advocated for an escalation to even more extreme ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’
Psychologists have also played a critical role in this administration’s legal defense of torture. Justice Department lawyers have argued that torture can only take place if the perpetrator intends to cause ‘prolonged mental harm’ which, in turn, is measured by a subsequent diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychologists instead routinely provide diagnoses other than posttraumatic stress disorder, thus giving the illusion of safety and legal cover in otherwise objective instances of “torture”. Moreover, psychologists play a role in maintaining the conditions of detention, for instance, by removing “comfort items” such as toilet paper, toothpaste, and soap.
In settings that fail to meet basic standards of international law, it is unrealistic to rely on psychologists to challenge their superiors, report on violations, and protect abused detainees. We know, from decades of psychological research, that good people do bad things in bad situations. Psychologists are no less vulnerable to “behavioral drift” than others, particularly when subject to the chain of command in the closed environment of a geographically isolated detention center.
We do believe that psychologists working independently, and outside of the institution’s chain of command, can and should be available to detainees, through NGOs such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. In abusive settings, clinicians working in the chain of command cannot know whether they are helping detainees recover only to return them to more abusive interrogations; and detainees cannot gauge whether the information being gathered by the clinician will be used against them-as has been documented on several occasions. Instead, the proposed referendum policy places psychology and psychologists squarely on the side of the most vulnerable.
Some APA psychologists have argued that the presence of psychologists in these settings protects the detainee from abuse. Yet, in the six years since captives began arriving at Guantanamo, there have been few documented cases of psychologists speaking up on the behalf of detainees. There is significant evidence of many more cases of silence. While we commend anyone who has acted heroically, a reliance on individual heroism is an unsound basis for policy.
We stress that the referendum does not exclude any psychologist from working in any settings where international law and human rights are fundamentally upheld. Imperfect as our U.S. domestic justice system may be, people held within the present system have basic legal protections, including the right to know the charges against them, meet with an attorney, receive family visits and, most importantly, to be free of torture. This is in sharp contrast to the individuals gathered up and illegally taken to CIA blacksites. For the past 60 years, international law has held professionals responsible for upholding basic human rights. This referendum would thus protect psychologists from risk of future prosecutions.
Your vote in favor of the referendum will increase the independence of psychologists and protect the reputation of our discipline. The policy puts psychology and psychologists on the side of those who are the most vulnerable to mental harm. On behalf of Psychologists for an Ethical APA and all the APA members who have petitioned for this referendum, we strongly encourage you to research this topic through books, websites and articles, and to vote “yes” — to support human rights and to restore the integrity of American psychology.
Brad Olson, PhD
Con Statement
This Overbroad Petition Will Harm Vulnerable Populations and Put Ethical Psychologists at Risk
- This petition seeks to prohibit APA member psychologists from working in settings that are inconsistent with international law and/or the US Constitution. The petition’s “Be It Resolved” clause sets forth this prohibition even though a psychologist may adhere to all APA ethical standards, and despite the difficulty in determining whether a particular site meets the petition’s ambiguous criteria.
- The petition thus threatens to restrict the scope of practice for psychologists whose work in psychiatric hospitals, US correctional facilities, and countless other settings serves the public good each day.
- The petition is unnecessary given APA’s strongly worded Council resolutions against torture and concerted federal advocacy directed at the Bush administration and Congress.
- The unintended consequences arising from a resolution prohibiting locations of employment rather than unethical behavior make this petition impossible for us to support. Many psychologists are employed in settings where constitutional challenges arise. Such settings include jails, prisons, psychiatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and forensic units. Likewise, many psychologists work in settings that could be considered inconsistent with international standards, for example, settings where the death penalty may be administered. The “Be It Resolved” clause potentially affects thousands of APA members.
- While APA is clear that the petition, if adopted, is not enforceable, allegations that a psychologist was violating APA policy could arise in multiple venues (civil court; a licensing board; state psychological association, hospital, and other professional organizations’ ethics committees). Especially given the petition’s ambiguity regarding whether international standards and/or the US Constitution apply in a given instance, the petition places APA members doing good and ethical work in an untenable position of uncertainty regarding whether their practice is consistent with APA policy.
- The clause “unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights” would prevent psychologists in a prohibited setting from providing services to a person in psychological distress, since in most all settings psychologists work for the institution and not for the individual being held. Unlike the Ethics Code, the petition does not provide a way to resolve this ethical dilemma, i.e., between a prohibition from providing services and the need for services. (See e.g., Ethical Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies, allowing psychologists without the necessary training to provide services in emergent situations when other services are not available.) A psychologist who, in all good faith, assisted an individual in distress could nonetheless be in violation of APA policy.
- The sponsors’ good and noble intentions notwithstanding, for over two decades APA has held that torture is unethical and always prohibited. Five APA resolutions provide clear, explicit condemnations of torture. The last sentence of the 2008 resolution states: Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly planning, designing, participating or assisting in the use of all condemned techniques [Note: nearly two dozen techniques are enumerated] at any time and may not enlist others to employ these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution’s prohibition. APA has stated emphatically: Following orders is never a defense to torture.
- In August, 2007, the APA Council passed one of several resolutions condemning torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment. Council expressed “grave concern over settings in which detainees are deprived of adequate protection of their human rights” and “affirmed the prerogative of psychologists to refuse to work in such settings.” Council noted that “APA will explore ways to support psychologists who refuse to work in such settings or who refuse to obey orders that constitute torture.” APA has called upon US courts to reject testimony resulting from torture or abuse.
- APA has strongly and unequivocally condemned the abuse of detainees in letters to President Bush, Attorney General Mukasey, CIA Director Hayden, and members of Congress, and in articles in the media, and has urged the establishment of policies and procedures that fully protect the human rights of detainees, including judicial review of their detentions.
- The petition seeks to prevent psychologists from working where the federal, state, or local government is acting wrongly. The precedent-setting nature of this petition, which restricts the settings in which psychologists may work, raises insurmountable concerns. A highly unfortunate side effect of the petition will be to place at risk APA members who serve vulnerable populations and behave in legal, ethical, and entirely moral ways. This petition harms the very groups it seeks to protect: Vulnerable populations and ethical psychologists.
Robert J. Resnick, PhD
Now that you’ve seen the debate, please don’t throw those ballots away! And please vote in favor. This is our chance to change a disasterous policy which is casting shame upon the psychology profession while aiding the abuse of those in custody.
July 30th, 2008
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof supports the creation of a Truth Commission to investigate US war crimes:
The Truth Commission
By Nicholas D. Kristof
When a distinguished American military commander accuses the United States of committing war crimes in its handling of detainees, you know that we need a new way forward.
“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq, declares in a powerful new report on American torture from Physicians for Human Rights. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
The first step of accountability isn’t prosecutions. Rather, we need a national Truth Commission to lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing.
That was what South Africa did after apartheid, with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it is what the United States did with the Kerner Commission on race and the 1980s commission that examined the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Today, we need a similar Truth Commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11.
We already know that the United States government has kept Nelson Mandela on a terrorism watch list and that the U.S. military taught interrogation techniques borrowed verbatim from records of Chinese methods used to break American prisoners in the Korean War — even though we knew that these torture techniques produced false confessions.
It’s a national disgrace that more than 100 inmates have died in American custody in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo. After two Afghan inmates were beaten to death by American soldiers, the American military investigator found that one of the men’s legs had been “pulpified.”
Moreover, many of the people we tortured were innocent: the administration was as incompetent as it was immoral. The McClatchy newspaper group has just published a devastating series on torture and other abuses, and it quotes Thomas White, the former Army secretary, as saying that it was clear from the moment Guantánamo opened that one-third of the inmates didn’t belong there.
McClatchy says that one inmate, Mohammed Akhtiar, was known as pro-American to everybody but the American soldiers who battered him. Some of his militant fellow inmates spit on him, beat him and called him “infidel,” all because of his anti-Taliban record.
These abuses happened partly because, for several years after 9/11, many of our national institutions didn’t do their jobs. The Democratic Party rolled over rather than serving as loyal opposition. We in the press were often lap dogs rather than watchdogs, and we let the public down.
Yet there were heroes, including civil liberties groups and lawyers for detainees. Some judges bucked the mood, and a few conservatives inside the administration spoke out forcefully. The Times’s Eric Lichtblau writes in his terrific new book, “Bush’s Law,” that the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner, James Ziglar, pushed back against plans for door-to-door sweeps of Arab-American neighborhoods.
The book recounts that in one meeting, Mr. Ziglar bluntly declared, “We do have this thing called the Constitution,” adding that such sweeps would be illegal and “I’m not going to be part of it.”
Among those I admire most are the military lawyers who risked their careers, defied the Pentagon and antagonized their drinking buddies — all for the sake of Muslim terror suspects in circumstances where the evidence was often ambiguous. At a time when we as a nation took the expedient path, these military officers took the honorable one, and they deserve medals for their courage.
The Truth Commission investigating these issues ideally would be a non-partisan group heavily weighted with respected military and security officials, including generals, admirals and top intelligence figures. Such backgrounds would give their findings credibility across the political spectrum — and I don’t think they would pull punches. The military and intelligence officials I know are as appalled by our abuses as any other group, in part because they realize that if our people waterboard, then our people will also be waterboarded.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain should commit to impaneling a Truth Commission early in the next administration. This commission would issue a report to help us absorb the lessons of our failings, the better to avoid them during the next crisis.
As for what to do with Guantánamo itself, the best suggestion comes from an obscure medical journal, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. It suggests that the prison camp would be an ideal research facility for tropical diseases that afflict so many of the world’s people. An excellent suggestion: the U.S. should close the prison and turn it into a research base to fight the diseases of global poverty, and maybe then we could eventually say the word “Guantánamo” without pangs of shame.
July 6th, 2008
Simon Owens over at Bloggasm reminds us of the torment right wing bloggers faced yesterday with the issuance of the Supreme Court decision restoring Habeas rights to Guantanamo prisoners:
I felt sympathy for right wing bloggers today after the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus would be restored to Guantanamo detainees. I knew that they not only had to disagree with the justices but they also had to declare their rulings unconstitutional and the work of “judicial activism.” But to make those claims right wing bloggers would actually have to read the court opinions, and those opinions are just so gosh darn long.
Well, luckily they employed their Woodward/Bernstein investigative journalism skills to speed up the process:
He goes on to give examples of the careful research process they engaged in.
June 13th, 2008
In a landmark day for human rights and simple decency, the Supreme Court today ruled that the government cannot strip Guantanamo detainees of their habeas corpus rights to appeal their detention in court.
The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which, at the administration’s behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.
Congress and the administration had passed a shortened alternative to a habeas procedure for the prisoners in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that procedure “falls short of being a constitutionally adequate substitute” because it failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus.”
Justice Kennedy declared: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, Justice Scalia had a temper tantrum:
“It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he said. “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” He said the decision was based not on principle, “but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy.”
Tonight we raise a glass to those courageous habeas attorneys who pursued these cases from their unpopular beginnings till this important victory. We are all a bit freer because of them.
June 12th, 2008
Thanks to Dori Smith of Talk Nation Radio, our May 3 forum — Torture and the American Psyche: Blurring the Boundaries Between Healers and Interrogators — was audio-recorded. Dori has edited the material for two hald hour shows on Talk Nation Radio. That material is now available. [NOTE: The forum was also video recorded. These videos should be available soon, on YouTube or a similar site. Stay tuned.]
For those who don’t read this blof regularly, here’s the description of the speakers:
SPEAKERS:
Eric Fair currently a divinity student at Princeton will speak from his experience as a civilian contract interrogator in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib in early 2004. He will lend his first person account to our conversation.
Leonard Rubenstein, J.D. President of Physicians for Human Rights, a Nobel Prize winning organization, is an attorney and veteran of many human rights struggles. He will speak of the role of torture in our contemporary political culture.
David Sloan-Rossiter, Ph.D. will bring his long standing interest in using a psych oana¬lytic perspective to aid communities to the role of moderator of the program. He is co-chair of the Curriculum Committee at Boston Institute for Psychotherapy and Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis.
Stephen Soldz, Ph.D. a local psychoanalyst, social activist and Professor at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, is one of the nation’s leaders in opposing psycholo¬gist participation in torture and abuse. He will speak to the history of that struggle in the context of the broader struggle for human rights.
Talk Nation Radio
TNR Show I contains material from the Introduction by David Sloan-Rossiter and an interspersing of material from the talks by Leonard Rubenstein (President of Physicians for Human Rights) and myself. [See Dori's description here and download mp3 here.]
TNR Show II contains the conclusion from my talk, the talk by former Iraq interrogator Eric Fair, and some discussion, including comments by Stephen Behnke, the Ethics Director of the American Psychological Association. [See Dori's description here and download mp3 here.]
Complete Talks, unedited
The Talk Nation Radio versions are selected and cleaned up. For those who would like to listen to the complete talks, Dori has kindly made available the raw recordings.
David Sloan-Rossiter Introduction and Stephen Soldz talk here.
Leonard Rubenstein talk here.
Eric Fair talk here.
The Question & Answer session is available here.
June 2nd, 2008