Posts filed under 'CIA'

New Arrigo & Long paper: APA: Denunciation and accommodation of abusive interrogations: A lesson for world psychology

My friends and colleagues Jean Maria Arrigo and Jancis Long have published a new article on the American Psychological Association and its approach to the participation of psychologists in national security interrogations: APA: Denunciation and accommodation of abusive interrogations: A lesson for world psychology in the Brazilian journal Psicologia: Teoria e Prática. The article can be downloaded here.

At the same time word comes of the publication of a shortened version of the article in Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism, the newsletter of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims [IRCT]. Issues of the newsletter are available at the link above. The current issue with the Arrigo-Long article can be directly downloaded as a pdf here.

The indefensible position of the APA abetting detainee abuses has become a cause celebre around the world. We regularly receive communications from colleagues in various countries who are outraged by the APA policy. See, for example, the questions raised by the Nordic Psychological Associations last June, questions which, to my knowledge, have so far not been answered by the APA.

Recently the Psychologists for Social Responsibility End Torture Action Committee issued an Appeal for International Support from U.S. Psychologists: Condemn Psychologist Participation in Bush Regime Detainee Abuse. Please help distribute this Appeal to colleagues around the world.

Add comment September 17th, 2008

Urgent Action Alert! Call Senators to demand end to secret prisons!

This Tuesday the Senate is expected to vote upon Amendment Number 5369 to the Defense Authorization Bill that would mandate that the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] have access to all US detainees, including those held in secret prisons by the CIA or other intelligence agencies. Documents released or leaked in recent years have shown the administration has been systematically hiding certain detainees from the ICRC. Documents released by the Senate Armed Services Committee last June strongly suggest that these detainees were hid to cover up the use of harsh interrogation techniques often amounting to torture. [See the minutes of the October 2, 2002 meeting.]

Please call your Senators ASAP and express your support for this amendment. Just call the Capitol Hill switchboard — 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 — and ask for your two Senators by name or by your state.

For more background see the Human Rights First press release describing a letter by 38 retired Generals and Admirals supporting the amendment. Read the full text of the letter here.

Add comment September 15th, 2008

Interview on Oregon’s KBOO: Psychologists and torture

I ws interviewed last week by Portalnd, OR radio KBOO regrading psychologists, US torture and the role of the American Psychological Association. The show was broadcast as part of KBOO’s 9-11 special programming. The interview can be downloaded here.

Add comment September 15th, 2008

Claims CIA agents observed Uzbek torture of rendition victim

The Scottish Sunday Herald publishes credible reports that CIA agents observed the torture by Uzbekistan, one of the most brutal torturing regimes on earth, of an individual transferred via extraordinary rendition to the Uzbek torture chambers:

Yakubov’s most powerful claim relates to a meeting in 2002 with an American official whom Yakubov’s chief in the SNB described as a CIA agent.

“The man introduced himself to me as Andrew,” said Yakubov. “We drove some 15 kilometres from Tashkent to the town of Chirchik, where the SNB has a secret detention centre located underground. We entered the jail and there was an SNB officer torturing a man. Andrew and I watched for about 10 minutes. We were both present while this man was being beaten around the neck with a stick.

“The victim had been captured by the Americans in Afghanistan and taken to Uzbekistan for interrogation by the SNB. He was supposed to be an Islamist. Andrew then went into the administration room and came out 20 minutes later with a bag full of papers.”

Yakubov said the American did not protest or urge the torturer to stop beating the prisoner. Instead, Yakubov said, Andrew told sexual jokes and taught him to swear in English. “He certainly did not appear upset by what he witnessed,” Yakubov said.

The complete article:

Intelligence officer claims CIA was complicit in torture in Uzbekistan

Officer also claims British UN official was killed by order of Uzbek president Karimov

By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

The CIA Sent its agents into Uzbekistan torture chambers to observe the abuse of alleged Islamic terrorists, according to a dissident member of the Uzbek security services who is now seeking political asylum in the UK after fleeing Tashkent.

Ikrom Yakubov, a former major in the National Security Service (SNB), accused the CIA of involvement in torture sessions in the central Asian republic in an exclusive interview with the Sunday Herald, during which he made a series of startling claims. These include claims that: l Britain’s Richard Conroy, the UN’s co-ordinator in Uzbekistan, was assassinated on the orders of Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan. Karimov has been described as one of the world’s worst dictators and his rule, since 1991, has been characterised by allegations of torture (including claims that victims were boiled alive), media control, fake elections and brutality against human rights organisations and pro-democracy activists; a series of bomb attacks in the capital, Tashkent, in March 2004 were organised by the SNB in order to tighten Karimov’s dictatorial rule and ramp up the threat from Islamic terror groups; Karimov ordered the notorious Andijan massacre in May 2005, when Uzbek security forces fired on protesters, killing anything up to 1500 people; Karimov’s regime routinely framed innocent Muslims on charges of involvement in Islamist terror and invented bogus terror threats to maintain his grip on the country, and the CIA used a secret detention facility in Uzbekistan where suspects in the “war on terror” were taken from around the world to be tortured by SNB interrogators.

Yakubov fled Uzbekistan and sought asylum in the UK this month. Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan and a harsh critic of the Karimov regime, has vouched for Yakubov’s bona-fides, claiming he is confident of his background as an intelligence officer and that he finds Yakubov’s story believable.

Yakubov fell out of favour with the SNB after writing a series of official reports for the Uzbek National Security Council which were deemed critical of the intelligence services. He was later accused of spying for America and by 2007 was arrested and tortured with beatings. By 2008, and now working with human rights groups, Yakubov left the country and, from Turkey, wrote a series of anonymous articles criticising Karimov and the intelligence services, which he posted on the internet.

Yakubov says the SNB responded by emailing death threats to him, saying they knew his real identity. His cousin was subsequently killed, and Yakubov is sure that SNB agents were responsible for his death, as threats had also been made against his family.

Yakubov’s most powerful claim relates to a meeting in 2002 with an American official whom Yakubov’s chief in the SNB described as a CIA agent.

“The man introduced himself to me as Andrew,” said Yakubov. “We drove some 15 kilometres from Tashkent to the town of Chirchik, where the SNB has a secret detention centre located underground. We entered the jail and there was an SNB officer torturing a man. Andrew and I watched for about 10 minutes. We were both present while this man was being beaten around the neck with a stick.

“The victim had been captured by the Americans in Afghanistan and taken to Uzbekistan for interrogation by the SNB. He was supposed to be an Islamist. Andrew then went into the administration room and came out 20 minutes later with a bag full of papers.”

Yakubov said the American did not protest or urge the torturer to stop beating the prisoner. Instead, Yakubov said, Andrew told sexual jokes and taught him to swear in English. “He certainly did not appear upset by what he witnessed,” Yakubov said.

Yakubov also claimed that Conroy, a senior British UN official based in Tashkent, was killed on the orders of the government because he was aware that senior officials were involved in international drug trafficking. Conroy died when his plane crashed in January 2004 in the Uzbek capital. Yakubov says he was told by a friend, also a member of the intelligence services that a bomb was placed on the plane by the SNB.

According to Yakubov, a series of bomb attacks in Tashkent in 2004, which the government blamed on Islamist suicide bombers, was organised by the SNB. Yakubov said: “The intention was to show the world and Uzbekistan that only Karimov could guarantee peace and safety. It helped him maintain power.”

Yakubov added that this policy also involved the SNB “setting up” fake Islamic terror groups to keep public panic ramped up.

Ironically, in 2005 Hazel Blears, then a Home Office minister, invoked the Tashkent bombings during a debate on government anti-terror measures. Craig Murray, ambassador to Tashkent at the time of the bombings, said evidence he saw with his own eyes did not point towards Islamist suicide attacks. He claimed the alleged sites of the bombings showed no craters “or even a crack in paving stones”. The body of one suicide bomber was unmarked.

Murray informed London about his findings and the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre agreed that there were “serious flaws in the Uzbek government account”. Murray added: “I concluded that these events were a series of extrajudicial killings, covered by a highly controlled and limited agent-provocateur operation.”

The Andijan massacre was also ordered by Karimov to terrify the populace, Yakubov said, and prevent any popular pro-democracy movement developing.

Yakubov, who is awaiting interview by British intelligence and an immigration hearing, insists he would be either killed or tortured and jailed indefinitely if he were forced to return. He also fears assassination attempts by the SNB while in the UK.

He added: “I am a dissident not just because I believe in democracy and human rights, but also because as an intelligence officer, I saw my colleagues fabricating cases against ordinary Muslims, making them out to be terrorists and religious radicals.”

Murray has spoken to a number of high-level contacts in Uzbekistan, and senior opposition figures in exile, who he says all vouched for Yakubov as an intelligence officer.

Murray added: ”Personally, I believe what Ikrom Yakubov is saying. His account comes over as naturalistic to me. Funnily enough, he even told me that he’d been involved in setting up a demonstration against me in Tashkent in 2004, which was organised because of statements I’d made about human rights abuses. He also says that he was keeping tabs on my love life while I was there.”

Add comment September 15th, 2008

WNYC on Psychologists and Torture: Reisner, Keller, & Eban

WNYC had a devoted a portion of the Leonard Lopate show today to the issue of psychologists in interrogations. [No, I was not on it.] Here is the program description:

Psychologists and Torture
Some professionals are trying to force the American Psychological Association to bar its members from participating in coercive interrogations and torture. Dr. Steven Reisner is running for president of the APA on an anti-terror platform; Dr. Allan Keller is Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. Journalist Katherine Eban has written about psychologists and torture for Vanity Fair magazine.

Listen here:

Add comment September 11th, 2008

WUNC The State of Things interview: Torture and Interrogation Symposium

I was interviewed today, along with law professor Scott Silliman, by Frank Stasio on WUNC, North Carolina Public Radio, on the show The State of Things. Here is the program description:

Torture and Interrogation Symposium

Since the attacks of 2001, there has been growing controversy over the United State’s use of certain interrogation techniques against so-called enemy combatants.  A symposium at the Parr Center at UNC this weekend will address many aspects of this controversy, including the complex and uncertain laws regarding torture, and the surprising role psychologists play in helping the government apply its interrogation methods. Host Frank Stasio will be joined by guests Scott Silliman, professor of the Practice of Law and executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke University, and Stephen Soldz, the director of the Center for Research, Evaluation and Program Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis.

You can listen to or download the program here. I am brought in about 12 minutes into the show.

If you’re near Chapel Hill, come hear me speak on Saturday, September 13.

Add comment September 10th, 2008

US Soldier, afraid of being ordered to torture, seeks Canadian asylum

A US soldier seeks asylum in Canada based upon the fear that he could be ordered to torture:

U.S. deserter feared torture orders

Arabic-speaking soldier may prompt Canada to wade into legal debate

By Michelle Shephard

Peter Jemley is unique among the growing ranks of war resisters who have sought refuge in Canada.

For one thing, he’s old by military standards. The only reason the army considered the 38-year-old recruit three years ago was because the age cap had been raised to fill the U.S. military’s growing void.

The Tacoma, Wash., father of two young children also bucks the soldier stereotype. Jemley is a college history major, both quiet and fervently independent. If describing a bad situation he’s likely to say it “sucked,” then apologize for his profanity.

Now Jemley’s reasons for deserting set him apart too, and make his case a historic first.

He wants Canada to accept him as a refugee because he’s opposed to torture.

Jemley argues that as one of only a small number of Arabic linguists with top security clearance, he could be forced to violate international law by participating in the interrogations of terrorism suspects. It was something he hadn’t considered when he enlisted in 2005 and was handpicked to undergo two years of intense training due to his adeptness with languages.

Only last February did he discover that his government had sanctioned new rules on how terrorism suspects could be interrogated. He believes it’s torture and when he realized he might be asked to be a part of it, he fled.

“It’s a soldier’s obligation to say `no’ if their commander is doing things that are criminally complicit,” Jemley, now 42, said in a recent interview in Toronto. “I think everyone is agreeing now that torture is really what has been going on … I have every reason to believe that from my small pool that I belong to, with my credentials, that I’d be ordered to do such things.”

`Torture’ has become a much-debated word with profound legal implications since the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. administration’s decision to re-write the laws of war.

Detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the undisclosed CIA prisons around the world have claimed widespread abuse. The CIA has admitted to using `coercive techniques’ during interrogations, such as waterboarding, a process whereby agents simulate drownings.

Much of the legal community considers this treatment torture and point to international laws such as the Geneva Conventions, which were established after WWII to impose legal restrictions on the barbarity of war.

Canada so far has largely been able to sidestep the debate about torture and the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policies. Other cases of deserters in Canada have focused on the larger question of the legality of the Iraq war. About a dozen cases are working their way through the refugee board and courts with varying legal arguments and one deserter has already been deported back to face a court martial.

The issue of Guantanamo’s legality arose earlier this year in the Supreme Court case concerning Canadian detainee Omar Khadr. The high court justices ruled that Canadian agents had acted illegally by interrogating the Toronto teenager in 2003 and 2004. But the high court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that deemed Guantanamo illegal, rather than debating issues of torture and indefinite detention specifically.

Jemley’s case is the first to deal with the issue directly. The CIA has admitted it uses acts such as waterboarding. There’s evidence that Guantanamo detainees were subjected to programs such as sleep deprivation, intimidation with dogs and sexual humiliation. If these tactics are torture, thereby violating international law, Jemley argues he could be prosecuted for war crimes if he participates.

Canada must decide whether the U.S. administration has sanctioned torture in deciding his case, his lawyer says.

“There are specific rules for soldiers and the basic idea is nobody should participate in torture, ever,” said Jemley’s lawyer Jeffrey House. “Nobody should associate themselves with torture or violations of the Geneva Conventions because if we start to wink at violations of the Geneva Conventions they’re no longer law, they’re just guidelines.”

Calls to Jemley’s commander at the 341st Military Intelligence Battalion at Camp Murray, Tacoma, were not returned this week. But a letter of “unexcused absence” emailed to Jemley from Maj. Brian Bodenman outlined what penalties he could face if he failed to show up to training by yesterday’s deadline.

Punishment includes a court martial with possibility of jail time or a discharge and transfer to “inactive ready reserve.” The latter means Jemley could still be called to duty for a period of five years.

“To me it’s like being an indentured servant. You can’t leave, and you can’t give your skills back,” Jemley said.

Since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, there is no accurate account of how many deserters have fled to Canada – best guess is a couple hundred, with many remaining underground having not filed a refugee claim.

Comparisons are often made to the Vietnam War when thousands came to Canada. But during Vietnam there was a draft, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has little sympathy for today’s deserters.

Jemley’s decision to join the army was not one he took lightly, nor one borne of patriotic duty. “It wasn’t a political decision. I didn’t really like the Bush administration any more then, than I do now, but Iraqis are people too and I’m not afraid of doing difficult things. So I thought I could help,” Jemley said.

After scoring extremely high on the army’s Defense Language Aptitude Battery test he was asked if he’d become a linguist and was sent to the Army’s language school in Monterey, Calif., for two years. Upon graduation, he spent a brief stint at the secretive National Security Agency, the U.S. government’s electronic eavesdropping agency, and then sought independent contracts where he could work until his unit was deployed.

In February, he signed a lucrative contract with Washington’s Office of Military Commissions, the legal arm of the Guantanamo trials that is prosecuting a couple dozen detainees, including Khadr. It was when Jemley started doing his own research into the Guantanamo cases that he came up with media reports about the waterboarding of suspects. When he was asked to sign an addendum to his OMC contract, which added that he must be available to be on-call for “other language related assignments,” he refused and was fired.

A second contract offered him work in unspecified locations with “the agency” based in northern Virginia. No one would confirm it was the CIA and when he couldn’t get answers about what he’d be doing he turned down the job.

By then he knew he was trapped. These were positions he could refuse, but if he was ordered to duty he couldn’t say no.

“I did everything I was supposed to. I’m not afraid to be deployed. I’m not afraid to die,” Jemley said.

“(But) I’m ashamed about what’s going on.”

His wife Sarah and children aged 8 and 3 have remained in Tacoma until Sarah can finish her master’s nursing degree. They hate the separation but Jemley says he’s confident in his decision.
“I know it sounds glib but I mean it. If one less person gets tortured then it’ll all be worth it.

Add comment September 7th, 2008

Democratic platform on torture

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.

Add comment August 30th, 2008

APA Referendum: Why focus upon abusive settings?

The writers of the American Psychological Association referendum currently being voted upon have isued a statement explaining why the referendum focusses upon participation in abusive settings and not the actions of individual psychologists:

Why Settings?

By Dan Aalbers, Ruth Fallenbaum, & Brad Olson

Q. Why have you chosen to focus on settings rather than individual actions?

A: We have four main reasons for doing so:

1. Psychologists know from decades of research that good people do bad things in bad situations (cf. Ross and Nisbett, 1991, Zimbardo, 2007).  Psychologists subject to the chain of command in an inherently abusive environment (e.g., the CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay) are no less vulnerable to “drift” than anyone else; it is time to start applying the hard-learned lessons of psychology to psychologists.

2. The presence of psychologists legitimizes the operations of these facilities.  This is because the Bush administration has redefined torture in a way that all but guarantees that psychologists will play a role in any given torture session.  To understand why one needs to explore the labyrinths of this administration’s legal defense of torture.

Most psychologists have heard of the infamous Yoo-Bybee legal memos that redefined torture so that only pain equivalent to that experienced during “death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function” could be considered torture, but fewer psychologists know that the same memos incorporate psychologists into this administration’s legal defense of torture.

Yoo argues that torture can only take place if the perpetrator intends to cause prolonged mental harm:

“If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience.”

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf

Thus, by consulting with a psychologist an interrogator demonstrates that his or her intent is to extract information and not to cause harm; if the interrogator is a psychologist he or she can demonstrate good intent by reviewing the literature before an interrogation.  Of course members of other professions — say sociology — could also perform this same role but there is an advantage in using clinical psychologists since Yoo argues that one has only suffered ‘prolonged mental harm’ if the victim suffers from PTSD or (untreated) depression and psychologists can diagnose these disorders while other social scientists cannot:

“the development of a mental disorder such as posttraumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which also can last for a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement”

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf

Psychologists hold the keys to these abusive settings because the clandestine services need psychologists to tell them that they are not torturing.   As Alexander Leighton once said: “the administrator uses social science the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.”

3. We find these settings inherently offensive.  Even without evidence of torture, we would object to the participation of psychologists in a system that buys people from mercenaries, ships them off to secret locations and holds them there for an indefinite period of time.

4. Although the accounts of prisoners who have been released and information emerging from military tribunals are beginning to provide first hand accounts about the treatment in Guantanamo Bay, we do not know what actions are being performed in the CIA black sites. These settings are - by their very nature - closed to scrutiny.  What little we do know comes from heavily redacted documents released through the freedom of information act requests and a handful of leaked documents.  We do know that abuse has taken place, we do know that psychologists have contributed to this abuse and we do know that those have who operate these facilities have resisted calls to allow a full, independent investigation.  Obviously, this is not a sound basis for oversight.

1 comment August 29th, 2008

US pressures Britain to withold torture and war crimes info

The Guardian reports that the US State Department is putting pressure on the UK to block release of documents providing detials on the torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed. Lawyers want documents about his detention and interrogation from his capture in 2002 till his trasfer to Guantanamo in 2004. The case is revealing that a British intelligence official has refused to testify, even in secret, as he is being questioned about “alleged war crimes.” Interesting how protecting the US torturers is considered the same as protecting “national security.”

US warning to court in alleged torture case

By Duncan Campbell

The US state department yesterday warned that disclosure of secret information in the case of a British resident said to have been tortured before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay would cause “serious and lasting damage” to security relations between the countries.

Stephen Mathias, a legal adviser to the department, also claimed that the “national security of the UK” would be affected by disclosure of the details of the detention and interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, 30, who is accused of conspiring with al-Qaida.

Lawyers for the Ethiopian national have been arguing in the high court that they should have access to details of his interrogation from the time he was detained in 2002 until he was taken to Guantánamo Bay - where he is still held - in 2004. Mohamed claims that he was tortured by, among other methods, having his penis cut with a razor blade.

In an email to the Foreign Office, which was read out to the court, Mathias said disclosure would cause “serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK”.

Ben Jaffey, for Mohamed, told the court that the US had said 44 documents would be made available to the “convening authority” in the US which will decide on Mohamed’s prosecution but not to his legal representatives, Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley and Clive Stafford-Smith, of Reprieve, although both had been security-cleared in the US.

Jaffey said there was “no movement on the central question - where was Mr Mohamed between 2002 and 2004?” Tim Eicke, for the government, said the US had made concessions by making documents available to the convening authority.

After hearing from both sides in open court, the judges retired to hear further arguments in private. No decision was made last night but a ruling is expected tomorrow.

Mohamed, a UK resident, was initially held in Pakistan in 2002 and was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he claimed that he was tortured and had his penis lacerated while further threats were made. He was then flown by the US authorities to Afghanistan, where he claims he was subjected to further ill-treatment and interrogation. In September 2004, he was taken to Guantánamo Bay. He claims that all his confessions were a result of torture. He faces the death penalty.

Last week, in the initial hearing of the case, the high court found that MI5 had participated in the unlawful interrogation of Mohamed. One MI5 officer was so concerned about incriminating himself that he initially declined to answer questions from the judges, even in private.

Although the judges said that “no adverse conclusions” should be drawn by the plea against self-incrimination, it was disclosed that the officer, Witness B, was questioned about alleged war crimes, including torture.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has provided the US with documents about the case. He has declined to release further evidence, arguing that disclosure would harm the intelligence relationship with the US.

Add comment August 27th, 2008

Next Posts Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category