In a totally nonsurprising development, the military once again cleared itself. From Neil A. Lewis' "Report Discredits F.B.I. Claims of Abuse at Guantanamo Bay" in this morning's New York Times:
In addition, one of the high-value detainees, Mohamed al-Kahtani, whom the military has said confessed that he was meant to be the 20th hijacker in the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, was led around on a leash and forced "to perform a series of dog tricks." The leashing of a detainee to humiliate him was another practice that became notorious after it was recorded in a photograph of abuses at Abu Ghraib.
The report said those techniques and others were part of authorized approaches called "ego down" or "futility," which are used to make the interrogation subject question his sense of personal worth or the value of resisting.
"Ego down" and "futility." Might those be behavioral scientist ("bisquits") terms? And might we need information about that? Apparently the Times can't fork over for the cost of a New Yorker.
(See, The New Yorker should have made Jane Mayer's article available online! "The Experiment" is summarized, briefly, here and links to Mayer discussing the article are also included. Ideally, we'll pick up on it tonight -- as well as on the points that follow below.)
And is anyone else bothered that last week the APA cleared physicians without noting that one of their own, one who sits on a board, has taken his "knowledge" to Guantanamo?
I guess that's one of those things you don't need to disclose. Like having Herpes apparently.
Because surely that had no impact on the APA's decision, right?
And surely there's no need for the board member to step down from a committee considering all the charges coming out of Guantanamo, right?
I mean if the Bully Boy and everyone else is above the law, shouldn't the APA be as well?
Cleared? From last week:
The report by a group convened to study the ethical boundaries for psychologists at places like the detainment center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concluded that it was acceptable to act as behavioral consultants to interrogators of the prisoners from Afghanistan who are held there.The report said the psychologists should not use a detainee's medical information "to the detriment and safety of an individual's well-being." It also said that psychologists serving as consultants to interrogations involving national security should be "mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration."The report thus appears to avoid explicit answers to questions as to whether psychologists may advise interrogators on how to increase stress on detainees to make them more cooperative if the advice is not based on medical files but only on observation of the detainees.
(The above is from Neil A. Lewis' article in last week's New York Times. Use link to entry done here to find link to article. I'm rushing this morning. And again, the intent is to pick up on this issue tonight. We also have our Indymedia roundup tonight.)
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.