Deliberate Acts of Cruelty
Why did they torture?
Torture is against the law. It is always wrong. It shocks the conscience. It shames the nation. It now turns out it was shaped by psychologists. Even before it was "legally authorized." Let's look at the facts.
Abu Zubaida was captured in March of 2002. And for the first two weeks, during which time his wounds (from being captured) were treated, he was questioned in a non-threatening manner by the FBI. He was cooperative and gave valuable information, the most important of which was the name of Kalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.
Two weeks after the initial interrogations, the treatment was changed:
By the summer it was changed drastically:
Psychologists would have known about the experiments where volunteers were willing to follow orders given by a psychologist, to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to persons who failed to "learn" a task. Who better, then, to utilize that information so as to enforce compliance with the torture program they designed?
Psychologists would have known that the first rule of our profession, as in medicine is: Do no harm.
So why did they torture?
Like everyone else in this despicable torture "program" the psychologists and physicians were carefully selected. Nothing was left to chance. Lawyers were willing participants, ready to bend the law to achieve the aims of extracting information via torture. Psychologists were willing participants, ready to use their skills and knowledge against human persons to achieve the aims of personality breakdown as enablers of the interrogation process.
How was this accomplished? Via psychological assessment. Of both a prisoner and his torture designers and monitors:
If you were able to stomach the so-called DoJ "authorization" to torture Zubaida, you saw the description of his personality. And rather than "weak points" they describe him as resilient, they seem to have built a case for why it is necessary to break down his personality:
So they built a "case" - using psychological assessment - of a person they describe as so strong and so resilient that nothing but torture will break him down. So I am asking:
Let's subject that report to the same careful scrutiny as these torture memos.
Because that report was used to "justify" stepping up the interrogation in ways that broke the law.
Mind you, all of this was done well before any secret legal memos purported to "legalize" torture! And mind you, torture is always 100% wrong, unethical, illegal.
A detainee, held in secret, without recourse to the Red Cross, without recourse to any legal protection, was systematically probed by psychologists for his weak points, while described by these same psychologists as so strong and resilient that only torture would break him down. The point of the torture was personality breakdown. And its willing designers were psychologists.
Personality breakdown is not temporary. Personality breakdown is, in effect, a state of permanent mental torture, where nightmares and flashbacks and every other sort of PTSD symptom becomes one's daily life. All of that happening while the person remains jailed in secret, subjected to isolation, humiliation, degradation and deprivations of every sort. Induced mental illness of the worst possible sort - and left to languish in solitary confinement with no legal recourse.
This is what we've done to a human person. (Even animal research would never allow such treatment.)
We have legal memos supposedly justifying torture. Where were the ethicists?
Personality breakdown of Abu Zubaida was the aim. Some say he was crazy to start with. Some claim he was mentally strong as a rock. The latter claim was used to justify torture. But either way, torture is wrong.
But there was another effect. His captors were also traumatized by what they witnessed. They were traumatized watching a man systematically degraded and dehumanized, stripped of clothing, deprived of sleep and adequate nutrition, forced to listen to deafening sounds, to endure cold, to endure painful forced positions, to endure physical abuse of the worst sort. The captors had to watch this. This too is a kind of torture. Imagine yourself - forced to watch, day by day, as a human being is deliberately MADE to break down physically and mentally. Even an animal would get better treatment than they gave this human person. And others.
Permanent personality breakdown. A lifetime of PTSD symptoms. Of nightmares. Flashbacks. Depression. Anxiety. A living hell - deliberately induced - after they knew he really had nothing more to tell.
Where are these other poor souls that we now know are also suffering, likely from PTSD symptoms, simply from having been forced to witness someone break down right in front of their eyes? We know the health care personnel were carefully selected (sadists?). What about the regular CIA interrogators? Where are they? How many folks are now on disability? With possibly a lifetime of PTSD symptoms - due to watching the dehumanization of a human person? Oh, they're out there. We now have proof:
I'm beginning to think that the reason why there will be no prosecutions of lower level folks is because the government knows they too have broken down mentally, they too are emotional wrecks, and if they were brought to trial, then we would have the public acknowledgment, based on psychological assessments - that torture destroys normal human personalities on both sides of the torture chamber. Unless, of course, they have been carefully screened to make certain they won't break down.
What type of personality does not break down watching torture - day after day? You be the judge. Among them, likely, the health care professionals, carefully screened - to not break down.
How did they know to carefully screen them to not break down?
Torture is against the law. It is always wrong. It shocks the conscience. It shames the nation. It now turns out it was shaped by psychologists. Even before it was "legally authorized." Let's look at the facts.
Abu Zubaida was captured in March of 2002. And for the first two weeks, during which time his wounds (from being captured) were treated, he was questioned in a non-threatening manner by the FBI. He was cooperative and gave valuable information, the most important of which was the name of Kalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.
Two weeks after the initial interrogations, the treatment was changed:
A C.I.A. interrogation team that arrived a week or two later, which included former military psychologists, did not change the approach to questioning, but began to keep him awake night and day with blasting rock music, have his clothes removed and keep his cell cold.
By the summer it was changed drastically:
When the CIA began what it called an "increased pressure phase" with captured terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida in the summer of 2002, its first step was to limit the detainee's human contact to just two people. One was the CIA interrogator, the other a psychologist.
During the extraordinary weeks that followed, it was the psychologist who apparently played the more critical role. According to newly released Justice Department documents, the psychologist provided ideas, practical advice and even legal justification for interrogation methods that would break Abu Zubaida, physically and mentally. Extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding, the use of insects to provoke fear -- all were deemed acceptable, in part because the psychologist said so.
Psychologists would have known about the experiments where volunteers were willing to follow orders given by a psychologist, to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to persons who failed to "learn" a task. Who better, then, to utilize that information so as to enforce compliance with the torture program they designed?
Psychologists would have known that the first rule of our profession, as in medicine is: Do no harm.
So why did they torture?
Like everyone else in this despicable torture "program" the psychologists and physicians were carefully selected. Nothing was left to chance. Lawyers were willing participants, ready to bend the law to achieve the aims of extracting information via torture. Psychologists were willing participants, ready to use their skills and knowledge against human persons to achieve the aims of personality breakdown as enablers of the interrogation process.
How was this accomplished? Via psychological assessment. Of both a prisoner and his torture designers and monitors:
The CIA dispatched personnel from its office of medical services to each secret prison and evaluated medical professionals involved in interrogations "to make sure they could stand up, psychologically handle it," according to a former CIA official.
.........
The agency then used a psychological assessment of Abu Zubaida to find his vulnerable points.
If you were able to stomach the so-called DoJ "authorization" to torture Zubaida, you saw the description of his personality. And rather than "weak points" they describe him as resilient, they seem to have built a case for why it is necessary to break down his personality:
He is confident, self- assured and possesses an air of authority. ... He is intelligent and intellectually curious. He displays "excellent self-discipline." The assessment describes him as a perfectionist, persistent, private, and highly capable in his social interactions. He is very guarded about opening up to others... tends not to trust others easily. He is also "quick to recognize the moods and motivations of others." Furthermore he is proud of his ability to lie and deceive others successfully.
So they built a "case" - using psychological assessment - of a person they describe as so strong and so resilient that nothing but torture will break him down. So I am asking:
Where is that report? Where is the raw data upon which that assessment was made? Where are the tapes that would prove how uncooperative they say he was? Where are the tapes that would prove how narcissistic and unbreakable he was deemed to be? Does the psychological report really "fit" the raw data?
Let's subject that report to the same careful scrutiny as these torture memos.
Because that report was used to "justify" stepping up the interrogation in ways that broke the law.
Mind you, all of this was done well before any secret legal memos purported to "legalize" torture! And mind you, torture is always 100% wrong, unethical, illegal.
A detainee, held in secret, without recourse to the Red Cross, without recourse to any legal protection, was systematically probed by psychologists for his weak points, while described by these same psychologists as so strong and resilient that only torture would break him down. The point of the torture was personality breakdown. And its willing designers were psychologists.
Personality breakdown is not temporary. Personality breakdown is, in effect, a state of permanent mental torture, where nightmares and flashbacks and every other sort of PTSD symptom becomes one's daily life. All of that happening while the person remains jailed in secret, subjected to isolation, humiliation, degradation and deprivations of every sort. Induced mental illness of the worst possible sort - and left to languish in solitary confinement with no legal recourse.
This is what we've done to a human person. (Even animal research would never allow such treatment.)
We have legal memos supposedly justifying torture. Where were the ethicists?
Personality breakdown of Abu Zubaida was the aim. Some say he was crazy to start with. Some claim he was mentally strong as a rock. The latter claim was used to justify torture. But either way, torture is wrong.
But there was another effect. His captors were also traumatized by what they witnessed. They were traumatized watching a man systematically degraded and dehumanized, stripped of clothing, deprived of sleep and adequate nutrition, forced to listen to deafening sounds, to endure cold, to endure painful forced positions, to endure physical abuse of the worst sort. The captors had to watch this. This too is a kind of torture. Imagine yourself - forced to watch, day by day, as a human being is deliberately MADE to break down physically and mentally. Even an animal would get better treatment than they gave this human person. And others.
Permanent personality breakdown. A lifetime of PTSD symptoms. Of nightmares. Flashbacks. Depression. Anxiety. A living hell - deliberately induced - after they knew he really had nothing more to tell.
Where are these other poor souls that we now know are also suffering, likely from PTSD symptoms, simply from having been forced to witness someone break down right in front of their eyes? We know the health care personnel were carefully selected (sadists?). What about the regular CIA interrogators? Where are they? How many folks are now on disability? With possibly a lifetime of PTSD symptoms - due to watching the dehumanization of a human person? Oh, they're out there. We now have proof:
Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.
Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, "seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect."
I'm beginning to think that the reason why there will be no prosecutions of lower level folks is because the government knows they too have broken down mentally, they too are emotional wrecks, and if they were brought to trial, then we would have the public acknowledgment, based on psychological assessments - that torture destroys normal human personalities on both sides of the torture chamber. Unless, of course, they have been carefully screened to make certain they won't break down.
What type of personality does not break down watching torture - day after day? You be the judge. Among them, likely, the health care professionals, carefully screened - to not break down.
How did they know to carefully screen them to not break down?
Advertisement
We, as a nation, were supposed to be better than this.
We, as a people, must be.
April 18, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, LisB. Amen.
April 18, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You consider these actions to be torture?
After hearing everybody accuse Bush of being a "torturer" I was expecting to read about electrocution, decapitation, dismemberment, execution, etc.
April 18, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to hear your conscience is not shocked...
April 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which acts do you consider to be torture?
April 18, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of them
April 18, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, two--possibly three or all--of the four acts you mention are not torture. Decapitation and execution are like the opposite of torture. People being tortured--living a nightmare--would pray for execution. Bill, think this through.
April 18, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did think it through. I guess I shouldn't have brought up those other acts. My point is that the stuff described in those memos doesn't seem like torture to me
April 19, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, think of it like this. Torture is not about inflicting the greatest amount of pain. Torture is about inflicting the greatest amount of fear.
If torture's aim was to inflict the greatest amount of pain, then yes you would be correct. Things like knives under fingernails and gasoline in open wounds would be torture. But if torture is about inflicting the greatest amount of fear, then putting people in certain situations or making them believe certain things would be the worst kind of torture.
Because, Bill, ultimately fear is about belief/anticipation. You're afraid if you believe/anticipate something really awful is about to happen--whether it's that you're going to drown, or that the object of your greatest fear is going to present itself to you.
I understand your confusion. I think you're just mistaking the objective of torture.
April 19, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the "greatest amount of fear" is existential disintegration/existential horror - as a person faces the abyss that they are trapped in horror, face to face with a total absence of human compassion - whatever that word would be. That endless hell of "another" who acts contrary to everything we think of as humane - that the prisoner is face to face with something unthinkable, another "person" out to destroy their own humanity, out to do everything to eradicate their worth and dignity. (I can't even put it into words - but it is the horror of seeing pure evil in the face and actions of another.)
April 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I think of it theatrically--since words just won't do.
Torture is an actor turning a character into a prop.
To be a character and experience an actor turning you into a prop is to experience what Marlin Brando described as "the horror... the horror."
And you're so right: it's existential horror and existential disintegration. This does not necessarily entail physical pain. It doesn't have to. To lose your personhood is the greatest pain of all.
April 19, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not just a prop. A prop to be tinkered with. Exploited. Experimented with. Smashed. Thrown. Treated as garbage. An actor treated as garbage.
You're so right. Because it's an "interaction" where one party alone determines the next cruelty.
April 19, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great call. I was thinking of it in 3D, you're thinking of it in 4D. It's not just to be a prop. It's to be at the whim of the actor. Once the process is "successful," it's to be totally under control. Unless you count volition over your bodily functions (stages 1 and 2). As if that holds any meaning when you're turned into a toilet.
April 19, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thus the "terrible intimacy" aspect of torture.
April 19, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
April 19, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think torture is different from fear. If I can get one of the prisoners to think that they're going to die because of something I might do to them in the future, and that causes them to give me valuable information, then I don't think that necessarily tortured them. Someone thinking they are going to die is not necessarily severe mental pain or suffering.
April 19, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that threats of death are specifically outlawed under Geneva and the torture conventions. A threat of death is considered an act of torture.
April 19, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did the US make death threats at the prisoners?
April 19, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You mentioned it above and said you did not think it was torture! But even the torture memos agree that it would be!!!! Sad that.
April 19, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I said anything about death threats being made at the prisoners.
April 19, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you did Bill. Up above. I'm quoting you:
April 19, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that the prisoners were receiving death threats. I said that they thought they would die. I think there's a difference.
April 19, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, the kind of fear that I'm talking about is not fear of death. It's worse than that. Again, you would pray for death over certain kinds of mental anguish. The breakdown of your personality--the splintering of your ego--is mental crucifixion. At some point in the crucifixion process, say several days in, don't you think death would be a HOPE--not a fear.
Let's distinguish between two different kinds of fear. There's fear of death and then there's fear of life--life as nightmare. The ultimate aim of torture is fear of life. Bill, think that through.
April 19, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, many of these folks try to kill themselves. They want to die!
April 19, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've thought it through. And it doesn't seem as bad as everyone makes it ought to be.
April 19, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you wouldn't mind it, huh? Personally - done to you...
April 19, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely would not enjoy it if done to me. It's probably why I haven't committed any terrorist acts against our country.
But just because I wouldn't want it done to me does not mean that it's torture.
April 19, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you might want to think about what you're saying.
"I definitely would not enjoy it if done to me. It's probably why I haven't committed any terrorist acts against our country."
Any other reason why you haven't committed terrorist acts? Other than what would happen if you got caught? Anything about the act itself being wrong? Just wondering...
April 19, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure there are other reasons. Like the one you mentioned that it would be wrong. But being locked up is also certainly a deterrant
April 19, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that the "life as nightmare" phenomena does not exist, or that personality breakdown could not cause "life as nightmare," or that these techniques in the memos could not cause personality breakdown?
You say, "it's not as bad as everyone makes it out to be." What's not? The techniques? You think that the human psyche is impenetrable? You think that you're so strong that your personality would never break? You think that you have not a single weakness?
Bill, if you value anything in this world, anything at all, then "torture" (properly understood as the induction of fear of life) means that whatever you value would be stolen from you and destroyed in front of your eyes. Your reality, your beliefs, your worth, your relationships, and most importantly you yourself... gone. Not so bad??? How are you going to make that judgment??? What would be left to say, "this isn't that bad." You're not there anymore "Bill"
April 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to add that torture involves both physical and mental/emotional pain or the fear of future pain/loss. The memo I saw mentioning waterboarding made it quite clear that the effect is subconscious or unconscious -- they told the detainee what they were going to do, and the detainee experiences a physiological as well as psychological reaction. Bill is just ignoring the basic evidence in the memos.
Bill is also mistaken about death threats. People who do not fear death will not be moved by death threats, so there again the fear is the factor in the torture. I didn't see you or TheraP mention this aspect.
Bill is simply looking to minimize, but he's doing so quite illogically and probably irrationally. It's hard to believe he's sincere (not a polite troll). It could be he represents a kind of '24' viewer extremist mentality which does factor in as a political force to be dealt with even if marginal. And not just '24', but other fiction which depicts torture in ways which might become archetypical and thus focal points for attention which distract from the realities of torture.
April 19, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, Hannah Arendt spoke of the banality of evil while discussing the crimes in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, I suggest you find a copy and read it - and think about it.
April 18, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if it wasn't torture, then they just weren't doing everything they could to protect us from the evil-doers! And we're America,dammit, when we torture, we go for the gold.
I was once told that the Shah of Iran (installed after the CIA-led coup against their modern, moderate and democratically elected president) used to cut a small slit in a prisoner's scrotum and pour in hot lead. Would that satisfy your definition?
You see, that sounds like a very painful thing and that kind of torture is all about the severest physical pain. But, regardless of denials, our enhanced torture also used pain but in combination with scientifically researched psychological torment such as constant psychological harassment, degradation, deprivations and convincing threats of death.
That the pain was targeted, controlled(only 20 minutes of waterboarding at a time), prolonged, and combined physical and psychological methods for effect does equate to severe torture.
In this excellent article on our torture lite (as much as was known in 2003) Mark Bowden gives a rundown of CIA history of experimentation. They found that sensory and sleep deprivation were more effective than the other methods they were trying like LSD. Anyway, even if it was only "torture lite," it was still illegal torture and done in our name.
April 19, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 19, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go with that definition.
April 19, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what the UN definition is. But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the actions described in the memo meet this definition or not. In my opinion they don't fit under the definition of severe pain or suffering.
April 19, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you're only going to agree if you've "been there/done that" and of course we're not going to put you through it. For years unending.
April 19, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree if I thought those acts violated the UN's definition of torture. But I don't think they did.
April 19, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."
April 19, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You conveniently did not read the next 4 words "whether physical or mental."
April 19, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the whole thing. And I just don't think that the acts done were done to inflict severe pain or suffering, physical or mental.
April 19, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, sounds like you're willing to excuse the behavior because they had purity of intention in your view. By that definitely, they should be able to pull out toenails and so on. As long as their intentions are pure.
I understand you want to believe these are people with the purest of intentions. And you're trying to convince the majority of people here that a "pure end" justifies any means.
I hope it never happens to you.
April 19, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never used the word "purity". But the actions are only considered torture if the intention is severe pain or suffering. I don't consider what they did to be severe pain or suffering, physical or mental.
And I also never said that "any means" is justified. There are plenty of acts that I would consider torture and I would not approve of them
April 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are one sick puppy.... get help!
April 19, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, because I'm part of the one-third of Americans that don't think any investigation is needed for these "torture" claims? (At least that was the latest poll numbers I saw)
April 20, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I hear they're looking for a tour guide at the Bush Legacy Library. You may be just the man for the job.
April 19, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can think I'm crazy. But based on some recent polls, only two-thirds of the country feels there should be investigations of this "torture". I'm assuming that if you are in favor of an investigation then you think torture took place.
So that means that only one-third of the country agrees with me. Maybe if the minority was closer to single-digits then you'd have some ground to stand on when you put me in the lunatic fringe.
April 19, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I don't think you're crazy. I just think you're only perceiving one level of the issue--and you're convincing yourself that this one level is the only level to the issue.
In reality, torture is a very complex thing. It's painful to even think about some of it. If this isn't painful for you to think about, then you're probably blocking an empathic level. I don't know why, maybe something traumatic has happened in your past, you haven't dealt with it, and so to activate your empathic level means that past pain floods your whole system. So instead, you would rather ignore it.
I don't think that makes you crazy. I just think that's a poor strategy for living. And every day is another day to change strategies.
April 19, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill correctly questions the standard for "severe" but we have a preliminary answer in the text which Bill also conveniently ignores:
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
The only pain and suffering explicitly ruled out as NOT torture is specifically that. So any added pain or suffering *inflicted* on a detainee etc. is a reasonable grounds for a claim that torture occurred. That is, absent further definition of "severe" we have a working definition.
That Bill ignores such obvious factors is simply dishonesty on his part. But you probably knew that...
April 19, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, this is from the diagnostic criteria for anti social personality disorder.
Three or more of the following are required:[1]
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
April 19, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell ya what torture is; it's listening to these BushCo apologists define what "is" is.
April 19, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The ceaseless indignation and outrage is cruel, but...spare me the Torture."
April 19, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must know the enemy, however harrowing the crimes and we must be on first hand terms with the appalling abuses of power to immunize ourselves from evil.
April 19, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye!
April 18, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York Times, Lead Sunday Editorial is The Torturer's Manifesto:
And more... here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html?ref=opinion
April 18, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this post, TheraP. As a psychologist, I was dumbfounded with the APA's position on this. (Thankfully modified).
I was once a faculty member in a clinical graduate program. I'm not a clinician, but as you probably know, "non-clinicians" (as we were referred to, hilariously, I thought) taught the clinical graduate students. One person continues to haunt me whenever I think about the role psychologists played in our government's policy of torture. He was an undisciplined individual who wasn't interested very much in learning about his field--he was mostly interested in getting his degree and getting out. And the quality of his work reflected that.
Once he was out, after his internship, he started working for the government, and served as a consultant on the issue of treatment of prisoners.
You're right: they were chosen carefully.
April 18, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the most compassionate members of the psych dept in my grad program were not clinical psychologists....
This is so agonizing. But it had to be written by a psychologist. It sickens me.
April 18, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, as a clinical social worker, I am aghast at what kind of convoluted process must have rounded up the willing helpers from our (yours and mine and CT Voter's and no doubt others here) professions.
The project evolved via a reverse engineering of the SERE program, used to teach our own military how to withstand torture. And they used the Learned Helplessness principles developed by Martin E.P. Seligman, a trail blazer psychologist. What a twisted thing to do. I have the clear sense, by the way, that he was "used" early on without knowingly participating as it evolved. I hope that is the case.
Thanks for this post. It draws a brilliant bright line just where it's needed.
It is early on with this and we're impatient. But we must be, huh?
April 18, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's early in the Obama administration, but 6 years, for me, since I was concerned about this. Yes, it is hard to be patient. But we're after Justice. And Justice is a very slow process.
I agree that for any of us in the helping professions this is a very dark time. Very dark!
April 18, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carrol, I don't think Seligman was innocent in this at all. From Counterpunch:
These techniques apparently drew heavily on the theory of "learned helplessness" developed by former American Psychological Association President Martin Seligman. (Seligman’s work involved tormenting dogs with electrical shocks until they became totally unable or unwilling to extract themselves from the painful situation. Hence the phrase “learned helplessness.”),/i>
First do no harm, indeed. What kind of trail blazing was Seligman doing? He went on to lecture at the CIA (and Drs. Jessen and Mitchell who were most responsible for the reverse SERE program also followed him). The APA, despite loud protest from its members, basically endorsed the program and agreeing with Seligman (who was not opposed to torture).
As Mary2002 points out below Jane Mayer has been out front on this all along: But at the Nuremberg trials, after the Second World War, revulsion at Nazi atrocities led to the establishment of rules barring medical mistreatment, even for reasons of national security. A section of the 1950 Geneva Convention, for example, states that “no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned.” In 1962, the U.S. passed the first law requiring doctors to obtain “informed consent” from patients. And in 1975 the World Medical Association, or W.M.A., issued the Declaration of Tokyo, which barred medical personnel from participation in either torture or abuse, even as monitors. The American Medical Association is a member of the W.M.A., which means that U.S. doctors must follow its ethical standards.
The methods they developed were meant as a scheme or combination of torture practices, not any single application of some “technique” like stress positions. The objective is, as TherP says, a psychological breakdown and many were permanently damaged; many committed suicide. I don’t know much about this but it seems like sensory deprivation or a week without sleep would probably do it alone, but as the guards at Abu Ghraib were told, the detainees have to be “softened up first”.
What fails to get much attention in all this is that many, probably a majority, of these "terrorist enemy combatants," with no rights as human beings, who were physically and psychologically tortured were and are-
innocent.
April 18, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so horrifying to me, Don, to consider that psychologists used so much research "backwards" - to implement the opposite of "do no harm" - the utter opposite of what our profession "should" stand for. Oh, the horror! But I buy what you're saying - hard as it is to swallow.
April 19, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I very much appreciate your clarification. I had not been following the Psychological Assn. aspect of the torture history. What you report does not sound like Seligman was used, much as I hate to know it.
April 19, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know they say that evil dwells where good men do nothing but I’ve no doubt that most medical practitioners (as well as soldiers, military lawyers, etc.) were vehemently opposed to this, just as in wars past where retired generals were the first to speak up against wrongheaded misadventures.
But the clamdown was on. I think there were many individuals trying to stop this stuff but were dismissed by the powerful establishment including the media. Reporters exposing and condemning this as early as 2002 went mostly unheard by the broader public and warnings unheeded. It seems like a failure of institutions all around. The whole system was poisoned from the top down. It was not only SERE that was reverse engineered but much of the Constitution.
An imbalance has been instated and power needs to be restored to the people not the elite. Reformers need to take back the implements of power both in government and the institutions that colluded with them (one reason I was vehemently opposed to telecom immunity). Did those that were in power believe they were doing the right thing? It don’t know if it really matters.
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.-Hannah Arendt
April 19, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior to the Bush Administration, it would have been ridiculous to even ask the question "How much torture is too much torture?" Now, we split hairs trying to justify embracing terrorism in this effort to supposedly fight terrorism.
April 18, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let us take a trip to hell - and call it necessary."
That's what they've done!
April 18, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, SleepinJesus, I wish you were right. We all need to stand up to this crappola. When I was a young man, in the mid 1960s, I was trained as a counterintelligence agent at the U.S. Army Intelligence School, then located at Ft. Holabird, Maryland. We had an instructor tell us that, "The United States of America does not torture people." He then spent a week giving us, in obscene detail, the manner in which the Germans, the Russians, the Japanese, and others tortured people in various wars in order to get them to talk. At the end of that time, he said simply, "We do what we have to do." End of those classes. Officially, we did not torture. The memory of what he taught us lingers with me. Disgusting!
April 19, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. What manner of people would know that, and are they people that should be leading this Nation, ever?
April 18, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, to me, dear bwak, is the most chilling thought here! They knew. They knew this was going to be "so terrible" that normal humans would break down just watching it!
Now.... what does that tell us about Condi Rice and her little team of torture-watchers?
April 18, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, Thera, it tells us what I've been saying about it all along. These people are doing it because they get off on human suffering. It is as food and drink to them. Something about meting out carefully measured (and gradually increasing) doses of misery excites them in ways I'd really rather not consider too long or too thoroughly.
And they seek out the minions who are both sadistic enough in their own right and pliable enough with regard to "authority" to carry that infliction of misery out, as they are then able to stand at a distance, disclaim their own involvement in the name of "bad apples", and keep their own hands (relatively) clean.
No doubt this makes me sound a real misanthrope. Well, to a certain extent I am. We as a species have a very dark and dangerous side.
April 18, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't sound like a misanthrope to me!
You sound eminently realistic!
April 18, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference?
April 18, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is. A true misanthrope, is pessimistic and does not really care about the human condition. (At least that's my read.)
April 18, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is any more disquieting, disgusting element to this entire issue than the fact doctors - physicians - were present at the torture sessions. First, do no harm. What happened to that oath? Where did they file away their consciences? Under what bushel did they hide their humanity?
Great post, TheraP.
April 18, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, SF Curt. Yes, it's a disgusting thing! Deeply shameful - especially given how psychologists designed this!
They were deliberately picked for this. I am sure of it!
They must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
April 18, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another scary example of how we're following in the footsteps of our 20th century German friends.
It doesn't surprise me at bit that we can elect people who do the wrong thing. What terrifies me is that the opposition party enables them to do it again by refusing to hold them accountable.
April 18, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. There is no one looking very good in this.
It's time to take responsibility, and demand responsibility.
April 18, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sign the petition - asking Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Prosecutor
April 18, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Signed and contributed. Thanks for the link, Thera.
April 18, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you!!!! Would you ever have thought we'd need to do this? (rhetorical question)
April 18, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, signed. Any way of making noise is good. Petitions, letter, emails, phone calls, blogs. Just keep making noise.
April 18, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got another one in email
http://www.democrats.com/no-amnesty-for-torturers
April 18, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-Signed.
April 18, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rawk!
April 18, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not given up yet. I maintain a firm conviction that investigations and prosecutions must take place. And it would terrify me too if it did not!
The repubs are itching to get their power back. But let us call for more and more to come out. Let us keep asking for more info. We must do this. I simply can't throw in the towel here - or we are done for as a nation!
April 18, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far, APA and AMA have not responded to my requests for a statement about the ICRC report. Nor has the White House, or any of my elected representatives. I assume that they are busy shredding stuff. Remember the fire in Cheney office? Government by the money and for the money.
April 18, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It took until last Fall to get the APA (for psychologists) to take a stand against torture (and even that is tepid, in my view). The AMA's stand is, and has been, very stringent: You can't watch it; you must report it.
I well recall the fire in cheney's office. I also recall the reports of huge paper-shredding trucks outside the VP's residence for at least a month several years back.
My hope is whistle-blowers. Maybe these same folks who are traumatized by having watched torture. We may yet see these tapes surface - or maybe they have already surfaced but that info is right now classified. I have no doubt more info will come to light. It is inevitable!
Keep pressing for that info on the ICRC report! Good going!!!
April 18, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, whistleblowing is more often than not a certain means of derailing your life - I speak from experience.
So what do we do? Send lots of e-mails, question our elected officials (I hesitate to say leaders). Or take a page from the French and protest in the streets, call general strikes. After all a lot of people will be at loose ends due to the economy. No justice, no peace perhaps?
April 18, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. TheraP and I know that from personal experience as well.
But here's the thing: If some of these people who were closely involved in the torture are now disabled and thus no longer able to work, they know a lot. And they have nothing to lose now! Indeed, it may be healing to them if they come forward and tell what they know.
We cannot expect that everyone will come forward. All it takes is a few.
And kudos to you for your whistle-blowing stand - whatever it was for.
April 18, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn’t really know what torture meant until I saw the photos of Abu Ghraib. It was no longer abstract. We all know now so how can we let the government get away with it? As a nation we witnessed it and therefore are victims too. We became the terrorists. Surely we have it in us to find a way back to compassion and sanity – I hope.
Torture destroys human beings. The only way for reconciliation to occur is for us as a society to go through the long process of truth, and justice. Torture carries pain to the infinite. There is no way to dismiss torture as if it were ever justified because some AG or lawyers thought so. I cannot accept the President’s statement – I signed the petition (above). For national healing to ever proceed we must continue to resist this false absolution. Forgiveness is way down the road…
Excellent post. Thank you TheraP.
April 18, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, stratofrog, for a beautiful comment and for your commitment that we face the truth and heal as a nation.
April 18, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder where the pressure for this came from. I suspect, ad hoc, Cheney. He pressured the CIA for info suitable to justify an attack on Iraq. Why should we think he didn't pressure them to do this too?
If the pressure didn't from the top down, then it came from some middle source(s). But would that be a kind of mid-level cabal or just overeager managers NOT subject to pressure from their bosses?
April 18, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know that a group, including Condi Rice and cheney and others, watched torture sessions. They were literally "signing off" on such behavior. I'll see if I can get a link for you.
There are many speculations about how this occurred, eds. One is that they wanted excuses to prolong the wars. Another, that they were trying to find excuses for having taken so many nobodies into custody. Sadism? Could be that too.
I think your fingering of cheney is likely correct. As he had his own chain of command and was obsessed with intelligence gathering - to fit his preordained view of the world.
Thanks for your questions.
April 18, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is as close as I can get at the moment:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256
April 18, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That article contradicts the story going around that nothing much was learned after torture:
TheraP: "he was questioned in a non-threatening manner by the FBI. He was cooperative and gave valuable information, the most important of which was the name of Kalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11."
ABC: "After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh. "
The article also suggests that valuable info was given by Mohammad after waterboarding.
So, who is lying?
I'm not justifying the methods here, btw.
On the larger topic of the thread -- cruelty is a pretty broad notion as indicated by this entry for 'cruel':
2 = sadism
3 requires "great pain or distress"
I don't see anyone that we know of in the USA's chain of torture fitting 2. 4 seems unremarkable. 1 is pretty vague. So, are you talking about 3? That requires a standard of pain or distress in order to establish "great" as something like "8 or more on a scale of 10". I think the psychologists and lawyers etc. were there not to torture but to maintain an orderly and controlled environment in which conduct approaching or perhaps exceeding definitions of torture would occur.
"first do no harm" applies to medicine (and I suppose to psychology outside of strict medicine), in a diagnostic, therapeutic or research setting.
Bush's statement that "we don't torture" could be true, ignorant, or a lie. Waterboarding as described in the memos as creating physiological and psychologically based perceptual equivalents to drowning surely amounts to imposition of "great distress".
We have the OLC memos. Are there any memos which presented an alternative or contrary view (eg, that some or all of the techniques were torture or violations of treaties or US law), and did anyone on the Principals Committee consider them seriously? Do the OLC memos in a close reading overtly approve torture or are they parsed to only suggest that?
April 18, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, you rolled a lot into one comment!
Cruel - as you say:
Yes, they willfully did it! It was cruel. They were out to cause personality breakdowns. That is cruel. It was deliberate. And it was designed by psychologists - who would have known the results.
First do no harm is exactly what the psychologists and medical personnel are ethically bound to carry out.
Problem with the OLC memos is that they carefully screened for the lawyers who would do their bidding. And there is no evidence, according to the legal folks, that they looked at the law in any way except to try and circumvent it. Many legal experts view these torture memos as very poorly reasoned from a legal point of view.
As for the link above, it was the best I could do, but it's not the best link. You can search for a better one if you have the time.
April 18, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The title of this post is a "counterpoint" to this other post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/04/deliberate-acts-of-kindness.php
And you could also consider this post to be the flip side of the post related to Erikson's Stage 8:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/04/people-of-wisdom-part-iv-of-a.php
April 18, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Boy, you rolled a lot into one comment!"
Yes, there were 4 simple points.
We don't agree about cruelty. I accept #3, you base your argument on #1. But not all knowingly inflicted pain or distress is properly called cruelty in general. We don't live in "nice-nice" world, and from kids to adults, sometimes what other people knowingly do causes us pain or distress. Thus I require additional criteria, whether as to quantity or quality (thus a scale of 0-10 as a start).
We can hope that more info about the workings of the Committee come out.
And I'm not defending an assault on a personality...
If you think all interrogations are cruel to the point of torture, that's a defensible but radical and anti-pragmatic position. If you accept some interrogations, then where is the line drawn between the acceptable and the unacceptable? Whatever your point in this blog, I think this is the large-view question for politics and conscience.
April 18, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace be with you.
April 18, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Coleman on the record and others in many articles and in Suskind's and Mayer's and Grey's books offer some insight into your question on info derived after he was waterboarded. As they point out, there are other known sources for the info on KSM's location and Ramzi bin al-Shibh's location. So they are pretty adamant that this is just tack on from the CIA. The Karachi safehouse location came from an al-Jazeera reporter per most sources.
So, who is lying? Well, go read Suskind's and Mayer's books, get all the info on the disclosed sources of that info, read up on Daniel Coleman then ask yourself, who has the reason to lie? Coleman et al (who can point to the alternative sourcing as well, and who were integrally tied to and vested in tracknig down al-Qaeda and who wanted info themselves pretty desparately) or CIA torturers?
Re: not seeing anything that brings sadism to mind, again, it depends on what all you have looked at. From Mayer's reports and book we find out that the same female CIA officer who caused the CIA to keep Khalid el-Masri for months even after they figured out the had the wrong guy (and despite a cadre of non-CIA guys in Macedonia knowing about the snatch) and who arranged for el-Masri to be dumped in a woods in a foreign country (while they all grinned over how no one would believe his story) - that same woman pined to see waterboarding done, to the point where she booked a trip and imposed herself into a waterboarding just so she could watch. According to Mayer she was given a censure and advised that the waterboarding wasn't being done just for her pleasure - and then when things got hot, CIA gave her a covert assignment so that her name couldn't be given in the investigations.
We also know that there is an IG report the size of two Manhatten phone books replete with issues and that several sources have mentioned a CIA agent the report has indicated became shockingly dehumanized. We also know that Jack Cloonan mentioned that the CIA sendoff for al-Libbi invovled some detailed discussion of how his mother was going to be picked up and raped and we know that there were multiple instances of threats of rape to family members - something not listed in the "memos" as approved and also something that is done in particular in Egypt which was at the heart of many of the threats.
We know that KSM's two young children (6 and 8 or 7 and 9, depending on who you read) were also picked up by a joint US/Pakistani force and have stayed disappeared- something that not much other than sadism would seem to explain. Moreover, we multiple reports of things that were being suggested and started for Zubaydah getting so far out of hand - to the point of actual plans to bury him alive and pursue other options as well - that an FBI agent was threatening to arrest the interrogators over what they were doing. Those things sound to me like there was quite a bit more sadism involved than you mention. Add in the modus operandi of stripping, hooding and then anally assualting with suppositories (rather than given a tranq via other methods) and that seems pretty calculatingly sadistic. Add in Bush telling Tenet that they had to make sure he (Bush) did not lose face as the justification for the torture and once again, the huge IG report that has never been made public and I think it's hard to get around almost any definition of cruelty you wish to use from your list.
Bush's statement that "we don't torture" could be true, ignorant, or a lie.
It had to be a lie, even using their own definitions. According to both Dana Priest and Jane Mayer's reporting, in Nov of 2002, we froze to death a "young detainee" in Afghanistan. Jamadi, the "ice man" from Abu Ghraib was killed during his interrogation with a CIA agent. Dilawar, a cab driver, had his legs pulpified while he was tied in a position so that he could only breath if he stood on them - and he died. The interrogation treatments sent Qhatanis heartbeat to almost non-existant land. Did I mention that we've never heard what happened to KSM's children?
In addition, the memos very deliberately stayed away from the issues of forced drugging (which has been repeated reported); simulated sodomy (also repeatedly reported) actual application of waterboarding in a manner that went beyond simulating drowning and included actual drowning and revivals; isolation for years; threats (which may well have become much more than threats) to family members; threatened and actual shipment to other foreign countries for more torture; etc.
Are there any memos which presented an alternative or contrary view (eg, that some or all of the techniques were torture or violations of treaties or US law)
Well, we have actual cases, like the prosecutions for waterboarding (none of which are mentioned in the OLC memos) and cases like Hilaos v. Marcos, where the combination of isolation, waterboarding and sleep deprivation is absolutely treated by the court as torture. As to any memos, I'm not sure I know what you mean but early on there were some memos from Taft, as Powell's General Counsel, STRONGLY advising that Geneva Conventions do and should apply to all detainees (the Sup Ct later agreeed with his position) and then we have that huge IG report as well, which the Principals would have had by the 2005 memos, advising that things were going well beyond what the memos mention repeatedly, that people were lying, that people had died, etc.
all fwiw
April 18, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As to any memos"
The context was meant to be the Principals Committee or other relevant body(ies) dealing with oversight of detainee/subject interrogations and other management. The OLC memos tell a story, but hardly the whole story.
Thanks for all the other leads.
April 18, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mary, bless you for this long comment and all the details. I know you have read them and posted on this many, many times over at emptywheel.
Very helpful for the questions asked by eds.
April 18, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds:
ABC: "After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh. "
So, who is lying?
Answer: The Bushies are lying. And it turns out Zubaida was never even a 'high value' target.
Zubaida gave up KSM before the waterboarding.
The only 'lead' the interrogators got that didn't blow up in immediate smoke after the use of torture, was the name of Jose Padilla, who spent 3.5 years in a navy prison without ever being charged.
Turns out none of the EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) were valuable for stopping plots.
April 18, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree. It was before the waterboarding. Before the torture. Thanks for that helpful comment, seashell.
April 18, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying the ABC report is lying?
You need to read the two stories carefully. If he gave up the name right away but not the whole story until later, then waterboarding did get more info. I'm not up to wading through all the sources, I'm simply pointing out obvious issues.
April 19, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Propaganda is often swallowed by the MSM - you must know that by now!
April 19, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. Maybe I know it, maybe it happens.
You're not doing anything to clarify or refute here. Are you feeling complacent or merely overloaded today?
It could that both stories are true, but that people take false implications from one or both of them, as if the illusion were the reality or the deeper truth of the matter. But since we cannot seem to agree on even the operant definition of 'cruelty' there doesn't seem to be any point in trying to get at finer distinctions here.
April 19, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure how, but hadn't heard about that level of micromanagement. (probably because I am subconsciously trying to avoid the nauseating details). I just assumed they signed something and didn't dirty their hands. Thanks for that link, it is very depressing.
These people are sick.
I can see international warrants being posted but have a very hard time seeing our courts take up the challenge. At the very least I would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation type investigation with all the DOJ lawyers disbarred.
April 18, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me nuts, but I will continue to work for investigations and prosecutions. It may take a very long time. But it's necessary. And it's the law!
April 18, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you are not nuts. Keep up the fight. I strongly agree with you.
April 18, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shake your hand across the miles.... :-)
April 18, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, eds. I am sure it came from Cheney. He is a creep.
April 18, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I was ignorant of the Principals Committee, until I read TheraP's linked article.
But that doesn't get Cheney off the hook. The Committee might have effectively rubber-stamped the initiatives of one or more of its members, and clearly Cheney was "a force to be reckoned with", so to speak.
April 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct that the Principals's Committee doesn't get anybody off the hook. It actually places them securely ON the hook! All of them!
April 18, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but I'm talking about tracing the dynamics of the leadership, not pointing out guilty collaborators. It's one thing to go along with a bad idea, it's another to push and sell the bad idea in the first place. This isn't about blame as you'd seem to have it, it's about understanding the flow of power in high places. And yes, I'm quite aware of Einstein's remark about what makes the world a dangerous place (not the evil in it, but the complacency about said evils).
Setting out to psychologically destroy a person, this needs to be proven clearly (if alleged seriously). Silently allowing that to happen as a side-effect is also a problem but a different problem. Complaining about the side-effect up the chain of command is something else. Quitting your job ... Blowing the whistle ... It sounds like lots of reports and instructions flowed both ways from the general political vicinity of the White House to the "torture chambers".
In any event, I'm not arguing against investigations or rational prosecutions.
April 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace be with you.
April 18, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, I dunno what to do with you.
It is all about Einstein's remark eds. I trust you will not be complacent?
April 18, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You consider my contributions at TPM a hint of complacency??
April 18, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
Thanks for being a force for good.
=D
April 18, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Been wondering where you've been so it's good to see this post in more ways than one!
The entire post is excellent, but all that really needs saying is in the begining:
"Torture is against the law. It is always wrong. It shocks the conscience. It shames the nation."
All of the methods described in the torture memos released this week that our country has been using to torture captives and which the President refuses to either investigate or prosecute are exactly, let me repeat exactly, the methods used by the Nazi's during their reign of terror as well as those used by the NKVD in Stalin's Soviet Union against prisoners both foreign and domestic. Torture generally and the methods in question particularly are nothing but uncivilized brutality and the tools of tyrants, dictators and despots throughout history. We prosecuted more than a few Japanese and Germans for using these mothods on human beings and would not have entertained the idea of failing to do so. I would add that Nazi, Soviet, and Japanese torturers all committed their crimes under color of law and lawful orders. That is why international conventions explicitly rule out the use of any legal mechanisms as cover for this behavior or as an admissable defense for these crimes.
If we allow these crimes to go unpunished then our nation descends to the level of the worst totalitarian thugs in world history. I simply do not see how we can allow this to be.
April 18, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I needed a break. I still need more rest. Partly it's the elderly parents (92 and 87). Partly the holidays. Partly just worn out from the Cafe wars.
But this aspect of the torture was not being adequately covered - as I've tried to do it above. And I simply felt duty calling this morning - though my preference and need was to rest.
Thank you for adding the excellent background information, oleeb. And your stirring words. You are correct that all we should need to write is what I started out with. A few short sentences. And it is a tragic and reprehensible place we've come to - where all of this needs to be discussed and parsed and castigated. I am sickened by all of this.
Like you, I am certain we must face it all. Sign the petition for a special prosecutor:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Prosecutor
April 18, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're lucky to have parents still with you!
I understand needing a break so get your rest but don't be away too long!
April 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye! Aye! I'll do my best.
April 18, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a strange case of coincidence, Haaretz just published a long interview with a pyschologist/novelist, Dr Zvi Sela, who uses writing fiction to exorcise his own demons.
He was involved in intelligence for years and for 3 of them, he served as an interrogator in an Israeli prison holding it's most prized enemies, including the later assassinated founder of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. (Despite the conditions he endured for five years, the paralyzed Yassin did not break).
Germaine to this discussion is the following:
"A well-known psychologist among personnel in the Mossad, the Shin Bet security service and the army, Sela says that he, too, is waging a constant struggle with old memories that haunt him.
"The everyday activity in these professions generates anxieties and intense fears," he admits. "You are always in an unclear world and involved in existential situations. I remember one case I experienced when I was chief of detectives and intelligence in the Sharon District in the 1980s. Benny, a good friend of mine, was a Shin Bet regional commander at the time. At 2 A.M. we received a phone call that a terrorist had been caught after being seriously wounded in a city in the center of the country. He was taken to Meir Hospital [in Kfar Sava]. At 2:45, Benny and I and another Shin Bet interrogator were there. He was about to undergo surgery and was going to be anesthetized in five minutes, so we could not question him. But he was the only source who could tell us whether he had planted bombs in the city, or whether there was a terrorist squad waiting in some school."
They decided to go ahead with the interrogation, Sela recalls: "We kicked out the doctors, and the Shin Bet interrogator and I started to question the terrorist, even though we knew he might die because of it. He gave us the locations of all the bombs he had planted in the city. You carry a pain like that with you all your life. Questions of morality and legality don't make much difference. Those are the kinds of materials that security personnel bring to sessions with me. People live in that nightmarish world."
Asked if this is why he feels a need to fix or heal himself now, Sela says: "I do not consider myself a writer. Dostoyevsky I will never be. I see myself as someone who tries to be a better person from year to year, but finds that it becomes more difficult from year to year."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078849.html
April 18, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, lally. I will follow up on this. We need to get the word out of how torture harms all involved - on both sides - forever, so long as they have a conscience.
Blessings upon you.
This man has a conscience. And it has been shocked!
April 18, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post makes me sad on so many levels.
I am sad for the tortured. I am sad for the torturers. I am sad for the people who convinced others that the torturing was necessary. I am sad for the people who were convinced. I am sad for the families of all of these people who have been irreversibly harmed by whatever their involvement was.
I know there are many in this country who believe with all their beings that this is necessary for our country's safety, given the fact that radical Islam has no regard for the lives of the people they are killing.
Even if I could be convinced that this is true (and I am not) the fact that many who are tortured are absolutely innocent, yet their lives are destroyed anyway, tells me this is the wrong path to go down. For a country whose core belief is that many guilty should go free rather than see one innocent man punished for something he didn't do, I have a hard time seeing how we can tolerate this.
Torture is against the law. It is always wrong. It shocks the conscience. It shames the nation.
Great words, Thera...they should be our country's mantra.
April 18, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome comment, Still.
I'd like to use this in my letter to my reps. If that is OK.
April 18, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime, chicken...I would be honored.
April 18, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
(hugs)
My honor
April 18, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with bwak. Tremendous comment, stilli!
April 18, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel pretty sad myself... a bit sick to my stomach which all seems appropriate under the circumstances. Thanks for sharing your words.
You can see my larger comment to TheraP below.
I haven't commented on TPM in a while but this was too compelling not to.
April 18, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm honored you commented here, Synchronicity. I am truly honored. Thank you.
April 18, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was well said also, stilli. Along with TheraPs original post, I mean. Both are extremely well said.
April 18, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink