In Praise of Shared Outrage

By Roy Eidelson

“We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” These were the words of Lord Brian Griffiths, Goldman Sachs international adviser, when he spoke at London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral last fall. With inequality at historic levels here in the United States and around the world, it’s a reassuring message we all might wish to be true.

Unfortunately, scientific research reveals a sharply different reality: inequality is a driving force behind many of our most profound social ills. The Equality Trust reviewed thousands of studies conducted by the US Census Bureau, the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Bank. Consistent patterns emerged, both among and within countries. Inequality is associated with diminished levels of physical and mental health, child well-being, educational achievement, social mobility, trust and community life. And it is linked to increased levels of violence, drug use, imprisonment, obesity and teenage births. In short, Lord Griffiths’ claim – despite the venue – was a self-serving fiction.

Shared Outrage and Solidarity

Although there are no easy or quick solutions for reversing today’s extreme inequalities and repairing the daily harm they cause, the path forward may be clearer than we realize. Change of this magnitude requires a stubborn, passionate and broadly embraced commitment to greater equality as a moral necessity. Although regularly overlooked and misunderstood, the catalyst for such a transformation is often surprisingly simple: shared outrage. Indeed, when shared by the disadvantaged and oppressed on the one hand and by those with greater security and resources on the other, outrage can spur the concerted action required to overcome the injustice, insensitivity and inhumanity that foster inequality around the world.

Recent work by social psychologists such as Emma Thomas, Craig McGarty, Kenneth Mavor and Emina Subasic (among others) highlights why this is so. Outrage shared among groups that otherwise differ in many ways creates the solidarity vital to forcefully challenging a destructive status quo. This shared emotion is so powerful because it breaks the established boundaries that separate the “haves” from the “have-nots.” Outrage over inequality can unite the direct victims of discrimination with those who find discrimination morally repugnant even though they themselves have not experienced it. Similarly, outrage can bring together in common cause people struggling to make ends meet and those who, while better off, are convinced that it’s simply wrong for anyone to go without adequate food, shelter or health care.

What also makes this shared moral outrage special is its collective action orientation – it pushes for sustained engagement against the individuals, groups and institutions that benefit from inequality and seek to perpetuate it. As a political force, shared outrage takes us beyond the mere acknowledgment of regrettable circumstances in the world. It insists on explanations for what’s wrong and it seeks accountability for the wrongdoing. And the chorus of voices rising up in shared outrage prevents any single group from becoming an isolated target for condemnation or retribution from the powers that be.

In the US alone, there are many settings today that cry out for this shared outrage. Consider a small sample:

• Wall Street’s largest banks turn a taxpayer-funded bailout into billions of dollars in bonuses for their highest-paid employees – while millions of working people lose their jobs and their homes. It’s not only the unemployed and homeless who should be outraged.
• Health insurance giants add to their bottom line by denying life-saving treatment to sick children, dropping policyholders when they become too ill and aggressively raising premiums despite the economic hardship facing so many. It’s not only those whose health or recovery is imperiled who should be outraged.
• Profit-driven global polluters, their lobbyists and their political defenders block effective responses to climate change while the poor suffer disproportionately from environmental disasters and devastation. It’s not only those whose lives are destroyed by drought or flood who should be outraged.
• Unethical politicians protect the privileged and the wealthy by embracing falsehoods and obstructionism to prevent legislation that would address inequality in such arenas as preschool programs, student aid, worker rights and the minimum wage. It’s not only those denied an adequate education, a decent job or a chance at a brighter future who should be outraged.
• With support and funding from powerful elites, hate-mongers take to the airwaves and the print media. They condemn, ridicule and arouse fear and hostility toward minority group members already disadvantaged by prejudice, discrimination and infringements of their civil rights. It’s not only the targeted groups who should be outraged.

The Limits of Compassion

The shared outrage I’m extolling is by no means the only prosocial emotion we can experience in response to human suffering. Compassion, for example, is another common and important reaction – but alone it’s not sufficient to promote meaningful and lasting social change. Part of the problem, as demonstrated by the research of psychologists such as Paul Slovic, Ilana Ritov and Tehila Kogut, is that our natural tendency to experience compassion is quite limited in breadth. We tend to respond most strongly to the misfortune of a single identified individual. Unfortunately, these feelings of care and concern quickly diminish in strength as the number of victims increases. So, even though compassion can lead to crucial short-term efforts to help the needy, it doesn’t readily translate into a sustained movement. It doesn’t truly unite groups in common purpose over time.

In fact, compassion felt toward those less well off actually highlights differences among groups rather than effectively transforming two groups into one. In contrast to moral outrage, which can be fully shared, compassion is a feeling experienced only by the outsider; a disadvantaged group doesn’t feel compassion for itself. Moreover, compassion too often finds expression in patronizing gestures. A we-know-better attitude inadvertently intensifies group boundaries by failing to fully recognize the capabilities, resiliency, special knowledge and equal humanity of those to whom help is offered.

Just as important, compassion does not search for, identify and hold accountable those responsible for conditions of inequality and injustice. In short, feeling bad for those less fortunate isn’t enough. Shared outrage goes much further. It combats illegitimate attempts to blame the victims for their plight. It prioritizes the need for long-term change beyond emergency assistance alone. And it demands accountability for the failure to use power and influence for the greater good.

Hurdles to Shared Outrage

But if moral outrage shared by the disadvantaged and advantaged alike offers such promise for positive social change, what stands in its way? Why, for example, is inequality growing on so many fronts rather than receding? Far too often, the blossoming of such shared outrage is cut short – both by the powerful self-interested beneficiaries of the status quo and by those who, without malevolent intent, mistakenly view outrage as an undesirable, inappropriate or ineffective response to inequality and injustice.

Many of those perched atop the social and economic ladder, accustomed to the access and resources entrenched power bestows, have little interest in climbing down a rung or two. For them, preserving the inequality they welcome depends upon suppressing shared outrage. This is routinely accomplished by promoting an alternative narrative that supports and glorifies the current system. “The world is the way it should be.” “Claims of injustice, illegitimacy or wrongdoing are unfounded; they overlook a deeper logic and necessity.” “Inequality is a good thing.”

In this world of skillfully crafted illusions, rags-to-riches stories are like gold to those who own the mines. When they are sufficiently persuasive, we’re inclined to overlook the words of people such as Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate and micro-lender Muhammad Yunus, who explained, “Poverty is not created by poor people. It has been created and sustained by the economic and social system that we have designed for ourselves; the institutions and concepts that make up that system; the policies that we pursue.”

Those who defend current structures of inequality – whether their status derives from political power, outsized salaries or inherited wealth – have many other tactics at their disposal. Sometimes, the disadvantaged are blamed, ridiculed and reprimanded for the adversity they face. When the victims accept these false accusations as true, their outrage is smothered and their disempowerment is nearly complete. Sometimes, powerful elites overburden potential allies of the underprivileged with obstacles and worries that prevent them from looking beyond their own circumstances and joining cause with those who are even worse off. And, sometimes, the status quo’s winners conspire to pit everyone else against each other, thereby extinguishing the possibility that shared outrage might unseat them.

Regrettably, the barriers to justice are further strengthened by the well-intentioned and risk-averse when they fail to become partners in moral outrage with the worst victims of an inequality-perpetuating system. When such sympathizers take to the sidelines and become mere bystanders, they tragically help society’s wealthiest and most powerful avoid the full force of broadly-supported and insistent demands for meaningful change. For a movement working to build momentum, apathy and indecision from prospective allies can be as destructive as outright opposition. Recall Martin Luther King’s deep disappointment over the decent people who deemed outrage an inappropriate response to the racism and segregation of the 1960s:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

What Shared Moral Outrage About Inequality Is Not

The shared moral outrage discussed here is often inadvertently misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented. It is, therefore, important to be clear about what this form of outrage is not.

First, shared outrage over inequality is not the same as irrational anger. Rather, it’s an entirely reasonable response to an outrageous situation. Likewise, effective strategies for pursuing real change linked to moral outrage can be bold and discomforting while still being purposeful and carefully planned. To prize civility and decorum (and “bipartisanship”) when doing so aids the powerful defenders of an unjust status quo is either foolish or deceitful.

Second, the shared outrage I’m praising is not supportive of violence in the pursuit of its aims. In fact, such outrage has historically been the source of transformative nonviolent movements around the world. At the same time, the manner in which shared outrage is expressed can indeed reflect the recognition that timid stances are too often ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, the centers of power and those who are comfortably insulated from life’s daily hardships and injustices.

Third, this shared outrage over inequality is not artificial. It is explicitly not the simulated populist anger manufactured and promoted by corporate-funded “Astroturf” groups that represent many more dollars than people. Such efforts have very different underlying goals and often include an agenda that expands rather than diminishes inequality. Despite superficial appearances, the current Tea Party movement fits this bill. A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that these activists are predominantly male, higher-income, college-educated and conservative, with 87 percent supporting the Republican candidate for the US House. That’s certainly not the profile of a broad and diverse coalition of haves and have-nots fighting systemic injustices that do particular harm to the least fortunate among us.

Finally, shared moral outrage should not be mistaken for the anger displayed by representatives of powerful interests responding to attempts to alter the status quo. Such big-budget political theater is strategically designed to subvert the efforts of groups pursuing change that will benefit the disadvantaged. Outrage fueled by distortions, misrepresentations and lies must be discounted as well.

Where to Now?

Now is the time for more of the shared moral outrage I’ve described, not less. As Frederick Douglass explained more than a century and a half ago, “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.”

Although forces of globalization and technological developments have undoubtedly altered the landscape for political action, the importance of shared moral outrage as a foundation for social progress persists. Examples from the past half-century remain as compelling as ever. Emerging from the horrors of World War II, the United Nations adopted the groundbreaking Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Broad and sustained political movements advanced the civil rights of African-Americans and women in the United States and ended apartheid in South Africa. Populist campaigns curtailed the exploitation and abuse of farm and factory workers. Churches and local communities created sanctuaries that offered protection for immigrants and refugees. All of these efforts (and many others) were aimed at promoting greater equality and all recognized that inequality could not be meaningfully reduced without improving the circumstances of society’s most vulnerable and marginalized members.

In the 1976 Oscar-winning film “Network,” deranged TV news anchor Howard Beale implores his viewers to open their windows and scream, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!” The sentiment and emotion may be right, but what’s really needed now is greater engagement in organized efforts that bring together inspiring leaders, dedicated advocates and inclusive coalitions of diverse supporters committed to reducing inequality and its injustices. Together, we must face head-on the full reality of today’s morally bankrupt status quo while nurturing our collective imagination to envision building a better world. This difficult balancing act will require that we resist the lure of cynicism, self-absorption and conventional mindsets – and that we find, nurture and share our moral outrage.

If all goes well, Iceland may be about to make history. No, I don’t mean the refusal of the populace to get saddled with Iceland’s $5 billion bad “Icesave” bank debt. Rather, I’m referring to the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative [IMMI], which combines the world’s best legislation to protect press and information freedom into one path-breaking information freedom bill for Iceland.

IMMI attempts to tip the world balance toward press freedom by setting up Iceland as a Mecca of press and information freedom. Key provisions of the IMMI include: whistleblower protections; strong protections for anonymous sources and the journalists and media organizations who deal with them; a strengthening of protections against prior restraint by governments or through use of the courts; and protection for Internet Service Providers [ISPs], preventing them from being held responsible for information passing through their networks.

IMMI also includes provisions against the use of lawsuits to suppress information. Thus, under IMMI, Iceland would not enforce foreign judgments against ISPs and media organizations based in Iceland. Further, Icelandic-based organizations would have the right to file counter-suits in Iceland against attempts to suppress their free speech in other countries.

Additionally contained in IMMI are protections against misuses of court processes to suppress speech, allowing judges to decide that an issue before the court involves freedom of speech and thus trigger protections before those being sued are coerced into settling cases or submitting to abusive subpoenas due to inadequate resources to defend themselves.

If IMMI passes, Iceland’s actions could affect press freedoms elsewhere. Iceland’s internet servers would become available to reporters and bloggers around the world. These servers could hold documents and reports that governments or corporations are attempting to suppress and would come under Icelandic protections. The right to countersue against attempts at suppressing free speech elsewhere will provide some protection for journalists and media organizations in other countries used Icelandic servers.. While there is no guarantee that the right to countersue will deter all abuses, in many cases the threat of litigation, or even criminal penalties, in Iceland will constrain those who might otherwise move to suppress information.

In other cases, attempts to suppress free expression, such as a subpoena seeking the identity of a confidential source in other countries would be in violation of Icelandic laws, providing reporters and other information providers with leverage in their own countries. Thus, a reporter under pressure to reveal a source could argue that these demands would place that reporter afoul of Icelandic law. Some courts may respect this claim, since they would be unable to guarantee immunity for the reporter.

The IMMI arose out of last summer’s outrage  at efforts by a Icelandic bank to suppress television reporting on a document leaked to Wikileaks — the internet haven for leaked documents — regarding the bank’s questionable financial dealings. Icelanders were outraged that their television station was enjoined from reporting on a document that was freely available on the web.

Wikileaks editors Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt originally spearheaded the creation of IMMI and have moved to Iceland to help secure its passage. Wikileaks is well aware of the dangers of censorship as banks and several countries, including Australia and South Africa, have attempted to censor materials posted on Wikileaks. If IMMI passes, Iceland would become the perfect environment for Wikileaks to base its servers. Other media and information providers will likely follow suit and base their servers in Iceland to take advantage of its new protections.

IMMI thus could be a boon to Iceland’s economy, making it a center of the new information economy. But IMMI, because of its strong assist to transparency efforts like Wikileaks, also is seen by many Icelanders as a critical tool in preventing the next economic collapse through shedding light on murky questionable financial and other corporate dealings. As parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir stated:

“The collapse woke up the nation and by rallying together we pushed through historical changes. The government was forced to resign, the central bank manager was forced to resign, the head of the financial supervisory authority was forced to resign. The people of Iceland realized that by joining forces real change could and would take place.

“People woke up to the fact that the infrastructure they had put their trust in, had failed. Our academics, the government, the parliament, the central bank, and the media had all failed. It made us understand that the media was weak, that there was a lack of transparency and that in order to live in a healthy society, we had take part in shaping it.

“We have come to understand that fundamental changes need to take place to strengthen our democracy and that a new legislative package is needed to that promotes transparency and political accountability.

“Because the world is connected by financial and information flows, suppression of the truth is not only our problem, but everyone’s problem. The right of the people to understand what is happening to their societies needs to be strengthened. I believe in supporting the world’s most courageous journalists and writers with the best legislation possible. That is why I am proud to be a part of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative”

IMMI was introduced into parliament February 17 by 19 parliamentary representatives from all parties in parliament, almost a third of the 63 MPs. It will be voted on in April or May of this year. Passage will constitute one of the most important blows for democracy and transparency anywhere in years. It will also be a rare rebuke to the growing power of corporations and governments to restrict information flow world-wide.

Cole suggests that both OPR and David Margolis ignored the question as to whether the torture memos arrived at the correct conclusion — that torture was legal — because to raise it posed danger to the other OLC  torture lawyers, Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin, and Stephen Bradbury. Addressing the legality of torture also posed dangers to the Attorneys General who signed off on these decisions.

Thus, in essence, the OPR report, despite its condemnation of Yoo and Bybee, is a systematic cover-up of the torture lawyering providing protection for the torturers.

Here is the heart of Cole’s argument:

In a more fundamental sense, however, both the OPR and Margolis failed to confront the real wrong at issue. They focused exclusively on the manner by which Yoo and Bybee arrived at their result, rather than the result itself. What is most disturbing about the torture memos is not that they employ strained reasoning or fail to cite this or that authority, but that they do so in the name of authorizing torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of human beings. Remarkably, neither the OPR nor Margolis directly considered the illegality of the conduct that was authorized by the memos. The OPR stated that it “did not attempt to determine and did not base our findings on whether…the Memos arrived at a correct result.” Margolis also did not address whether the conduct authorized was illegal. But surely that is the central issue.

Why, then, did the OPR and Margolis fail to take up the question of the legality of the brutality itself? Almost certainly because doing so would have implicated not only John Yoo and Jay Bybee, but all of the lawyers who approved these methods over the five-year course of their application, including, within the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin, and Stephen Bradbury, Bybee’s successors as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and the two attorneys general, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. Notwithstanding their criticism of Yoo’s errors, all of these men concurred with the basic conclusion of the Yoo and Bybee memos that the tactics being used by the CIA were legitimate.

Goldsmith, Levin, and Bradbury could have reversed the authority that Yoo and Bybee gave the CIA. They each actively participated in rewriting memos to replace or supplement the initial 2002 memos—but while the subsequent memos were written more carefully, they reached the same bottom line and continued to allow the CIA to inflict waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and other illegal tactics on detainees.

Margolis sought to excuse Yoo and Bybee in part on the basis of the extraordinary circumstances in which they wrote their initial memos, within one year after September 11. It’s not clear why this consideration would warrant approval of torture. In any case, Yoo and Bybee’s successors in the Justice Department wrote their memos not in the heat of the moment, but after the program had been in place for years, and had been the subject of substantial criticism by the CIA’s own inspector general. He found, among other things, no evidence that the practices in fact obtained useful information that lawful, noncoercive tactics would not have obtained. Yet the OLC continued to approve of the practices.

Responsibility for the illegal brutality inflicted on CIA and Guantánamo detainees cannot be limited to Yoo and Bybee. It extends to all those who approved the tactics—even those so eager later to condemn Yoo’s reasoning. And unless we as citizens demand that these lawyers be held to answer for the wrongs done in our name, responsibility extends to all of us, too. We must continue to insist on accountability—whether in congressional hearings, citizens’ commissions, civil lawsuits, or the marketplace of ideas. The essential lesson must be that torture and cruel treatment are not policy options—even when a lawyer is willing to write an opinion blessing illegality.

Confessions of a terrorist sympathizer
A volunteer attorney for Guantanamo detainees comes clean: You got me, I’m shilling for al-Qaida

By David Frakt

What you might have seen: Last Thursday night, Rachel Maddow exposed a group of al-Qaida sympathizers who had served as lawyers on behalf of Guantánamo detainees, revealing that these pro-terrorist attorneys have not only taken over the Department of Jihad (previously known as the Department of Justice) but have even infiltrated our armed forces. One of the military lawyers identified on the broadcast was Air Force Reserve Lt. Col. David Frakt, who served as a defense lawyer for Guantánamo detainees in 2008 and 2009.

What you missed : On Friday, Lt. Col. Frakt agreed to an exclusive interview with Maddow. But shortly after the interview was taped, federal agents, sporting a secret warrant from the FISA Court, forced their way onto the set and confiscated the video footage, citing national security. Fortunately, one of the technicians secretly recorded the interview on his iPhone, which is how Salon obtained the following transcript:

Maddow: Lt. Col. David Frakt is a JAG officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and a law professor in California. Professor Frakt, welcome back to the program.

Frakt: Happy to be here, Rachel.

Maddow: Is it true that you’re a terrorist sympathizer?

Frakt: Yes, Rachel. That’s why, in 2008, I volunteered to represent detainees at Guantánamo. The chance to actually be a U.S. government-paid spokesperson for al-Qaida under the guise of “promoting fairness, justice and the rule of law” was just too delicious an opportunity to pass up. I figured the military commissions at Guantánamo would be the perfect soapbox for me to espouse my terrorist ideology.

Maddow: And did your position as a defense counsel give you the opportunities that you were seeking?

Frakt: Not exactly, Rachel. The whole experience was a bit disappointing. Initially, things looked very positive. The first detainee I was assigned to represent, Ali Hamza al Bahlul, was a member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle and a very committed al-Qaida member. In fact, he has been frequently referred to as the al-Qaida minister of propaganda. So, I thought I’d hit the jackpot.

Maddow: So why didn’t it work out?

Frakt: Well, sadly, Mr. al Bahlul wouldn’t cooperate. He refused to let me represent him in court or speak on his behalf. He said he didn’t trust me because I was an American military officer. In fact, he basically boycotted the proceedings and ordered me to do the same. Can you believe that?

Maddow: That must have been very frustrating for you. Didn’t you also represent another client, a juvenile?

Frakt: Yes, I did represent another young Afghan named Mohammed Jawad, but he was a big disappointment also.

Maddow: How so?

Frakt: Well, as it turned out, he wasn’t a member of al-Qaida, or even the Taliban. In fact, he wasn’t a terrorist at all. He didn’t even know any terrorists! The only real consolation with Mohammed was that the United States had tortured him, so I was able to exploit that for substantial propaganda value, but otherwise, he was a dud.

Maddow: What happened to him?

Frakt: Unfortunately, after I proved that his confession was the product of torture and that he was innocent, he was ordered released by a federal judge. I’m pretty sure she is a terrorist sympathizer as well. In fact, your viewers may be interested to learn that all the judges on the Federal District Court bench in Washington are part of one big al-Qaida sleeper cell.

Maddow: How do you know this?

Frakt: Well, it’s obvious, Rachel. What other explanation is there for the fact that they’ve granted habeas corpus petitions and ordered the release of 33 detainees out of the 44 cases they’ve heard?

Maddow: Could it be that the government didn’t have sufficient evidence?

Frakt: Don’t be naive, Rachel. They’re obviously fellow al-Qaida sympathizers. The only reason they don’t let them all go is they don’t want to blow their cover.

Maddow: I see. One final question, professor Frakt. In your previous appearances on the program, you were in uniform; why aren’t you in uniform today?

Frakt: Well, after I actually won a case at Guantánamo, the Pentagon didn’t want to give me any more cases, so I was forced to leave active duty and return to my civilian position as a law professor.

Maddow: And how is that going?

Frakt: It’s not so bad. At least in this position, I can indoctrinate the impressionable young minds of the next generation of lawyers with my pro-terrorist views, while getting paid to churn out pro-terrorism “scholarship.” Academic freedom has its advantages, although I’m obviously opposed to it for those with differing viewpoints. If I didn’t have to grade papers, this would be the perfect job. Fortunately, I have teaching assistants for that.

Maddow: Well, we appreciate your taking the time to be on our program this evening.

Frakt: Any time, Rachel. I’m always glad to have any opportunity to advance my pro-terrorist agenda.

David Frakt is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve who has defended Guantanamo detainees Mohammed Jawad and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul in front of military commissions.

Waterboarding for dummies
Internal CIA documents reveal a meticulous protocol that was far more brutal than Dick Cheney’s “dunk in the water”

By Mark Benjamin

Self-proclaimed waterboarding fan Dick Cheney called it a no-brainer in a 2006 radio interview: Terror suspects should get a “a dunk in the water.” But recently released internal documents reveal the controversial “enhanced interrogation” practice was far more brutal on detainees than Cheney’s description sounds, and was administered with meticulous cruelty.

Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney “specially designed” to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner’s nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding “session.” Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to “dam the runoff” and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee’s mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second “applications” of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee’s nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

“This is revolting and it is deeply disturbing,” said Dr. Scott Allen, co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown University who has reviewed all of the documents for Physicians for Human Rights. “The so-called science here is a total departure from any ethics or any legitimate purpose. They are saying, ‘This is how risky and harmful the procedure is, but we are still going to do it.’ It just sounds like lunacy,” he said. “This fine-tuning of torture is unethical, incompetent and a disgrace to medicine.”

These torture guidelines were contained in a ream of internal government documents made public over the past year, including a legal review of Bush-era CIA interrogations by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility released late last month.

Though public, the hundreds of pages of documents authorizing or later reviewing the agency’s “enhanced interrogation program” haven’t been mined for waterboarding details until now. While Bush-Cheney officials defended the legality and safety of waterboarding by noting the practice has been used to train U.S. service members to resist torture, the documents show that the agency’s methods went far beyond anything ever done to a soldier during training. U.S. soldiers, for example, were generally waterboarded with a cloth over their face one time, never more than twice, for about 20 seconds, the CIA admits in its own documents.

These memos show the CIA went much further than that with terror suspects, using huge and dangerous quantities of liquid over long periods of time. The CIA’s waterboarding was “different” from training for elite soldiers, according to the Justice Department document released last month. “The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed,” the document notes. In soldier training, “The interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth (on a soldier’s face) in a controlled manner,” DOJ wrote. “By contrast, the agency interrogator … continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose.”

One of the more interesting revelations in the documents is the use of a saline solution in waterboarding. Why? Because the CIA forced such massive quantities of water into the mouths and noses of detainees, prisoners inevitably swallowed huge amounts of liquid – enough to conceivably kill them from hyponatremia, a rare but deadly condition in which ingesting enormous quantities of water results in a dangerously low concentration of sodium in the blood. Generally a concern only for marathon runners , who on extremely rare occasions drink that much water, hyponatremia could set in during a prolonged waterboarding session. A waterlogged, sodium-deprived prisoner might become confused and lethargic, slip into convulsions, enter a coma and die.

Therefore, “based on advice of medical personnel,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005, memo authorizing continued use of waterboarding, “the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia.”

The agency used so much water there was also another risk: pneumonia resulting from detainees inhaling the fluid forced into their mouths and noses. Saline, the CIA argued, might reduce the risk of pneumonia when this occurred.

“The detainee might aspirate some of the water, and the resulting water in the lungs might lead to pneumonia,” Bradbury noted in the same memo. “To mitigate this risk, a potable saline solution is used in the procedure.”

That particular Bradbury memo laid out a precise and disturbing protocol for what went on in each waterboarding session. The CIA used a “specially designed” gurney for waterboarding, Bradbury wrote. After immobilizing a prisoner by strapping him down, interrogators then tilted the gurney to a 10-15 degree downward angle, with the detainee’s head at the lower end. They put a black cloth over his face and poured water, or saline, from a height of 6 to 18 inches, documents show. The slant of the gurney helped drive the water more directly into the prisoner’s nose and mouth. But the gurney could also be tilted upright quickly, in the event the prisoner stopped breathing.

Detainees would be strapped to the gurney for a two-hour “session.” During that session, the continuous flow of water onto a detainee’s face was not supposed to exceed 40 seconds during each pour. Interrogators could perform six separate 40-second pours during each session, for a total of four minutes of pouring. Detainees could be subjected to two of those two-hour sessions during a 24-hour period, which adds up to eight minutes of pouring. But the CIA’s guidelines say interrogators could pour water over the nose and mouth of a detainee for 12 minutes total during each 24-hour period. The documents do not explain the extra four minutes to get to 12.

Interrogators were instructed to pour the water when a detainee had just exhaled so that he would inhale during the pour. An interrogator was also allowed to force the water down a detainee’s mouth and nose using his hands. “The interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee’s nose and mouth to dam the runoff,” the Bradbury memo notes. “In which case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of the water.”

“We understand that water may enter – and accumulate in – the detainee’s mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing,” the memo admits.

Should a prisoner stop breathing during the procedure, the documents instructed interrogators to rapidly tilt the gurney to an upright position to help expel the saline. “If the detainee is not breathing freely after the cloth is removed from his face, he is immediately moved to a vertical position in order to clear the water from his mouth, nose, and nasopharynx,” Bradbury wrote. “The gurney used for administering this technique is specially designed so that this can be accomplished very quickly if necessary.”

Documents drafted by CIA medical officials in 2003, about a year after the agency started using the waterboard, describe more aggressive procedures to get the water out and the subject breathing. “An unresponsive subject should be righted immediately,” the CIA Office of Medical Services ordered in its Sept. 4, 2003, medical guidelines for interrogations. “The interrogator should then deliver a sub-xyphoid thrust to expel the water.” (That’s a blow below the sternum, similar to the thrust delivered to a chocking victim in the Heimlich maneuver.)

But even those steps might not force the prisoner to resume breathing. Waterboarding, according to the Bradbury memo, could produce “spasms of the larynx” that might keep a prisoner from breathing “even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position.” In such cases, Bradbury wrote, “a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy.” The agency required that “necessary emergency medical equipment” be kept readily available for that procedure. The documents do not say if doctors ever performed a tracheotomy on a prisoner.

The doctors were also present to monitor the detainee “to ensure that he does not develop respiratory distress.” A leaked 2007 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross says that meant the detainee’s finger was fixed with a pulse oxymeter, a device that measures the oxygen saturation level in the blood during the procedure. Doctors like Allen say this would allow interrogators to push a detainee close to death – but help them from crossing the line. “It is measuring in real time the oxygen content in the blood second by second,” Allen explained about the pulse oxymeter. “It basically allows them to push these prisoners more to the edge. With that, you can keep going. This is calibration of harm by health professionals.”

One of the weirdest details in the documents is the revelation that the agency placed detainees on liquid diets prior to the use of waterboarding. That’s because during waterboarding, “a detainee might vomit and then aspirate the emesis,” Bradbury wrote. In other words, breathe in his own vomit. The CIA recommended the use of Ensure Plus for the liquid diet.

Plowing through hundreds of pages of these documents is an unsettling experience. On one level, the detailed instructions can be seen as helping to carry out kinder, gentler waterboarding, with so much care and attention given to making sure detainees didn’t stop breathing, get pneumonia, breathe in their own vomit or die. But of course dead detainees tell no tales, so the CIA needed to keep many of its prisoners alive. It should be noted, though, that six human rights groups in 2007 released a report showing that 39 people who appeared to have gone into the CIA’s secret prison network haven’t shown up since. The careful attention to detail in the documents was also used to provide legal cover for the harsh and probably illegal interrogation tactics.

As brutal as the waterboarding process was, the memos also reveal that the Bush-era Justice Department authorized the CIA to use it in combination with other forms of torture. Specifically, a detainee could be kept awake for more than seven days straight by shackling his hands in a standing position to a bolt in the ceiling so he could never sit down. The agency diapered and hand-fed its detainees during this period before putting them on the waterboard. Another memo from Bradbury, also from 2005, says that in between waterboarding sessions, a detainee could be physically slammed into a wall, crammed into a small box, placed in “stress positions” to increase discomfort and doused with cold water, among other things.

The CIA’s waterboarding regimen was so excruciating, the memos show, that agency officials found themselves grappling with an unexpected development: detainees simply gave up and tried to let themselves drown. “In our limited experience, extensive sustained use of the waterboard can introduce new risks,” the CIA’s Office of Medical Services wrote in its 2003 memo. “Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness.”

The agency’s medical guidelines say that after a case of “psychological resignation” by a detainee on the waterboard, an interrogator had to get approval from a CIA doctor before doing it again.

The memo also contains a last, little-noticed paragraph that may be the most disturbing of all. It seems to say that the detainees subjected to waterboarding were also guinea pigs. The language is eerily reminiscent of the very reasons the Nuremberg Code was written in the first place. That paragraph reads as follows:

“NOTE: In order to best inform future medical judgments and recommendations, it is important that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented: how long each application (and the entire procedure) lasted, how much water was used in the process (realizing that much splashes off), how exactly the water was applied, if a seal was achieved, if the naso- or oropharynx was filled, what sort of volume was expelled, how long was the break between applications, and how the subject looked between each treatment.”

IMMI attempts to tip the world balance toward press freedom by setting up Iceland as a Mecca of press and information freedom. Further, Iceland’s actions would affect press freedoms elsewhere. If the IMMI passes, Iceland’s internet servers would become available to reporters and bloggers around the world. These servers could hold documents and reports that governments or corporations are attempting to suppress.

Attempts to suppress free expression in other countries would then be afoul of Icelandic laws, providing reporters and other information providers with leverage in their own countries. They could argue that specific efforts to suppress information, such as demands for revealing confidential sources, would place the reporter afoul of Icelandic law. Some courts may respect this argument. In other cases, one could get those trying to suppress information to back off by threatening to sue them in Iceland, thus making suppression very expensive.

It was a bank’s effort last summer to suppress Icelandic television reporting on a document leaked to Wikileaks — the internet haven for leaked documents — regarding the financial dealings of the bank that sparked the IMMI. Icelanders were outraged that their television station was enjoined from reporting on the document that was freely available on the web.

IMMI was introduced by 19 parliamentary representatives from all parties in parliament. It will be voted on in April or May, 2010. Passage will constitute one of the most important blows for freedom anywhere in years. It will also be a rare rebuke to the growing power of corporations and governments to restrict information flow world-wide.

Aljazeera reports on this magnificent effort. It includes an interview with Julien Assange, editor of Wikileaks:

[BTW, please go contribute to keep Wikileaks alive.]