-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
orture Routine at =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Guat=E1namo?=
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
See also:
Leaked Gitmo Gulag Manual Online at CCR 11/20/2007
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20071119/071878.html
Counterpunch - Nov 21, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz11212007.html
Isolation Torture Routine at Guat!namo
A How-To Manual for Psychological Torture
By STEPHEN SOLDZ
On November 7th of this year, a major 2003 Guantanamo Standard
Operating Procedures [SOP] manual was posted on the wikileaks web site.
Ignored by most major sources for nearly a week, Wired and the Miami
Herald picked it up the following Wednesday [the Herald amplified their
re****ting the next day. Reuters, has picked up on the leak Thursday and
the New York Times on Friday.
The Miami Herald describes the manual and its im****tance and give a
flavor of its bureaucratic contents:
"A how-to manual, it draws back a curtain on the secretive,
isolated base in 2003, more than a year into operation of the Bush
administration prison.
And it lays out -- with typical military attention to detail --
everything from when to use pepper spray to who should witness a cavity
search to how to dig a proper Muslim grave.
It also offers the mundane details of what detainees were given at
the open-air prison camp overlooking the Caribbean, where the Pentagon
today holds about 300 war-on-terror captives at Guant!namo for possible
interrogation and trial by Military Commission.
No hair dye, it says on one page. But a double amputee got to keep
a bucket in his cell, it says."
The manual is classified 'for official use only' and access was
"limited to those requiring operational and procedural knowledge in the
direct performance of their duties as well as those directly associated
with JTF-GTMO." The Department of Defense has attempted to avoid its
release and has denied the American Civil Liberties Organization [ACLU]
access under the Freedom of Information Act.
In addition to the mundane, but often chilling details--destroying a
Styrofoam cup was a punishable offense and receiving extra toilet paper
required being at the highest level of privileges while the
interrogators determined one's ration of this "comfort item"--of the
running of this high security facility designed to facilitate
interrogations and intelligence gathering, the manual contains two
major revelations. The first of these revelations, which is the focus
of both the Reuters and the New York Times re****ts, is that, despite
claims to the contrary, the US was hiding detainees from the
International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]. As Reuters puts it:
"The manual also indicates some prisoners were designated as off
limits to visitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross,
something the military has repeatedly denied."
Each detainee is assigned to one of four ICRC visitation levels. Level
A is:
"No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes the
delivery of ICRC mail." [p. 17.1]
In fact, for only one of the four levels was the IRC allowed
unrestricted access to ask the detainee whatever questions they deemed
appropriate. The other levels allowed only visual access or questions
about "health and welfare only." The camp commander seemed determined
to prevent the ICRC from being able to obtain accurate information
about detainee treatment.
This denial of ICRC access was in violation of the Geneva Conventions,
which state, as the Center for Constitutional Rights points out, that
all prisoners "shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners
of war" and that "duration and frequency of these visits shall not be
restricted." The restriction of ICRC access may have been one reason
that the administration tried, unsuccessfully, to deny Geneva
protections to Guantanamo detainees. Given the repeated denials that
detainees were withheld from the ICRC, we have here additional evidence
that, when it comes to what occurs in US detention facilities, no
claims of the government should be taken as true without independent
confirmatory evidence.
The second major revelation from the SOP, mentioned in passing by
Reuters, concerns the routine use of isolation and sensory deprivation
on Guantanamo detainees in order to weaken them and make them ready for
interrogations. As Reuters re****ts:
"It [the SOP] says incoming prisoners are to be held in
near-isolation for the first two weeks to foster dependence on
interrogators and 'enhance and exploit the disorientation and
disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation
process.'"
Here is the actual language from the SOP [Section 4-20, p. 4.3]
demonstrating the precision with which abuse was administered. In fact,
it makes clear that Reuters got it partially wrong in that the
"near-isolation" was to last at least four weeks, not two, and that it
could be continued indefinitely, beyond the four-week (30 day):
"a. Phase One Behavior Management Plan (First thirty days or as
directed by JIG [Joint Intelligence Group]). The purpose of the
Behavior Management Plan is to enhance and exploit the disorientation
and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the
interrogation process. It concentrates on isolating the detainee and
fostering dependence of the detainee on his interrogator. During the
first two weeks at Camp Delta, classify the detainees as Level 5 and
house in a Maximum Security Unit (MSU) Block. During this time, the
following conditions will apply:
(1) Restricted contact: No ICRC or Chaplain contact
(2) No books or mail privileges
(3) MREs for all meals.
(4) Basic comfort items only:
(a) ISO Mat
(b) One blanket
(c) One towel
(d) Toothpaste/finger toothbrush
(e) One Styrofoam cup
(f) Bar of soap
(g) Camp Rules
(h) No Koran, prayer beads, prayer cap.
(5) Mail writing and delivery will be at the direction of the J-2.
b. Phase Two Behavior Management Plan. The two-week period
following Phase 1 will continue the process of isolating the detainee
and fostering dependence on the interrogator. Until the JIG Commander
changes his classification, the detainee will remain a Level 5 with the
following:
(1) Continued MSU
(2) Koran, prayer beads and prayer cap distributed by interrogator
(3) Contacts decided by interrogator
(4) Interrogator decides when to move the
detainee to general population."
Isolation has long been a preferred measure of abuse in US detentions.
As Mark Benjamin pointed out last July in Salon, isolation and the
associated sensory deprivation, not waterboarding or other more
commonly discussed techniques, is the CIA's favorite form of torture.
It has been know for years that isolation was authorized for use at
Guantanamo, even after some of the harshest techniques used in 2002 and
known to have been deployed against Mohammed al-Qahtani were stopped
from routine use and restricted in 2003 to the so-called "varsity
program." Isolation was one of the interrogations techniques authorized
by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his April 16, 2003 memo.
However, that memo gives a sense that isolation is a severe, possibly
illegal, technique:
"Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique
requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific
guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological
review, and approvals for extension of the length of by the appropriate
level in the chain of command. This technique is not know to have been
generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days.
Those nations that believe that detainees are subject to POW
protections may view use of this technique as inconsistent with the
requirements of Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that POWs must be
protected against acts of intimidation; Article 14 which provides that
POWs are entitled to respect for their person; Article 34 which
prohibits coercion and Article 126 which ensures access and basic
standards of treatment. Although the provisions of Geneva are not
applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration
should be given to these views prior to application of this technique."
The Guantanmo SOP now provides official do***entation that, at the time
of the Rumsfeld memo and despite its warnings regarding the techniques'
potential illegality and physical and psychological dangers, isolation
was routinely used by the Defense Department at Guantanamo on all new
detainees. The Rumsfeld memo complements the SOP in that it do***ents
the central role of "medical and psychological review," and, thus,
medical and psychological personnel in the administration of this
technique.
Isolation is as damaging as other, more prominent, abusive
interrogation techniques. The recent Physicians for Human Rights-Human
Rights First re****t, Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
and the Risk of Criminality, details the negative effects of isolation
and sensory deprivation:
"People who are exposed to isolation for the first time develop a
group of symptoms that include 'bewilderment, anxiety, frustration,
dejection, boredom, obsessive thoughts or ruminations, depression, and,
in some cases, hallucination'.
Prolonged isolation has been demonstrated to result in increased
stress, abnormal neuroendocrine function, changes in blood pressure and
inflammatory stress responses.
Findings from clinical research performed by prominent
psychologists such as Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Craig Haney,
highlight the destructive impact of solitary confinement. Effects
include depression, anxiety, difficulties with concentration and
memory, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucination and
perceptual distortions, paranoia, suicidal thoughts and behavior, and
problems with impulse control" [p. 32].
These findings regarding negative effects make clear that attempts to
prevent torture and detainee abuse need to curtail the use of isolation
to an absolute minimum, only potentially acceptable when needed for
tem****ary management of unruly or dangerous detainees. It should never
be sanctioned as a routine tool for "fostering dependence on the
interrogator." Such uses are immoral and are likely violations of the
UN Convention Against Torture and the US Torture and War Crimes Acts.
As thee PHR-HRF re****t argues:
"The medical impact of sensory deprivation and prolonged isolation
sup****ts the conclusion that both techniques of interrogation may be
considered prosecutable acts of 'torture' or 'cruel or inhuman
treatment' under the WCA or Torture Act because they cause 'severe' and
"serious" mental pain and suffering. The lasting depression and
posttraumatic stress disorder that victims of isolation suffer
constitute the prolonged and/or non-transitory mental harm required for
mental pain to be considered severe or serious. Moreover, isolation and
sensory deprivation in interrogations is likely calculated to 'disrupt
the senses or personality.' "
Of relevance to those of us struggling to change American Psychological
Association policy on psychologist participation in interrogations, the
APA included clauses in its 2007 resolution against torture that allows
continued participation in the use of isolation [and sensory
deprivation] in certain cir***stances:
"This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited
to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against the following
used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation
process: isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or
sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or
suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause
lasting harm."
The APA inclusion of this carefully-qualified language led many APA
critics, as well as certain re****ters to wonder will psychologists
still abet torture? It is therefore essential that the APA clarify the
meaning of these apparent "loopholes. " Recent attempts by the APA to
address the meaning of these "loopholes" raise the possibility that APA
leaders, reeling under the impact of massive protests among members and
criticism in the press, are looking to resolve any ambiguities in the
2007 Resolution. But so far, the APA leader****p have failed to make a
clear, unequivocal statement that this use of isolation at Guantanamo
is unethical. In a recent widely circulated letter by the APA Director
of Ethics, he stated:
"The third and final category of techniques consists of techniques
that may not be "used in a manner that represents significant pain or
suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause
lasting harm."
In my opinion, the description of these behaviors-isolation,
sensory deprivation and over-stimulation, and sleep
deprivation-suffered from not having adequate time to find wording that
conveyed the authors' intention. As I'm sure you recall, the
discussions focused on the definition of these words and precisely what
the implications of an absolute prohibition would be. As an example, an
individual in detention may be separated and placed in a cell in
isolation, in order to prevent that individual from colluding with
another detainee in formulating a story that is consistent between
them. Likewise, the regimen of a camp may require that detainees begin
their daily routines at a very early hour. I believe that everyone will
agree neither example would constitute impermissible isolation or sleep
deprivation, but it is im****tant to find language that clearly
separates what is permissible from what is impermissible."
If the APA really intended that the "loophole" clauses allowing
isolation in certain cir***stances, was just to cover routine uses of
the kind here mentioned, the APA should have no difficulty stating
clearly and unequivocally that the use of isolation described in the
Guantanamo SOP is unethical and that psychologists participating in
that use are engaging in unethical behavior. Further, the APA should
have no trouble coming up with clear language making these crucial
distinctions.
In considering the APA's positions, we should remember that the Chief
Psychologist of the Guantanamo Joint Intelligence Group [JIG] at
Guantanamo at the time of this SOP, was none other than Colonel Larry
James, who the APA chose to introduce their 2007 Resolution on the
Council floor. The SOP makes clear that the JIG was the military unit
that decided how long isolation was used on each detainee to "enhance
and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly
arrived detainee in the interrogation process" The Rumsfeld memo makes
clear that "medical and psychological supervision" were essential
elements of this decision-making process. It is thus likely that the
JIG's psychological unit was involved in determining exactly how much
of this abuse a given detainee could tolerate. It hardly inspires
confidence in the APA's willingness to stand unequivocally against US
torture and abuse that they selected this same Col. James to make the
case for their carefully parsed and nuanced resolution. The APA has
ignored extensive evidence from official do***ents and press re****ts
raising questions about the activities undertaken by the psychological
component of the JIG command during the time [from January 2003 for a
an unknown number of months] he was stationed there. The SOP provides
additional evidence that Col. James' command was engaged in routine
abuse of detainees. Due to secrecy, we do not know exactly what
activities Col. James was involved in. But, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, should the APA have someone who was at Guantanamo
during this time represent it's anti-torture positions? [For the
record, Col. James denies that isolation was used for interrogation
purposes and stated, in an email, that isolation was only used for
medical purposes, to avoid spreading infection.]
In any case, it is time for the APA to stop word parsing and make
clear, unequivocal statements about what in their view is and is not
ethical. I, for one, feel that the use of isolation, as described in
the Guantanamo SOP, is well over the line into unethical territory.
Does APA agree?
Beyond the APA and the role of psychologists, we need for Congress to
take up the entire range of abusive interrogation techniques,
especially including isolation and sensory deprivation. By focusing
upon waterboarding as the litmus test abusive technique, the Congress,
the press, and some human rights activists are ignoring the extent to
which abuse is endemic in the US' national security detentions. The CIA
can continue its "enhanced techniques" without waterboarding; in fact
re****ts say that they are already doing so. But to ban isolation and
sensory deprivation would cut to the core of this country's abusive
treatment of detainees. Until the United States government takes this
step, the U.S. will remain a torturing society.
[Stephen Soldz is psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher,
and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He
maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice web site and the
Psyche, Science, and Society blog.]
*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHRgFuiz2i76ou9wQRAt1RAKCLSsYdQqrXfX/wEKY9VD2n2b+m/gCfb8Us
maFcT9Mh2ur2rNd4wCfz9mY=
=ciff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
