Posts filed under 'Uncategorized'

America at its best: Tassered moms

Our country is in very sad shape:

If this is what happens to white middle class moms with their kids, imagine what routinely happens to back middle class men [Gates] or black or Latino, non-middle class men. They become prison fodder.

The YouTube description of the incident:

A police officer in the Syracuse, New York, area Tasered a 37-year-old mom repeatedly in front of her children during a routine traffic stop—and then arrested the mom, leaving the children alone in their family minivan for 40 minutes in freezing weather.

The incident took place in Onondaga County, New York, on January 31, but dashcam video of the incident only recently came to light.

According to a report at syracuse.com, what started out as a routine traffic stop escalated quickly when 37-year-old Audra Harmon challenged officer Sean Andrews assertion that she had been talking on her cell phone when he pulled her over. Harmon disputed that fact, as well as the officers claim that she had been speeding—doing 50 mph in a 45 zone.

An article at MSNBC.com describes the situation:

Harmon had been driving home with her 15-year-old son, whom she had just picked up from wrestling practice, and 5-year-old daughter. She said she was resting her right hand on her cheek as she pulled behind a sheriffs deputy to make a right turn onto the road where she lived. After she made the turn, the deputy pulled off the road to let her pass, then pulled out behind her with his lights flashing and siren blaring.
When Harmon got out of her minivan to show Officer Andrews that she wasnt in possession of a cell phone, and to ask to see video footage of her allegedly talking on the cell phone she didnt possess, the officer ordered her to get back in her car.

And then he pulled out his taser and said Im under arrest, Harmon said. I got back in the car and he said he wanted me back out of the car now. And I said Why am I under arrest? He then yanked me out of the car pulled his taser out and the first shot jolted me

According to Syracuse.com, Harmon was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and going 50 in a 45 mph zone. The district attorneys office dismissed the charges a month later—after watching the videotape, said her lawyer, Terrance Hoffmann.

Amazingly, the officer had justified Harmons arrest by saying she had obstructed traffic by getting out of her minivan.

As MSNBC points out, when Harmon was arrested, her children, aged five and 15, were left by the side of the road for forty minutes.

Harmon is suing the Onondaga County sheriffs office. Officer Andrews has been taken off street patrol and reassigned until an internal affairs investigation is completed, the sheriffs office said.

August 16th, 2009

The American Psychological Association and the Missing Ethics Investigation: How APA Suppressed an Ethics Complaint and Appointed the Accused to Formulate Ethics Policy on Torture

In an important development in the American Psychological Association saga, Jeffrey Kaye has reported that psychologist Michael Gelles, a member of the association’s 2005 PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force, was himself accused of ethics violations during the interrogation of Navy Petty Officer Daniel King. This occurred well before Gelles’ appointment to the PENS Task Force.

Kaye bases his account of Gelles’ involvement largely on the statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee [SIC] of King’s three attorneys, highly respected George Washington University Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley and Navy Jags Robert Bailey and Matthew Freedus. [See the Federation of American Scientists page on the case for these and other documents.]  The attorneys’ accounts are, in turn, based on an actual videotape of Gelles’ interrogation of King.

According to the statement given to SIC, in late September 1999 King was accused of spying after an ambiguous result on his routine polygraph test. As a result, King was interrogated by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service [NCIS], for whom Gelles worked, for 17 to 19 hours at a time for 30 days straight.

As Turley relates:

“King was given at least five polygraphs in a single day during his interrogations by the NCIS. He was not only lied to about his results but lied to about the meaning of these results. NCIS agents told King that these results indicate that something did happen. In this sense, the polygraph examinations were used in combination with the NCIS insistence that King write down his fantasies. NCIS agents convinced King that these results indicated that his fantasies were simply suppressed memories.”

The King interrogation reportedly was rife with abuse. King allegedly was illegally denied an attorney when he requested one. Agents repeatedly lied to him about the results and the meaning of ambiguous or incorrectly administered polygraph tests. He was repeatedly threatened with further abuse if he did not cooperate.. He was encouraged to report his fantasies, after which agents told him that these fantasies meant they must have a basis in fact. During his extended interrogation, accompanied by sleep deprivation, King made a confession, only to recant it the next day and thereafter. After at least 520 days of detention, he was released, and the case was dropped without charges. The case was later the subject of hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Turley describes Gelles’ interview with King:

“At times, King is shouting “I don’t know what I’m supposed to give you” over and over at the agents as they press him for a signed confession. Moreover, it is noteworthy that King seeks the assistance of a psychologist for hypnosis on the videotaped interview with NCIS psychologist Dr. Michael Gelles. After his return to the United States, King was clearly trying to find a way to distinguish fantasy from reality. He told Gelles that he had no memory of the espionage facts but says that the polygraph examinations prove that he must have done something – a clear misconception that neither Gelles nor the agents correct. King asked for hypnosis and truth serum to determine if this is merely a dream. Gelles told him that he might give King hypnosis if King goes back and gives the agents “corroborating” evidence. Gelles told King that he could trust the agents and says that the agents are clearly his friends, he had a “special relationship” with the agents and the agents “will be with you forever.” Gelles virtually ignored the statement of King that he had suicidal thoughts when he left Guam – two days before the interview. Instead, Gelles told King to give corroborating evidence as a precondition for the hypnosis that King sought to clear his doubts as to any espionage. These tapes show a sailor who is struggling with his total inability to remember any act of espionage while clearly accepting the false representation that, if a polygraph examination shows deception, he must have committed such an act. It is difficult to watch and listen to these tapes because they show a total disregard by the NCIS for any effort at determining the truth of these allegations as opposed to making a case at any costs.”

Understandably appalled the attorneys determined to take action against Gelles. Turley says,

“Dr. Gelles has already been notified of our intention to file formal charges against him with the American Psychological Association. Dr. Gelles has refused to give licensing information to the defense or to respond to allegations of violation of basic canons of professional conduct as a licensed psychologist. Dr. Gelles is on the videotape telling an individual with stated suicidal thoughts to return to interrogation and that the agents are not only his close friends but that they would stand with him “forever.” Dr. Gelles specifically tells King that, if he offers `corroborating’ evidence to the NCIS, he might be able to give King the hypnosis that he seeks [to help determine what is real and what is not real].”

American Psychological Association

According to Kaye, Turley confirmed to him that he, indeed, filed an ethics complaint with the APA regarding Gelles’ behavior in this case, but the complaint was never investigated:

“In a private communication, Mr. Turley subsequently indicated the ethics charges were filed, and dismissed without any investigation by APA.” [Emphasis added.]

The Ethics Director of the APA at the time was Dr. Stephen Behnke, who assumed the position in 2000. This is important because, in 2005, Dr. Behnke was involved in the process of appointing the members of the PENS task force to examine the ethics of psychologist participation in national security interrogations of detainees. At the time the task force was convened, and even after the Task Force report was published, the membership of the PENS task force remained secret. The report was unsigned (apparently the only case of an unsigned Presidential Task Force report in APA history, requests for the names of Task force members from the membership and the press were denied. In fact, soon after the report was published, Gelles and Behnke shared a panel on Ethics and National Security at the APA Convention. Gelles reported back to the other task force members on the listserv of the PENS task force, that “I was once again impressed with how Dr. Behnke eloquently represented our work and insured the confidentiality of the panel, despite pressure to reveal the identities of the task force members…” It was later revealed that six of the 10 members were from the military-intelligence establishment.

It is hard to understand any way in which Dr. Behnke could not have been aware of the ethics complaint filed with his office against Gelles in a high-profile case.

Not surprisingly, this stacked task force concluded that psychologist participation in national security interrogations at Guantanamo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at CIA black sites was ethical. In fact, they claimed:

“[P]sychologists are in a unique position to assist in ensuring that these [interrogation] processes are safe and ethical for all participants.”

The case of Gelles’ involvement in the King interrogation, of course, makes this assertion quite dubious.Gelles’ involvement in the King interrogation clearly did not “assist in ensuring that” this interrogation was “safe and ethical for all participants.” Furthermore, as Turley reports, Gelles ignored suicidal statements made by King, thus failing during his interview in his obligation to ensure that the process was “safe.”

From the record of the King case, it appears that Gelles may have violated several other of the recommendations of the PENS task force. Among the recommendation that may have been violated were:

PENS: “Psychologists are alert to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and have an ethical responsibility to report these acts to the appropriate authorities.”

The detention and interrogation of King would likely meet the legal threshold of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” He was subjected to sleep deprivation for a month and isolated from all social supports. According to the Senate testimony of King’s attorney, JAG Robert Bailey, NCIS agents threatened to harm King’s family on at least two different occasions. While it is possible Gelles reported these abuses, there is no indication in the public record that he did so.

PENS: “Psychologists are aware of and clarify their role in situations where the nature of their professional identity and professional function may be ambiguous.”

PENS: “Psychologists are sensitive to the problems inherent in mixing potentially inconsistent roles such as health care provider and consultant to an interrogation, and refrain from engaging in such multiple relationships.”

PENS: “Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality.”

In his videotaped interview with King, Gelles reportedly told King that he was a “doc” and not an agent while failing to tell him that he was part of the investigative team and that the interview was part of the interrogation. He thus confused his health provider ["doc"] and investigative roles. He di not, apparently, clarify “the limits of confidentiality.”

It is important to stress that these comments on Gelles’ behavior are provisional and are based solely upon accounts of his interview with King provided by King’s attorneys. There may be other aspects of the  case that would change the overall evaluation of Gelles’ behavior. But such exculpatory information is not available in the absence of an investigation.

What is most important is that the APA Ethics Committee, faced with a complaint of very serious ethical lapses from a highly reputable attorney, failed to open the case or investigate these claims. It thus appears that they never even viewed the videotape containing the Gelles interview of King or sought information from King or his complainant attorneys.

This case is not the only ethics complaint filed against a member of the PENS task force. Another Task Force member faced charges for possible involvement in abuses at Guantánamo in 2003. Here, too, the APA Ethics Committee declined to open a case, even though the same APA Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke, publicly admitted that the acts alleged are unethical. In yet a third case, an ethics complaint against a Guantanamo military psychologist was opened but remains open three years later. Government documents show this psychologist participating in the planning and execution of the torture of Guantanamo detainees al Qahtani. A fourth psychologist, Col. Morgan Banks, has acknowledged training Guantánamo interrogators in abusive interrogation techniques. Ethics charges could not be brought against Banks because he was not an APA member at the time of the abuse. Nor was he an APA member when Behnke appointed him to the PENS Task Force, though he has joined the APA since. Evidently ethics complaints against psychologists affiliated with the military [Gelles was a civilian NCIS employee at the time of the King interrogation] have an exceedingly high threshold before the APA will even open a case, much less investigate.

Equally important to the failure of the APA to investigate the complaint against Gelles was that Behnke allowed Gelles to be appointed to the PENS task force on the ethics of interrogations, in spite of the fact that an ethics complaint had been filed against him for interrogation abuse. Ordinary prudence would caution against such a step, at least without full transparency and explanation. The lack of such prudence, however, is not surprising on a task force on detainee abuse which is already known to contain four members from chains of command accused of detainee abuse.

Interestingly, as Kaye notes in his article, Gelles himself made reference to the King case on the listserv of the PENS task force in a manner that suggests that even he assumed members of the task force were well aware of his involvement in the matter:

“As Chuck Ewing has said on many an occasion… the Agency is entitled to consultation just as an individual…. In the Squillicoate [sic] case referenced in the article, and to some extent my experience with the King case, a new demand to re-think how the profession was going to hold psychologists in practice accountable in contexts outside of the clinical and academic arena’s was becoming more evident.” [Emphasis added by Kaye.]

As reported in the PENS task force report, members of the task force were aware that the APA the ethics code included the Nuremberg Defense ["just following orders"] in its ethics standard 1.02, added in 2002.

“If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.”

According to this standard, Gelles’ actions, however otherwise in violation of the ethics code, would be “ethical” if carried out in response to an order or “other governing legal authority.” As I write this I cannot help but wonder if the Gelles-King case was on the minds of the Ethics Committee as they pondered adopting 1.02. Given the APA’s pattern of failing to adequately investigate ethics complaints against military-affiliated psychologists, it is not surprising that they have maintained the Nuremberg Defense despite the APA Council requesting a revision twice over the last four years. The APA is apparently about to adopt another six-month delay in revising this standard despite the obvious unethical behavior it may have facilitated and the serious consequences it has had for the whole profession of psychology

The failure of APA to investigate the Gelles case, and his subsequent appointment to the PENS task force will reinforce recent calls by psychologists and human rights advocates in an Open Letter for, among other actions, annulling the PENS report;  bringing in  independent attorneys to pursue accountability of psychologists accused of torture or detainee abuse;  revision of ethics standard 1.02 and other problematic sections of the ethics code; and for an independent investigation of ties and possible collusion between the APA and the military-intelligence establishment.

APA has a very long way to go if it is to regain the trust of its members and of the public.  Concerned APA members at this juncture must decide how long they will wait to see these changes implemented by the APA leadership before they leave the association for a less compromised alternative.

July 29th, 2009

Will the American Psychological Association finally renounce the Nuremberg Defense?

The long-standing struggle within the American Psychological Association over involvement of psychologists in potentially abusive national security interrogations is heating up again, this time with a dispute over its ethics code. In 2002, the APA added the infamous standard 1.02 to its code. This standard allows psychologists to ignore the other provisions of the code when it conflicts with “law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.”

With its echoes of the universally reviled Nuremberg Defense – “I was just following orders” – of the Nazi doctors and others tried for war crimes after World War II, this standard has been deeply disturbing to many APA members and others. This code is binding upon all APA members and upon most licensed psychologists in the country as most, perhaps all, states require those receiving licenses to adhere to the APA code. Standard 1.02 built a loophole into the ethics code that allowed any unethical behavior by those following military or other governmental orders.

Interestingly, in an unenforceable aspirational section of the ethics code, the wording is different:

“If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority in keeping with basic principles of human rights.” [Emphasis added.]

After World War II, as the allies planned the prosecution of Germans for crimes committed during the war, they anticipated the possibility that defendants would use the defense that they were “just following orders” and were thus not morally culpable for their actions. The rules governing the Nuremberg trials stated:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

This defense of following orders has been known ever since as the “Nuremberg defense” and has been regularly rejected in both U.S. and international law.  In fact, the very term “Nuremberg defense” is often derided as the attempt of scoundrels to avoid moral and criminal responsibility.

In the wake of reports of psychologists aiding the Bush regime program of torture and detainee abuse, having the Nuremberg Defense in the APA’s ethics code took on added significance. Potentially, it could allow psychologists involved in detainee abuse or torture to escape future liability for these abuses  before the APA or state ethics committees.  Further, since violating professional ethics could be introduced as evidence in the unlikely possibility of future war crimes trials, 1.02 could provide some protection in potential future trials.

Human rights advocates within the APA have experienced revulsion at an ethics code that is effectively gutted by including the Nuremberg Defense. As Ken Pope, a former Chair of the APA Ethics Committee who has since resigned from the association wrote in a statement sent to thousands of psychologists:

“Nuremberg’s message of inescapable ethical responsibility and accountability came at an unfathomable price. It should never be set aside and forgotten, especially in a profession’s formal statement of its ethical values.”

The APA Council directed as early as 2005 that the association’s Ethics Committee evaluate and recommend an alternative to this standard; some discussions were held, but year after year, no action was taken. At its August 2008 meeting, Council again directed the Ethics Committee to make a recommendation regarding changes that would resolve the discrepancy between the aspirational “in keeping with basic principles of human rights” and the absence of any human rights restriction to following orders in the enforceable section of the code.  This recommendation was to be presented to the August 2008 Council meeting.

During the year there was an open comment period during which over 80 psychologists posted comments on the APA web site. Interestingly, a number of military psychologists objected strongly to changing this standard. Among these were Morgan Banks and Larry James, both of the APA’s infamous PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force that, dominated as it was by military psychologists, gave the stamp of approval to psychologists participating in Bush-era interrogations.  Also among those against changing 1.02 was Debra Dunivin, a Former BSCT psychologist at Guantanamo and wife of a former top APA official, Russ Newman, who played a major behind the scenes role in guiding the PENS task force. All three of these commentators served in chains of command that have been accused of abuses.

Joining the military psychologists in rejecting change were virtually all of the most powerful committees within the APA’s governance structure. Thus, the powerful Committee on Legal Issues, the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest, the Board of educational Affairs, the Board of Professional Affairs, and the Board of Scientific Affairs recommended against any change in 1.02. several, more peripheral committees, including the Committee on Aging, the Committee on Disability Issues in Psychology, the Committee on International Relations in Psychology, and the Committee on Animal research and Ethics did support change.

One month before this August’s Council meeting, the Ethics Committee made its recommendation. After four years of deliberations, they recommended no change in standard 1.02, but, rather, an additional lengthy period of discussion.. They did issue an apparently hastily-written statement that they would not accept a defense of “following orders” to ethics violations involving torture. This statement, however, is totally inadequate for several reasons:

  • First, it is of dubious legality, as it directly conflicts with the code (1.02) itself.
  • Second, such a statement is not binding on future Ethics Committees.
  • Third, it has no status with state licensing boards that adopt the APA code.
  • Finally, and most important, there are many other human rights abuses that may be authorized by law or orders that the EC statement will not cover.

The Ethics Committee recommendation follows on the heels of a letter from the APA Board on the torture-interrogations issues that was deemed woefully inadequate by association critics and activists seeking change. This Board letter recently was criticized in an Open Letter from a broad range of psychological, health, and human rights organizations. This Letter called for five actions by the APA, including change in 1.02 and other problematic sections of the ethics code. In particular, it calls upon the APA to:

“Develop a clear and rapid timetable to remove Sections 1.02 and 1.03 [the `Nuremberg defense' of following orders] from the APA Code of Ethics. [We note that the APA Ethics Committee has stated that they will not accept a defense of following orders to complaints regarding torture; this statement is a welcome improvement but it is clearly inadequate as it is not necessarily binding on future committees nor does it cover abuses falling under the category of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.] Revoke the equally problematic Section 8.05 of the Code, which dispenses with informed consent `where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations,’ and Section 8.07, which sets an unacceptably high threshold of `severe emotional distress’ for not using deception in the ethics of research design.”

The Ethics Committee recommendation rejects this and many other calls for change. If Council concurred with this recommendation, the Nuremberg Defense wouldl stay in the code for at least  the many additional years of deliberation called for by the Committee.

The Ethics Committee’s recommendation was met with withering criticism from members. After initially refusing to respond to critics, the APA President and Board, sensing a pending PR disaster, responded positively to a motion from the members of Council who wrote the 2008 resolution directing the Ethics Committee to act by this august. Now these resolution Movers, as they were know, the President and the Board have united behind another six month delay, directing the Ethics Committee to recommend changes in 1.02 by the February Council meeting. Notice that they entrust this important task to the same Ethics Committee that only weeks before concluded four years of effort by recommending no change.

In a typical APA fashion, the Ethics Committee suddenly saw the wisdom of what they had just rejected.  Presumably, those committees that had weighed in heavily against change will, for the time being at least, miraculously discover its value.The association is set for another long wait to see if this promise of change is any more sincere than any of the others over the last our years.

Whether or not it ultimately gets reversed, the Ethics Committee’s embrace of the Nuremberg Defense also was taken by many as yet another sign that the loyalty of the APA leadership to the military-intelligence establishment is greater than its loyalty to its members. After all, last September those members decisively rebuked the APA leadership by passing by a 59% to 41% margin a referendum declaring that psychologists, whether involved in interrogations or treatment of detainees, do not belong in detention centers violating international law or the Constitution:

“unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights”

[There is an exception for those psychologists treating US military personnel.]

The APA leadership, while nominally acknowledging the passage of the referendum and placing it “in effect” have treated it as an abstract statement with no direct action implications. They have undermined the clear sense of the voting members that psychologists do not belong at Guantanamo or other sites.  This leadership has stymied efforts to apply the referendum to any actually existing detention facility, such as Guantanamo or Bagram, where indefinite detention without trial and other violations of human rights are still in effect.

In response to the disappointing Ethics Committee recommendation, leading to, at best, additional delay in removing the Nuremberg Defense from the Ethics Code, as well as the failure to fully implement the member-passed referendum,  activists are discussing how to respond to what they view as an unacceptable bending of professional ethics to the wishes of the military-intelligence establishment. Some  members are contemplating resigning, joining many who have previously taken that step. Others may hold their breathe and see if, this time, perhaps, APA leaders really mean change. Meanwhile there has been no action on the other major actions, including other essential ethics code revisions, recommended in the Psychologist/Human Rights groups Open Letter:

“1. Fully implement the 2008 referendum as an enforceable section of the APA Code of Ethics. This entails a public announcement that APA policy and ethical standards oppose the service of psychologists in detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Air Base, CIA secret prisons, or in the rendition program.

“2. Annul the June 2005 PENS Report due to the severe and multiple conflicts of interest involved in its production.

“3. Bring in an independent body of investigative attorneys to pursue accountability for psychologists who participated in or otherwise contributed to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. APA should also: (a) clarify the status of open ethics cases and (b) remove the statute of limitations for violations involving torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, so as to allow time for information on classified activities to become public.

“4. Develop a clear and rapid timetable to remove Sections 1.02 and 1.03 [the `Nuremberg defense' of following orders] from the APA Code of Ethics. [We note that the APA Ethics Committee has stated that they will not accept a defense of following orders to complaints regarding torture; this statement is a welcome improvement but it is clearly inadequate as it is not necessarily binding on future committees nor does it cover abuses falling under the category of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.] Revoke the equally problematic Section 8.05 of the Code, which dispenses with informed consent `where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations,’ and Section 8.07, which sets an unacceptably high threshold of `severe emotional distress’ for not using deception in the ethics of research design.

“5. Retain an independent investigatory organization to study organizational behavior at APA. Due to potential conflicts of interest, independent human rights organizations should be enlisted to select this investigatory entity. The study should address, among other things, possible collusion in the PENS process and the 2003 APA-CIA-Rand conference on the Science of Deception, attended by the CIA’s apparent designers of their torture program [James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen] during which “enhanced interrogation” techniques were discussed. The study should explore how the APA governance system permits the accumulation of power in the hands of a very small number of individuals who are unresponsive to the general membership. It should also propose measures to return the APA to democratic principles, scientific integrity, and beneficence, including restructuring for greater transparency and the assimilation of diverse viewpoints.”

Until these five actions are undertaken, the APA will still not have extricated itself from its close engagement with the Dark Side.

1 comment July 26th, 2009

Guantanamo, protected by wall of lies and deceit

Lest anyone think that Obama’s Guantanamo marks a significant departure from Bush’s concentration camp, this article by Meg Laughlin of the St. Petersburg Times should disabuse them. Laughlin spent two days visiting Guantanamo and describes the Alice-in-Wonderland world she witnessed there. Human decency is rare in any institution surrounded by so many lies and deceit:

Behind Guantanamo’s walls, there are more walls

By Meg Laughlin

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba

The doctor in charge of the Guantanamo prison hospital says he’s “extremely proud” to be there, but he won’t give his name. A pale man with auburn hair in his 50s, he tells us he’s an internist from Jacksonville and to call him “Smo” — for senior medical officer. The head nurse says to call her “Audi” — like the car. Forgive them if they gush, they say, as we walk through the shiny hospital, but they are “bowled over” by the quality of care for the prison’s 240 detainees. The hospital is a regular stop on the media tour of Guantanamo, which, the military has gone to great lengths to convince the world, is operating in a “safe, humane, legal and transparent” manner despite previous stories. But seeing patients is impossible, Smo tells us, even with their permission in hand. Instead we’re led through the empty X-ray room and the endoscopy lab, while a noise machine gurgles loudly in the background. Audi tells the four reporters on the media tour that the noise machine helps sick inmates rest. FBI reports, available to anyone with an Internet connection, say it was once used for sensory deprivation during interrogations. We ask about the rail-thin Yemeni detainee, 31, whose death was widely reported the week before. Didn’t he die in the hospital? “Can’t talk about it because it’s under investigation,” Smo says. We ask about the daily forced-feeding of a few dozen hunger strikers who are protesting years in isolation. Three former detainees have told me the procedure is “sadistic” because of the restraint chair and how the tube is jammed in and jerked out.

Smo objects to that characterization, preferring to describe the sessions as “endearing” because detainees report “their brothers who are starving themselves to help each other.”

He directs us to a display: cans of strawberry, butter pecan and chocolate Ensure next to 4 feet of yellow rubber tubing, which, we are told, is “gently inserted” from nose to stomach. The “delicious flavors” are to entice them to eat, we’re told.

“They taste it when they burp,” Audi says, smiling.

We ask to see the 12-strap restraint chairs that hold hunger strikers immobile for hours while the Ensure is pumped in.

“Off limits,” Audi says.

But rest assured, she says, the feeding is a “social hour” that detainees enjoy.

“In fact,” says Smo, “some detainees do it after eating their meals just to be part of the good experience.”

• • •

Before I went to Guantanamo in June, I called National Guard Brig. Gen. Greg Zanetti, who had been deputy commander in 2008, to get an idea of what to expect. He told me staff “will open the whole kimono and show you everything.”

But what we saw and heard during our 30-hour tour over two days was set-up displays and cheerful staff speeches. Maybe Guantanamo has become the “caring old folks home for terrorists” that Zanetti described to me. But, since we weren’t allowed to find out for ourselves, it was impossible to know.

What we do know is that government reports say that hundreds of people from around the world were tortured there between 2002 and 2004, and hundreds are held still in numbing isolation without being charged. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently declared the Guantanamo prison “tainted” and supports President Barack Obama’s plan to close it.

Since early January 2002, when a few dozen detainees were herded off planes in shackles, earphones and goggles, about 780 men have come through Guantanamo. Of those, about 540 have been released and returned to their families, though the Pentagon reports a few named detainees have joined al-Qaida.

Among the detainees who remain at Guantanamo are dozens who have been declared harmless and cleared, and about a dozen “high-value detainees” like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

But, regardless of their status, we were not allowed near any of the detainees, having to settle for a carefully scripted tour that seemed to stubbornly ignore facts openly available to the world outside.

• • •

Most of the detainees eat food prepared in a sparkling kitchen by smiling head chef Sam Scott, a civilian who wears a bonnet with a bow. Nearby, assistants pull trays of baklava, oatmeal raisin cookies, and brownies from the oven and shape tortilla bowls — which may account for some of the 6,500 calories a day that the prison’s Web site says detainees are fed.

Scott entreats us to taste samples of the day’s dinner and guides us to several Styrofoam containers on display: chicken breasts in a delicious, spicy broth with cumin, garlic and red bell pepper, served with pasta, olive oil and black olives. There is also fried fish and butter-garlic noodles. There are versions of both entrees with no seasoning.

It’s hard to square this elaborate display of gourmet food with former detainees’ description of their food as “very bland.”

“Every detainee chooses every meal,” Scott says.

Where are the menu cards they check off?

“Not available.”

Nearby dollies are stacked with large coolers full of meals.

Can we open them?

“Not allowed.”

But it would make the display so much more believable, we say.

Scott opens a cooler, pulls out a Styrofoam container and flips the lid. It’s the bland meal.

Could we now see a spicy meal?

“No more,” says Scott, as she leads us out.

• • •

Camp X-Ray, now deserted, was the first prison camp opened at Guantanamo in January 2002.

The 320 open-air cages are overgrown with bug-infested vines and tall grass. On this rainy day in June some cages are flooded and swarms of mosquitoes hang in the air. Hutia, rodents the size of cocker spaniels, climb on the mesh.

The media handlers proudly point out a pipe vacuum system for waste. But government documents show it was not working when the camp was open and each prisoner was given a bucket, which often overflowed.

Camp X-Ray is infamous for the prisoners’ exposure to the elements and the interrogations that took place there. According to a 2008 Department of Justice report, interrogation techniques used on detainees — many of whom have since been released — included the following:

Hands and feet shackled together so closely they couldn’t stand, sit or lie down comfortably for days; exposure to extreme heat and cold; being forced to wear leashes and perform dog tricks with women’s underwear on their heads; sleep deprivation for days with rock music, strobe lights, gurgling noise machines and ice-water dousing; bending thumbs back, wrapping heads in duct tape, slamming prisoners into walls and punching them to the ground.

One of our media handlers tells us that none of this can be called “torture” because it wasn’t defined as torture at the time.

“Besides, we’re doing a great job now,” says Sgt. Emily Greene.

• • •

When X-Ray closed in late spring 2002, prisoners were moved to buildings on the other side of the base. Then, as the population dwindled, they were concentrated into a smaller area, and, according to Zanetti, the former deputy commander, treated increasingly better.

By January 2008, when Zanetti was there, detainees who weren’t designated as “maximum-security prisoners” were coming up with trivial complaints that showed how spoiled they were.

To make his point, Zanetti read to me from a daily briefing from the first week of April 2008: “Prisoner 765 wants onions and parsley on his salad; 845 wants a better detainee newsletter; 632 wants a Bowflex machine to build his abs.”

But, according to the master list of prisoner names and numbers provided by the Pentagon, prisoners 632 and 845 left Guantanamo in 2006, two years before the complaints, and the number 765 was never assigned to a prisoner. I left Zanetti several phone messages seeking clarification, but he hasn’t called back.

By our June media tour, Camps 1, 2 and 3, where most prisoners went when X-Ray was closed, were practically deserted, and most of the prisoners lived in Camps 4, 5 and 6 on the south side of the naval base.

Guards call Camp 4 “lenient, minimum security” because prisoners share sleeping space and an outside area of scabrous soil surrounded by high fences with razor wire, covered with opaque green cloth so they can’t see out.

On display in a concrete day room is the animated film Madagascar, about a lion, a zebra and a giraffe who escape from a zoo, only to find life on the outside fraught with problems. Checkers, backgammon and library books like The Helen Keller Story are also on display, along with flip-flops, a bendable toothbrush and earplugs. The Web site touts 13,000 books but we only see a few dozen in the library.

When we say we have permission to talk to some Camp 4 detainees, a guard tells us we’re not allowed near them because of the Geneva Conventions.

“It protects their privacy and dignity,” he tells us.

He shows us the shuttered windows of the concrete building where they are held.

“They do that so you media people can’t see in,” he says.

Camp 5 is called “maximum security” because prisoners spend 22 hours a day locked in cells with constant bright lights. The time outside of their cells is spent alone in a 20-by-10-foot concrete cage.

“They can kick their water bottle like a soccer ball,” a guard says.

When we ask the head psychologist, who calls himself “Eldorado” after the car, about the effects of prolonged solitary confinement, he says: “You see a lot of depression and anxiety.”

But Smo interrupts: “There is no solitary confinement here. They just spend a lot of time alone in their cells.”

To make the point that the detainees want nothing to do with us, the head guard at Camp 5 takes us to a window where he opens a blind so we can see a detainee sitting about 25 feet away. The inmate immediately ties a black plastic bag to a fence to block our view.

“You see how they don’t want the media looking at them?” he says.

But we realize we are looking at a latrine and we have been invited to watch them defecate.

Camp 6 is called “ultra­lite maximum security” by the guards. There’s an area with steel tables and stools under a big TV encased in Plexiglas. Among the personal possessions on display: small packets of olive oil and Emile Zola’s novel Joie de Vivre, about a French family finding small pleasures in hard times.

Once again, we mention having permission to talk to a few of the prisoners.

“It’s not up to them or their attorneys because they’re enemy combatants without status,” says the head guard.

So, it’s not the Geneva Conventions?

“Not always,” he says.

• • •

Cpt. Dan Bauer greets us in a concrete block room of wooden desks and leather chairs where a panel decides the status of detainees — whether they’re still enemy combatants, no longer enemy combatants or never were enemy combatants.

Bounties of about $5,000 per person, totaling millions of dollars, were paid in Pakistan and Afghanistan to deliver innocent people to Guantanamo, according to statements made by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and accounts in the New York Times. Once captured, prisoners were tortured to confess and to name others. “Serial snitches” at Guantanamo get all kinds of perks — from freshly made hot tea to Subway sandwiches to chess sets.

Knowing that, we ask Bauer how the panel decides what information is reliable.

Bauer begins slowly: “It’s part of our job to sift through information … ”

But before he can finish his sentence our media handler jumps to her feet and says, “Time’s up.”

Can’t we hear his response?

“Sorry, no,” she says.

The media handlers are mostly soldiers in their 20s and 30s from the Florida National Guard. Most give the expected spin, but a few quietly say off the record that it troubles them to constantly set up a wall so we don’t know what’s going on.

Later, watching the news in the military chow hall, we learn that an island in the South Pacific has agreed to take more than a dozen detainees, but no one tells us that 10 detainees are being flown out that very day. It’s impossible to tell whether the secrecy is deliberate on the part of our media handlers or if the information is also being kept from them.

• • •

We end our tour of Guantanamo in the office of Col. Bruce Vargo, the Army commander over the prison.

Wouldn’t fewer displays and canned responses, and more real life situations make the tour more credible?

“That’s a valid point,” Vargo says. “A lot of people are working on issues that have to do with transparency, the Geneva Conventions and habeas corpus, and we expect improvements.”

But the only improvements we can see is new construction, not more openness.

We ask Vargo: Why so much new construction when the prison is scheduled to close in seven months?

“If it’s six months or one month with improvements, it’s the right thing to do,” he says, “and we always try to do the right thing.”

Staff writer Meg Laughlin and photographer Chris Zuppa spent two days at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, June 9-10. Laughlin, left, a reporter for the Times since 2005, covered the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 for Knight Ridder and has reported extensively on terrorism-related issues. She can be reached at mlaughlin@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8068.

Photographs with this report were subject to military approval.

Photo Gallery: More photos from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base are at links.tampabay.com.

July 11th, 2009

US officials blocked Afghan mass murder investigations

Just in case anyone cares about mass murder in this world where we’re not supposed to “look back” when big guys do bad things, the New York Times is reporting that the US obstructed investigations into the mass murder in 2001 of hundreds to thousands of Taliban prisoners by the Afghan warlord Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum.

“At the White House, nobody said no to an investigation, but nobody ever said yes, either,” said Pierre Prosper, the former American ambassador for war crimes issues. “The first reaction of everybody there was, ‘Oh, this is a sensitive issue; this is a touchy issue politically.’ “

The deaths were reported in 2002:

Survivors and witnesses told The New York Times and Newsweek in 2002 that, over a three-day period, Taliban prisoners were stuffed into closed metal shipping containers and given no food or water; many suffocated while being trucked to the prison. Other prisoners were killed when guards shot into the containers.

The bodies were dumped into a mass grave at Dasht-i-Laili. The grave has since been desecrated to destroy the war crimes evidence. Physicians for Human Rights has been demanding protection of the evidence and an investigation of these murders since 2002, but numerous Bush administration officials placed obstacles in the way, apparently because of the political importance of Gen.  Dostum.

In 2002, Physicians for Human Rights asked Defense Department officials to open an investigation and provide security for its forensics team to conduct a more thorough examination of the gravesite. “We met with blanket denials from the Pentagon,” recalls Jennifer Leaning, a board member with the group. “They said nothing happened.”

In addition to protecting Doshttun, another possibility for lack of US government interest is that the US Special Forces troops who worked with Doshtun were more intimately involved with the murders, or at least the cover-up, and the administration may have been protecting this involvement. After all, as the Times reports, these troops lied and claimed that reports of the massacre, which rapidly emerged in 2002, were false.

Pentagon spokesmen have said that the United States Central Command conducted an “informal inquiry,” asking Special Forces personnel members who worked with General Dostum if they knew of a mass killing by his forces. When they said they did not, the inquiry went no further.

Were these troops truly ignorant or were they, rather, lying? If, as seems most likely, the latter, then why lie, if there wasn’t something to cover-up? And why were these troops obviously interested statements — being a silent witness to a war crime is itself a crime — taken as the last word by US officials if those officials were not anxious to quickly shut down any truth-finding effort. Were, perhaps, these Special Forces complicit in the murders or cover-up?

Of course, it is also possible that the murders of Taliban fighters were viewed by Bush administration officials as something to celebrate rather than investigate. After all, the administration had committed the country to work in the dark side. And what is more characteristic of “the dark side” than impunity for mass murder?

Answers can only be obtained by a thorough and independent investigation. Any investigation must look into not only the murders, but into the cover-up. If the Obama, Congress, and the American people don’t care about possible complicity in the murder of thousands, then our country is indeed in sad shape.

By the way, I cannot ignore the irony of having an Obama State Department official tell the Times that:

“We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated.”

After all, this is from an administration that has steadfastly asserted that US officials should not be investigated for the war crime of torture. And few in our country have even suggested trying US officials for the war crime of launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq.  Are we again seeing that American exceptionalism that states that only leaders of other countries deserve accountability for their crimes?

However, as Pierre Prosper, the former American ambassador for war crimes issues told the Times:

“There is always a time and place for justice.”

If not now, the time and place for justice for Bush administration crimes may still be found.

The complete Times article:

U.S. Said to Have Averted Inquiry Into ‘01 Afghan Killings

By James Risen

Published: July 10, 2009
WASHINGTON – After a mass killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban prisoners of war by the forces of an American-backed warlord during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Bush administration officials repeatedly discouraged efforts to investigate the episode, according to government officials and human rights organizations.

American officials had been reluctant to pursue an investigation – sought by officials from the F.B.I., the State Department, the Red Cross and human rights groups – because the warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, was on the payroll of the C.I.A. and his militia worked closely with United States Special Forces in 2001, several officials said. They said the United States also worried about undermining the American-supported government of President Hamid Karzai, in which General Dostum had served as a defense official.

“At the White House, nobody said no to an investigation, but nobody ever said yes, either,” said Pierre Prosper, the former American ambassador for war crimes issues. “The first reaction of everybody there was, ‘Oh, this is a sensitive issue; this is a touchy issue politically.’ ”

It is not clear how – or if – the Obama administration will address the issue. But in recent weeks, State Department officials have quietly tried to thwart General Dostum’s reappointment as military chief of staff to the president, according to several senior officials, and suggested that the administration might not be hostile to an inquiry.

The question of culpability for the prisoner deaths – which may have been the most significant war crime in Afghanistan after the 2001 American-led invasion – has taken on new urgency since the general, an important ally of Mr. Karzai, was reinstated to his government post last month. He had been suspended last year and living in exile in Turkey after he was accused of threatening a political rival at gunpoint.

“If you bring Dostum back, it will impact the progress of democracy and the trust people have in the government,” Mr. Prosper said. Arguing that the Obama administration should investigate the 2001 killings, he added, “There is always a time and place for justice.”

While President Obama has deepened the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan, sending 21,000 more American troops there to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, his administration has also tried to distance itself from Mr. Karzai, whose government is deeply unpopular and widely viewed as corrupt.

A senior State Department official said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, have told Mr. Karzai of their objections to reinstalling General Dostum. The American officials have also pressed his sponsors in Turkey to delay his return to Afghanistan while talks continue with Mr. Karzai over the general’s role, said an official briefed on the matter. Asked about looking into the prisoner deaths, the official said, “We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated.”

While the deaths have been previously reported, the back story of the frustrated efforts to investigate them has not been fully told. The killings occurred in late November 2001, just days after the American-led invasion forced the ouster of the Taliban government in Kabul. Thousands of Taliban fighters surrendered to General Dostum’s forces, which were part of the American-backed Northern Alliance, in the city of Kunduz. They were then transported to a prison run by the general’s forces near the town of Shibarghan.

Survivors and witnesses told The New York Times and Newsweek in 2002 that, over a three-day period, Taliban prisoners were stuffed into closed metal shipping containers and given no food or water; many suffocated while being trucked to the prison. Other prisoners were killed when guards shot into the containers. The bodies were said to have been buried in a mass grave in Dasht-i-Laili, a stretch of desert just outside Shibarghan.

A recently declassified 2002 State Department intelligence report states that one source, whose identity is redacted, concluded that about 1,500 Taliban prisoners died. Estimates from other witnesses or human rights groups range from several hundred to several thousand. The report also said that several Afghan witnesses were later tortured or killed.

In Afghanistan, rival warlords have had a history of eliminating enemy troops by suffocating them in sealed containers. General Dostum, however, has said previously that any such deaths of the Taliban prisoners were unintentional. He has said that only 200 prisoners died and blamed combat wounds and disease for most of the fatalities. The general could not be reached for comment, and a spokesman declined to comment for this article.

While a dozen or so bodies were examined and several were autopsied, a full exhumation was never performed, and human rights groups are concerned that evidence has been destroyed. In 2008, a medical forensics team working with the United Nations discovered excavations that suggested the mass grave had been moved. Satellite photos obtained by The Times showed that the site was disturbed even earlier, in 2006.

“Our repeated efforts to protect witnesses, secure evidence and get a full investigation have been met by the U.S. and its allies with buck-passing, delays and obstruction,” said Nathaniel Raymond, a researcher for Physicians for Human Rights, a group based in Boston that discovered the mass grave site in 2002.

The first calls for an investigation came from his group and the International Committee of the Red Cross. A military commander in the United States-led coalition rejected a request by a Red Cross official for an inquiry in late 2001, according to the official, who, in keeping with his organization’s policy, would speak only on condition of anonymity and declined to identify the commander.

A few months later, Dell Spry, the F.B.I.’s senior representative at the detainee prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, heard accounts of the deaths from agents he supervised there. Separately, 10 or so prisoners brought from Afghanistan reported that they had been “stacked like cordwood” in shipping containers and had to lick the perspiration off one another to survive, Mr. Spry recalled. They told similar accounts of suffocations and shootings, he said. A declassified F.B.I. report, dated January 2003, confirms that the detainees provided such accounts.

Mr. Spry, who is now an F.B.I. consultant, said he did not believe the stories because he knew that Al Qaeda trained members to fabricate tales about mistreatment. Still, the veteran agent said he thought the agency should investigate the reports “so they could be debunked.”

But a senior official at F.B.I. headquarters, whom Mr. Spry declined to identify, told him to drop the matter, saying it was not part of his mission and it would be up to the American military to investigate.

“I was disappointed because I believed that, true or untrue, we had to be in front of this story, because someday, it may turn out to be a problem,” Mr. Spry said.

The Pentagon, however, showed little interest in the matter. In 2002, Physicians for Human Rights asked Defense Department officials to open an investigation and provide security for its forensics team to conduct a more thorough examination of the gravesite. “We met with blanket denials from the Pentagon,” recalls Jennifer Leaning, a board member with the group. “They said nothing happened.”

Pentagon spokesmen have said that the United States Central Command conducted an “informal inquiry,” asking Special Forces personnel members who worked with General Dostum if they knew of a mass killing by his forces. When they said they did not, the inquiry went no further.

“I did get the sense that there was little appetite for this matter within parts of D.O.D.,” said Marshall Billingslea, former acting assistant defense secretary for special operations, referring to the Department of Defense.

Another former defense official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, recalled that the prisoner deaths came up in a conversation with Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense at the time, in early 2003.

“Somebody mentioned Dostum and the story about the containers and the possibility that this was a war crime,” the official said. “And Wolfowitz said we are not going to be going after him for that.”

In an interview, Mr. Wolfowitz said he did not recall the conversation. However, Pentagon documents obtained by Physicians for Human Rights through a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that the issue was debated by Mr. Wolfowitz and other officials.

As evidence mounted about the deaths, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell assigned Mr. Prosper, the United States ambassador at large for war crimes, to look into them in 2002. He met with General Dostum, who denied the allegations, Mr. Prosper recalled. Meanwhile, Karzai government officials told him that they opposed any investigation.

“They made it clear that this was going to cause a problem,” said Mr. Prosper, who left the Bush administration in 2005 and is now a lawyer in Los Angeles. “They would say, ‘We have had decades of war crimes. Where do you start?’ ”

In Washington, Mr. Prosper encountered similar attitudes. In 2002, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, then the White House coordinator for Afghanistan, made it clear that he was concerned about efforts to investigate General Dostum, Mr. Prosper said. “Khalilzad never opposed an investigation,” Mr. Prosper recalled. “But he definitely raised the political implications of it.”

Mr. Khalilzad, who later served as the American ambassador to Afghanistan, did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Prosper said that because of the resistance from American and Afghan officials, his office dropped its inquiry. The State Department mentioned the episode in its annual human rights report for 2002, but took no further action.

July 10th, 2009

Obama admin uses evidence obtained from torture to imprison child

It seems like every day the Obama administration sinks to new lows in its bid to keep the essence of Bush’s torture regime intact. I just read this article from a few days ago which again has me enraged. In the government’s never-ending willingness to abuse anyone or anything in an attempt to avoid political embarrassment, the Obama Justice Department is now relying on evidence obtained by torture to keep Mohammed Jawad, imprisoned as a child, in detention indefinitely.

The evidence was the result of a gun being put to his head and his being told that he either confess or he and his family would be killed. To make the situation even stranger, this evidence has already been deemed inadmissible by a military judge in Jawad’s military commission trial when a judge ruled last year that, even by the standards of the Bush administration, threatening death to get a confession was torture. Evidently, the Obama Justice Department believes that evidence that is inadmissible in a kangaroo court is more likely to be acceptable in Federal court. Or is the administration just cynically keeping Jawad locked up for months or years beyond the almost seven he has already been imprisoned just to avoid the political embarrassment of releasing an obviously innocent adolescent or young adult? Are they waiting for the court, perhaps many months from now, to rule that there never were any grounds to imprison Jawad?

Jawad, you may remember, was the child who was abused following advice from a BSCT psychologist that he be subjected to linguistic isolation and pressured to “break him” and make him confess. Break him they did, resulting in a suicide attempt in December 2003. He also was tortured at Bagram air base during his stay there. But, the Obama administration is evidently willing to compound the wrongs already committed by the Bush administration.

So it has come to this. The administration that came to power pledging to end torture uses the fruits of torture to imprison an innocent young man. An administration that refuses to prosecute, or even investigate, those who tortured uses evidence obtained from torture to keep a teenager in perpetual hell. The cynicism of this administration evidently knows no bounds.

Here is the complete article:

U.S. Relies on Tortured Evidence in Habeas Case
Government Submits Evidence Tossed in 2008 War Crimes Case

By Daphne Eviatar

Washington Independent, 6/23/09

The United States is relying on evidence obtained by torture to prove that it can continue to imprison indefinitely a young man arrested as an adolescent in Afghanistan six and a half years ago, according to documents filed with a federal district court.

Mohammed Jawad may have been as young as 12 years old when he was seized by Afghan police and turned over to U.S. authorities in December 2002, according to a recent letter from the Afghan attorney general, who is requesting his return. Jawad is accused of throwing a hand grenade into a U.S. military vehicle and injuring two servicemen and their translator. But the primary evidence against him — his own confessions — were obtained by torture. Although the U.S. military commission created by President George W. Bush eventually charged him with war crimes for the attack in October 2007 — almost six years after the crime — a judge ruled in October 2008 that because they were tortured, his confessions were unreliable and inadmissible.

By all accounts, Jawad’s military commission case has been a fiasco. In September 2008, military prosecutor Lt. Col. Darryl Vandeveld resigned from the case and from the military commissions altogether, saying he could not in good conscience prosecute someone for an act allegedly committed as a child and where virtually the only evidence against him is his tortured confessions. (Vandeveld was unable to convince the commission to drop the charges or let Jawad enter a plea agreement with a sentence to time served.) In October, a U.S. military judge at Guantanamo Bay agreed that Jawad had only confessed after armed Afghan police threatened to kill him and his entire family if he didn’t. Statements made to U.S. authorities just hours later, the judge subsequently ruled in November, were still tainted by the Afghan authorities’ torture, because U.S. authorities “used techniques to maintain the shock and fearful state associated with the Accused’s initial apprehension by the Afghan police.” Both confessions therefore were inadmissible.

In addition to his torture by the Afghans, military records indicate that at Bagram and later at Guantanamo, Jawad faced more abuse. Jawad arrived at Bagram just days after two prisoners there were murdered during interrogations. Jawad says he was hooded, strip-searched, shackled and shoved down stairs, slapped and screamed at. Guards there later admitted to abusing prisoners in exactly those ways. And at Guantanamo, Jawad was subjected to the sleep deprivation technique known as the “frequent flyer” program — he was moved from cell to cell 112 times in 14 days to keep him from sleeping. He was also kicked, beaten, pepper-sprayed and at one point suffered a broken nose. In December 2003, Jawad tried to kill himself by banging his head repeatedly against one of his cell walls.

The Department of Justice on Monday refused to discuss the case, saying it does not comment on ongoing litigation. However, the government’s documents submitted to the court, partly blacked out for security reasons, set forth the government’s claims and evidence.

The bulk of the government’s claim that Jawad can be held indefinitely (although he was deemed an “enemy combatant” by the Bush administration, the Obama administration no longer uses that term) appears to be that Jawad, an Afghan citizen born in a refugee camp in Pakistan and functionally illiterate, learned how to throw a grenade at a Madrassa in Afghanistan and was at the time of his capture as an adolescent associated with a group called Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin, or HIG, “an extremist organization long associated with [Osama bin Laden], with a 30-year history of supporting jihad in Afghanistan.” Its founder has been named a “specially designated global terrorist” by the U.S. government. The evidence supporting this charge is that Jawad was able to provide directions to and describe the appearance of the HIG camp. The government also originally claimed Jawad was a member of HIG based on a document it said indicated sworn loyalty to the group that was “signed” with Jawad’s thumbprint. A later forensic exam by the US Army laboratory concluded that the thumbprint was not Jawad’s.

Vandeveld, the former military prosecutor who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps and a senior deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, has submitted a 14-page sworn statement in support of Jawad’s petition for release. “I personally do not believe there is any lawful basis for continuing to detain Mr. Jawad,” he writes, describing the year he spent trying to collect reliable evidence against him. “[T]here is no reliable evidence of any voluntary involvement on Jawad’s part with any terrorist groups,” he concludes. The most credible evidence suggests “that Mr. Jawad was lured to Afghanistan under false pretenses — the promise of well paid work clearing landmines promised to him by unscrupulous recruiters for HIG.” To the extent that Jawad was affiliated with HIG at all, Vandeveld says, it was likely brief and involuntary. “[H]e was certainly not involved with the organization long enough to have any actionable intelligence, or even unique or otherwise unknown information about the group,” adding that his youth, lack of education and “manifest gullibility” marked him, at best, as “a low level foot soldier.”

Moreover, according to military records and news reports, at least three other Afghans have since been arrested and subsequently confessed to responsibility for the grenade attack. The only supposed eyewitness accounts implicating Jawad were “two paragraph summaries of interviews conducted through an interpreter of these witnesses several months after the attack.” Despite his efforts, Vandeveld was never able to find the witnesses.

After Vandeveled resigned, he was replaced by a new prosecutor, who appealed the military commission ruling that the tortured confession to U.S. authorities should be suppressed. There has never been a ruling on that appeal, however, because when President Obama took office he suspended the military commission proceedings until his administration could review them. Although the government also attempted to stall the habeas corpus proceedings pending the outcome of the military commission review, Judge Ellen Huvelle of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. refused. So on June 1, the government submitted its statement of facts it is relying on in the case.

“They’re relying on everything they relied on in the military commissions, including statements that are the product of torture, including tortured statements they didn’t even appeal that were made to Afghan authorities,” said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project who represents Jawad in his habeas case. The United States did not appeal the ruling that the tortured confession to Afghan authorities was inadmissible, but relies upon it in its statement of facts to the federal court. Hafetz says the Justice Department’s lawyers are also relying on a written confession drafted by an Afghan police officer in Farsi that has Jawad’s thumbprint on it, although Jawad does not speak or read Farsi. (His native language is Pashto, though in any event he is illiterate.)

“Setting aside the hearsay statements, our position is that a statement that’s involuntary and coerced is not admissible in a federal court,” said Hafetz. “It’s against our basic values and principles. And it’s notoriously unreliable.” That Jawad was a child at the time suggests the statements were even more likely coerced and therefore even less reliable.

On May 31, the government of Afghanistan sent a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul protesting the continued imprisonment of Jawad by U.S. authorities. Jawad’s uncle, the attorney general writes, says Jawad was only 12 years old when he was captured.

“The Independent Commission for Human Rights has expressed its serious concern over the non-observance of national and international laws in regard to the detention of children, particularly the investigation and fair trial of Jawad.”

The United States’ treatment of Jawad would seem to violate a United Nations Protocol that the U.S. signed and ratified in January 2003. According ot the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, children who were recruited or used in armed conflicts should be considered primarily as victims and provided with rehabilitation services. Jawad’s lawyers say he’s never received any such services.

In January, five human rights groups sent President-elect Barack Obama a letter urging him to stop the prosecutions of child detainees.

The U.S. government is scheduled to appear before Judge Huvelle to defend its continued imprisonment Jawad at Guantanamo and its reliance on tortured evidence on August 5.

June 28th, 2009

Music: Joan Baez – We Shall Overcome (for the people of Iran)

1 comment June 27th, 2009

Scene from the Iranian Revolution: Sunday, June 21, 2009

This is reportedly video from a large rally today in Tehran:

Meanwhile, here’s another amazing scene from Saturday, with demonstrators and police almost acting as if in a choreographed play:

June 21st, 2009

APA Board makes major statement on torture

The American Psychological Association Board today issued the following statement on psychologist involvement in US torture and abusive interrogations. the statement follows recent reprehensible actions by senior APA staff to undermine the 2008 Referendum in public communications. This undermining was most notably visible in their communications about the British scientific journal Nature, in response to an inaccurate Nature editorial endorsing psychologists participation in national security interrogations. While the Nature editorial made no mention of the member-passed APA referendum that opposed participation of psychologists at Guantanamo and elsewhere, APA staff described the editorial as “fair and balanced” (I kid you not!) and boasted of all the information they gave Nature during its preparation.

This communication from the APA’s PR office was met with a withering barrage of criticism from members. [Nature has accepted a letter of mine, along with two other letters from APA critics, for publication soon, perhaps as soon as next week.] The APA Board, to its credit, has heard the message loud and clear. We will not stand for them undermining the member-passed policy. Let’s hope that this is a sign of major change by the APA. But I won’t hold my breathe.

Unfortnately, the styatement, while an improvement on recent communications from APA, is still deeply flawed. Notice that they fail to mention that among the “some psychologists[that]  did not abide by their ethical obligations to never engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” were likely several  members of their PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force  that formed ethics policy for the association. Any claim that the APA leadership acted in good faith as they confronted this isssue is belied by that leadership’s actions in creating and long standing behind this deeply flawed unethical task force with multiple conflicts of interest at its core.

Of course, as Bryant Welch points out in his new article, posted yesterday, APA leadership has been deeply entrenched with the military-intelligence establishment for years. It will take far deeper changes than a nice sounding statement to transform the organization to an ethical institution based upon “psychology’s longstanding commitment to the highest standards of professional ethics–including, and especially, the protection of human welfare.” It’s too bad they didn’t think of this committement when they were actively shutting their eyes to psychologists’ participation in torture and denouncing those of us who refused to close our eyes as “zealots.”

I would love to find outr that, this time, unlike all those other times, the APA leadership really intended to change.  But I’m from Missouri, the “Show Me” state. I’ll wait till I can see real action, not nice words.

June 18, 2009

An Open Letter from the Board of Directors

Dear Colleague,

As a psychologist and member of the American Psychological Association (APA), you no doubt share our serious concerns about reports regarding the involvement of psychologists in torture and abusive interrogations as part of the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” We recognize that the issue of psychologist involvement in national security-related investigations has been an extremely difficult and divisive one for our association. We also understand that some of our members continue to be disappointed and others angered by the association’s actions in this regard. Although APA has had a longstanding policy against psychologist involvement in torture, many members wanted the association to take a strong stand against any involvement of psychologists in national security interrogations during the Bush administration.

Information has emerged in the public record confirming that, as committed as some psychologists were to ensuring that interrogations were conducted in a safe and ethical manner, other psychologists were not. Although there are countless psychologists in the military and intelligence community who acted ethically and responsibly during the post-9/11 era, it is now clear that some psychologists did not abide by their ethical obligations to never engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The involvement of psychologists, no matter how small the number, in the torture of detainees is reprehensible and casts a shadow over our entire profession. APA expresses its profound regret that any psychologist has been involved in the abuse of detainees.

This has been a painful time for the association and one that offers an opportunity to reflect and learn from our experiences over the last five years. APA will continue to speak forcefully in further communicating our policies against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment to our members, the Obama administration, Congress, and the general public. In so doing, we will continue to highlight our 2008 petition resolution policy, Psychologists and Unlawful Detention Settings with a Focus on National Security. APA will ensure that association communications convey clearly that the petition resolution is official association policy and must be central to psychologists’ assessment of the appropriateness of their roles in specific work settings related to national security. Our association’s governing body, the Council of Representatives, will soon be receiving guidance from various governance groups regarding further steps to implement this resolution. The history of APA positions and actions related to detainee welfare and professional ethics can be found at http://www.apa.org/releases/timeline.html.

On a closely related matter, the Ethics Committee and APA governance as a whole are focused intently on Ethics Code Standards 1.02 and 1.03, which address conflicts between ethics and law and between ethics and organizational demands, respectively. In light of Bush administration interrogation policies and uncertainty among our membership, the Ethics Committee has issued the attached statement, “No defense to torture under the APA Ethics Code” (http://www.apa.org/releases/ethicsstatement-torture.pdf ). Invoking language from the U.N. Convention Against Torture, this statement clarifies that the Ethics Committee “will not accept any defense to torture in its adjudication of ethics complaints.”

APA will continue to monitor material in official reports related to psychologist mistreatment of national security detainees, will investigate reports of unethical conduct by APA members, and will adjudicate cases in keeping with our Code of Ethics. The association’s focus on these ethical standards is consistent with its position that no psychologist involved in detainee abuse should escape accountability.

In conclusion, as part of APA’s elected leadership, we have an obligation to protect and further psychology’s longstanding commitment to the highest standards of professional ethics–including, and especially, the protection of human welfare.

Respectfully,

American Psychological Association 2009 Board of Directors James H. Bray, PhD Carol D. Goodheart, EdD Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D.
Barry S. Anton, PhD
Paul L. Craig, PhD
Norman B. Anderson, PhD
Rosie Phillips Bingham, PhD
Jean A. Carter, PhD
Armand R. Cerbone, PhD
Suzanne Bennett Johnson, PhD
Melba J.T. Vasquez, PhD
Michael Wertheimer, PhD
Konjit V. Page, MS

2 comments June 18th, 2009

Maddow & Dean on Obama DoJ attack on gay marriage

Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean on the Bush Obama administrations defense of the Defense of Marriage Act:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

June 16th, 2009

Next Posts Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category