Music: Karan Casey
Distant Shore, Kennedy Center, October 2007:
Beat of My Heart:
Defense Secretary Gates may be guilty of perjury, GTMO attorney states
Guantanamo defense attorney, Clive Stafford Smith, says Defense Secretary Gates may have committed perjury December 12. Here is an article by Andy Worthington:
Guantanamo lawyer says Gates may have committed perjury
By Andy Worthington
LONDON — The announcement Dec. 1 that Barack Obama had retained Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates was intended to demonstrate the President-elect’s desire for a “big-tent” administration that transcended partisan politics. Gates had voiced his desire to close the Pentagon’s notorious Guantánamo Bay prison almost as soon as he took over from Donald Rumsfeld in December 2006, and this and his subsequent stewardship of the Iraq War earned him a place as a trustworthy figure who might bridge the Bush and Obama divide.
However, a declaration the defense secretary made in a Washington, D.C. District Court filing Dec. 12 during the habeas review of Guantánamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed might make some rethink the trustworthy label. Mohamed’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says that unless Gates retracts his statement, he could find himself accused of perjury.
Open letter opposes anti-science Republican Congressman as potential Drug Czar or SAMHSA
Psychologist Andrew Tatarsky has released the following press release objecting to Obama’s potential selection of Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad for a major position in drug policy. We cannot afford another right-wing ideologue in charge of drug policy:
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Andrew Tatarsky, PhD (212) 633-8157
Monday, December 22, 2008
Possible Obama Pick for “Drug Czar” or head of SAMHSA Criticized by Hundreds of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Professionals, Researchers and Academics
Ramstad’s Positions on Syringe Exchange, Sentencing Reform, Medical Marijuana and other Issues Unscientific and Harmful Say Experts
Leading Substance Abuse and Mental Health Experts Suggest Six Positions that Leaders of ONDCP and SAMHSA Should Support
A growing number of professionals have expressed concern about reports in the media that President-elect Obama may be considering appointing Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-MN) either as the next “Drug Czar”, director of the Office of National Drug Control, or as director of SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. In a letter to President-elect Obama released today, over 250 clinicians working with patients with substance use problems and nearly 150 researchers, academics and other concerned citizens warn that Ramstad is not the man for either of these jobs because his record suggests that his perspective is ideologically based and at odds with science.
The letter applauds Rep. Ramstad’s support for expanding access to drug treatment and improving addiction awareness and it honors his own personal triumph over addiction. However, in spite of these contributions, Ramstad has supported unscientific faith-based treatment while opposing evidence-based practices such as methadone maintenance and syringe exchange, two of the most effective interventions for addiction and transmission of infectious disease that save lives. He has also consistently opposed congressional efforts to stop the arrest of patients with HIV/AIDS, cancer and other illnesses who use prescribed medical marijuana in states where it is legal and he has failed to co-sponsor legislation that would eliminate sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, despite the fact that there were three different crack/powder reform bills in the 110th Congress. These positions clearly conflict with President-elect Obama’s stated positions on these issues.
These professionals call for President-elect Obama to select leaders for these critically important positions who are committed to reducing the harms associated with both drugs and punitive drug laws and who will base their decisions on science rather than politics or ideology.
They call for leaders who will support evidence-based treatment across the spectrum including:
- Non-abstinence based interventions like Motivational Interviewing, opiate substitution treatment and abstinence oriented treatment for appropriately matched patients
- Integrated treatment for patients with co-occurring disorders
- Syringe exchange programs to halt the spread of HIV and hepatitis-C
They also call for leaders who will treat substance abuse and dependence as health issues rather than as criminal issues and be committed to:
1. Sentencing reform
2. Better educating criminal justice professionals associated with drug courts in the complexities of substance use problems and their treatment and
3. More fully involving clinical staff in decisions about individuals mandated by drug courts to treatment
The letter concludes, “There are many roads to recovery and recovery can take different paths…these views are in the best interests of individuals struggling with substance use disorders and all Americans9 D.
For a copy of the letter and a complete list of signatories, go to www.andrewtatarsky.com
Latin american scholars criticize Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela
Over a hundred scholars on Latin America have written an open letter to Human Rights Watch criticizing HRW’s recent report on alleged politcial suppression in Venezuela as being politically motivated, inaccurate, and based on biased and unreliable sources.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs has posted the letter, with this introduction:
December 18, 2008
The following letter has been sent to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, carrying the signatures of over 100 U.S. and foreign Latin American scholars. The letter raises serious concerns over that organization’s recently issued highly critical report on the human rights situation in Venezuela and the conduct of its president, Hugo Chavez. It is now being distributed by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs to its mailing list at the request of a number of signatories of that document. COHA’s staff is taking this step (with considerable reluctance) because it feels that it is obliged for any organization committed to social justice and democratic values, to speak out regarding the dispute now raging over HRW’s recent and very controversial report on Hugo Chavez’s human rights performance.Any reservation COHA may have had over taking issue with a sister organization was voided by the egregiously inappropriate behavior exhibited by HRW. Most specifically it was the issuance of this report and the needlessly venomous tone resorted to by HRW’s head for Latin America, Jose Miguel Vivanco. In his charges, HRW’s lead researcher and writer of the report used intemperate language and patently disingenuous tactics to field a series of anti-Chavez allegations that are excessive and inappropriate. It is not a matter that President Chavez and the Venezuelan government are above reproach—far from it. The problem is the presence of a mean-spirited tone and a lack of balance and fair play that characterizes Vivanco’s reportage and his tendentious interpretation of the alleged misdeeds of the Chavez revolution are demonstrably bereft of scale and accuracy.
The failings of Vivanco’s scholarship are strongly contested by the scholars’ letter and the research compiled by a brilliant student of contemporary Venezuela, Dr. Gregory Wilpert. His study, Smoke and Mirrors, can be found by clicking on this link: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3882#report
Vivanco demonstrates an inability to distinguish President Chavez’s bark from his bite; and it is a distortion to characterize the Venezuelan leader as a prime human rights violator, a charge which already has attracted a good deal of notoriety. In other words, Vivanco continuously confuses Chavez’ often shamelessly antic style for his otherwise solid, if brassy, democratic credentials. Of course, COHA’s pages will be opened for debate on these issues.
In continuing their discussion concerning the Vivanco’s HRW initiative regarding Chavez, the prevailing sentiment among many Latin Americanists, including those on COHA’s staff, is that some of Chavez’s critics, like the New York Times editorial board and Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post editorial page, have resorted to an unacceptable use of meretricious pseudo-evidence and naked anti-Chavez spleen to buttress their lashing out against the Venezuelan leader. According to the attached material, they also have resorted to the use of specious arguments and undeniable overkill, rather than a measured assessment and unassailable evidence, to make their case.
Some of Vivanco’s critics have come to believe that rather than making a fair-minded evaluation of Chavez’ undeniable shortcomings, Vivanco mainly has created a straw man and then proceeded to thunderously trash Chavez as a human rights violator, a thesis that the evidence he cites, will not admit. The matter is not so much Vivanco’s professional shortcomings as it is that it would be a shame if Human Rights Watch is permitted to become a replica of Freedom House, when throughout the Cold War the New York-based organization became a warehouse for duplicitous double standards, selective indignation and self-administered histrionics intent on establishing that, almost by definition, right-wing human rights derelictions are less condemnable than those of the left.
Larry Birns (COHA Director) and the COHA Staff
One hopes that HRW will respond seriously to this thoughtful letter. Meanwhile, fair criticism of democratic abuses in Venezuela by the government, and by the often authoritarian opposition, must continue.
Biden doesn’t rule out Bush admin prosecutions
On “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, Joe Biden was asked about prosecution of Bush administration officials for torture. He did not rule it out, but said it is up to the Justice Department to decide. On the negative, several times he said “I think we should be looking forward, not backwards.”
Biden Not Ruling Out Prosecuting Bush Officials For Prisoner Abuse
By George Stephanopoulos, December 21, 2008
The Senate Armed Services Committee last week released a unanimous report that said that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, at prisons around the world, is a direct and indirect result of decisions made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other high-level Bush administration officials.
So I asked the future vice president: Should they be prosecuted for that?
“That’s a judgment, remember, four years ago on your program I made, so I haven’t changed my mind. And this confirms,” Biden told me.
“But the questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is — is something the Justice Department decides.Barack Obama and I are — President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We’re focusing on the future,” he said.
Biden argued it’s up to the Justice Department, under Attorney General-designate Eric Holder, to determine whether the case should be reviewed.
“I’m not ruling it in and not ruling it out. I just think we should look forward. I think we should be looking forward, not backwards,” Biden said.
First independent medical exam for Guantanamo detainee
In a major Guantanamo development, for the first time a judge has ordered an independent medical evaluation for a detainee. The absence of independent medical evaluations has been one of the unmentioned scandals of the prison. Detainees have only been evaluated by medical personnel in the military chain of command. Unfortunately, the medical corp has lost much of its traditional professional autonomy under this administration.
Many of the detainees especially need independent mental health examinations. At present, they are usually only able to get evaluations or treatment from those who have closed their eyes to, or even covered for, the abuses that occurred and are occurring there. Thus, the mental health department assigns plenty of “personality disorder” (presumed long-standing and preexisting confinement) and virtually no post traumatic stress diagnoses, despite independent evaluations of released detainees finding near universal PTSD symptoms. Let s hope that this judicial order will set a new precedent.
Judge Orders Exam for Detainee
Guantanamo Prisoner Sought Independent Health EvaluationBy Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff WriterA federal judge has ordered an independent medical evaluation of a detainee at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, saying he is concerned about the man’s deteriorating health.
It is the first time a federal judge has taken such a step in a fight between detainees’ attorneys and the Justice Department over the mental and physical health of a handful of prisoners at the facility in Cuba.
The order concerns Ahmed Zaid Salem Zuhair, a Saudi who has been on a hunger strike since June 2005. Despite force-feeding by military personnel, Zuhair’s weight plummeted from 147 pounds in December 2007 to as little as 111 pounds in November, court records show.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said he was troubled by Zuhair’s weight loss and descriptions of his emaciated condition by his attorneys. Sullivan said he is appointing a medical expert to evaluate Zuhair because he wants to ensure that the detainee can “meaningfully participate” in his lawsuit challenging his detention. Zuhair’s lawyers say that the detainee does not trust military doctors and that they need an independent evaluation to better understand his illnesses.
The Justice Department opposed the request.
McClatchy Newspapers on torture trial prospects
McClatchy Newspapers discusses the (unlikely, as they see it) prospects for criminal prosecution of the torture officials. It sees that, in the opinion of the powerful, the laws do not apply to US officials, only MPs and torturers from other countries. He must exert enough pressure to prove them wrong in the long run. Otherwise, it is virtually inevitable that future administrations will turn again to torture.
Yes, we must start with a Truth Commission. But, for the sake of the future, accountability should not stop there. Lawbreaking by top officials should be criminally investigated, wherever it leads:
Will Bush officials face war crimes trials? Few expect it
By Marisa Taylor, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Emboldened by a Democratic win of the White House, civil libertarians and human rights groups want the incoming Obama administration to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes. They don’t just want low-level CIA interrogators, either. They want President George W. Bush on down.
In the past eight years, administration critics have demanded that top officials be held accountable for a host of expansive assertions of executive powers from eavesdropping without warrants to detaining suspected enemy combatants indefinitely at the Guantanamo Bay military prison. A recent bipartisan Senate report on how Bush policies led to the abuse of detainees has fueled calls for a criminal investigation.
But even some who believe top officials broke the law don’t favor criminal prosecutions. The charges would be too difficult legally and politically to succeed.
Without wider support, the campaign to haul top administration officials before an American court is likely to stall.
New report on current Guantanamo detainees
The Brookings Instituion has published a new study – The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study — that looks useful. Here is the Introduction:
The following report represents an effort both to document and to describe in as much detail as the public record will permit the current detainee population in American military custody at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. Since the military brought the first detainees to Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon has consistently refused to comprehensively identify those it holds. While it has, at various times, released information about individuals who have been detained at Guantánamo, it has always maintained ambiguity about the population of the facility at any given moment, declining even to specify precisely the number of detainees held at the base. In its most recent statements, for example, the military refers to the Guantánamo population as numbering “approximately 250.”[i] When the government repatriates detainees, it generally identifies the number of detainees transferred, but not their names.[ii]
The result is that despite a debate that has raged over American detention policy almost since the outset of the war on terrorism, the actual detainee population which the debate concerns remains strangely obscure. The current population numbers less than a third of the total number of detainees who have passed through the facility since 2002. And the composition of the population has changed markedly as it has declined. Yet precisely how it has changed remains fuzzy. Which detainees are still there and which have been sent home? What allegations does the military make against the residual population and how serious are they? How have the detainees responded to these allegations? Are they, as the Bush administration has described the Guantánamo population, the “worst of the worst”?[iii] Or are they composed, as the New York Times once put it, of “hundreds of innocent men . . . jailed at Guantánamo without charges or rudimentary rights”?[iv] Or do they, perhaps, vary? Much commentary on the merits of the American detention policy relates to a detainee population composed chiefly of people no longer at the base, as do a number of frequently-cited academic studies.[v]
Though one of the present authors has written broadly on detainee policy, our purpose in these pages is not to advocate any particular policy with respect to habeas corpus, closing Guantánamo, or detainee affairs more generally. Nor is it to take a position regarding whether the government is properly holding the Guantánamo detainees as enemy combatants—either individually or as a group. It is, rather, to identify and describe empirically who is at Guantánamo today, what the government alleges about them, and what they claim about their own affiliations and conduct.
The report proceeds as follows: In the following section, we briefly recount the history of the government’s document releases concerning the detainee population at Guantánamo. We then offer an overview of the demographics of the current population, based on our examination of these releases, and describe and analyze government allegations against the detainees who remain at Guantánamo. In the next section, we report and categorize the statements by the detainees themselves in the review procedures the military set up to evaluate their cases. In the penultimate section, we offer some concluding observations. Finally, we describe the sources and methods we used to identify the current population of the facility, and those transferred or released.
Smackdown of another torture defender
Former Iraq interrogator “Mathew Alexander” takes on torture [or, rather, "not torture" torture] defender David Rivkin on the Riz Khan show [AlJazeera]. I follow the interview with comments from Scott Horton:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Scott Horton comments:
What Motivates the Torture Enablers?
By Scott Horton
We’ve seen this scenario played out several times in the last week, as broadcasters and newspapers around the country see the Levin-McCain Report as an opportunity to debate torture, despite the logical fallacy of this approach. (Perhaps for Christmas proper we’ll be treated to arguments for and against genocide, and on the fourth day of Christmas we’ll read the arguments for and against the practice of infanticide.) We’ve been treated to Christopher Hitchens against Michael Smerconish, Duncan Hunter against Jim Moran, and now the Alexander versus Rivkin encounter.
There are some similarities: Torture works, the defenders of the Bush Administration say. Torture saves lives. The safety of our country depends on torture. But it didn’t depend on torture before George W. Bush. In fact, as the World War II era poster found in post offices around the country taught my parents’ generation, “Torture is the tool of the enemy.” It’s also the tool of Dick Cheney–go figure. And “Vice” himself has been heard this week. Torture is good for you, he told us. Torture is the moral thing to do. Duncan Hunter offered us the most surreal, inane defense of this thesis and David Rivkin the most nuanced.
Intentionally inflicted pain more severe that accidental, or SERE is not equivalent to torture
New research finds that pain is perceived as far more severe when it is inflicted intentionally, as with torture, or domestic violence. Thus, pain inflicted by SERE as a protective measure will likely be perceived as nowhere near as painful as pain inflicted upon a detainee. I suspect that yet another factor affecting pain intensity is whether one has the ability to leave the situation, as in SERE:
Pain: ‘Tis Better to Receive–Accidentally
By Sara Coelho, ScienceNOW Daily News
When a teammate crashes into you playing soccer, you’re likely to experience some pain. But if an opposing player hits you with the same amount of force, you’ll hurt a lot more. That’s the conclusion of a new study that finds that pain caused intentionally feels much worse than pain perceived as accidental.
While thinking about the debate over the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, psychologist Kurt Gray of Harvard University wondered whether the intent to deliver pain mattered. “Perhaps without this malicious intention, torture would not hurt as much,” he says.
Gray and Harvard colleague Daniel Wegner tested the hypothesis on 43 student volunteers, most of them female. Each volunteer was paired with a partner, who, unbeknownst to the volunteer, was a part of the research team. The volunteers were asked to perform several tasks chosen by the partner from a pair of options. One of the choices was between gauging the pain of electric shocks delivered by a stimulator tied to the volunteer’s wrist (on a scale of 1 to 7) and evaluating the relative pitch of different sounds. In one set of experiments, the partner selected the painful task whenever the shock or pitch choice came up; as a result, the volunteers felt that the partner was intentionally harming them. In the other set of experiments, the volunteers still received electric shocks, but they were told that the partner was not responsible.
As Gray suspected, intention mattered. Even though the intensity of the electric shock was the same throughout the experiment, the volunteers reported more pain (on average 5.64 out of 7) when they thought the partner was making them endure it on purpose than when the shock was not given knowingly (average 2.17). Moreover, when the volunteers felt that the shocks were unintentional, they got used to them, reporting less pain as time went on. Every “intentional” shock hurt as much as the first, however, because the malice of the intention kept it stinging, the authors reported 15 December in Psychological Science. These results, the team suggests, might help explain why torture is so difficult to endure–knowing that harm is intentional makes it even more painful.
Christopher Brown, a neuroscientist at Manchester University in the United Kingdom, calls the study a welcome step toward further understanding social effects on pain. He says he’s curious about what effect these sorts of experiments have on the partner–versus on the volunteer. “I’d be excited to see future work looking at whether a person who is intentionally harming another experiences some kind of pain relief.”
