Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Close Torture Loopholes, Physicians' Group Urges
NEW YORK - While applauding President Barack Obama's recent executive orders banning torture and other harsh interrogation practices, medical authorities are calling attention to a little-reported section of the Army's Field Manual on Interrogation that they say still allows the use of tactics that can constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under U.S. and international law.
The suspect section of the Manual is known as Annex M, which allows the use of sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and isolation, termed "separation" in the Manual. Obama's executive orders directed all government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to follow the manual for interrogations.
But Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), a Nobel laureate not-for-profit organization, is calling on the task force appointed by the president to review U.S. interrogation and transfer policies to revoke the Appendix and consult with human rights organizations as part of the review process.
John Bradshaw, director of PHR's office in Washington, told IPS, "The technique of separation allowed by Appendix M sounds innocuous, but in reality it allows the use of sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and isolation."
"Particularly when used in combination, these techniques amount to psychological torture. The Obama administration must close this loophole in the Army Field Manual by eliminating Appendix M, which leaves the door open to torture," he said.
Legal experts agree. Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, told IPS, "President Obama's announcement that the United States will not engage in torture is commendable. But cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment also violate U.S. law, as specified by three treaties we have ratified."
"The new administration should not use the Army Field Manual as the gold standard for interrogations since Appendix M sanctions techniques, including isolation and prolonged sleep deprivation, that amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," she said.
PHR also called on President Obama and Congress to "immediately authorize a non-partisan commission to investigate the authorization, legal justification, and implementation of the Bush administration's regime of psychological and physical torture."
It added that "any accountability mechanism must include a subgroup tasked with investigating the participation of health professionals in detainee abuse."
PHR also urged Obama to end the use of Behavioral Science Consultants (BSCs) in interrogations. "The continued use of BSCs violates medical ethics and subverts the traditions of the healing professions. Any procedures currently in place involving health professionals in interrogations which violate medical ethics should be prohibited," said PHR'S Chief Executive Officer Frank Donaghue.
"The past administration's weaponization of the health professions to inflict harm on detainees constitutes a war crime unto itself," said Donaghue. He added, "Despite all that has been disclosed so far about abuses committed by health professionals, many questions remain, chief among which is whether there will be any accountability for gross violations of medical ethics and the law."
"The desire to turn the page on the past seven years of detainee abuse and torture by U.S. forces is understandable," Donaghue said. But he noted that "President Obama, Congress and the health professions will not have fulfilled their obligation to the Constitution and medical ethics if we settle only for reform without accountability."
Other health professionals are taking similar positions. One of the most outspoken, psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Kaye, points out that the AFM's Appendix M "continues to allow use of isolation (called 'separation') on so-called 'unlawful enemy combatants'."
He told IPS, "After the Abu Ghraib scandal exploded, the U.S. government wanted to hide or forbid all types of treatment that became notorious due to press exposure, including the revelations around waterboarding. They pared down their torture programme to the model laid down by the CIA's Kubark manual of the early 1960s."
"They twisted the meaning of the Geneva Conventions at their will, in order to implement this program of coercive interrogation, using the Army Field Manual and Appendix M as their primary device," Kaye said.
He added, "This programme relies on the production of psychological regression by using a combination of solitary confinement, fatigue, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and feelings of fear to produce dependency upon the interrogator. These techniques, allowed by the Army Field Manual, and implemented with the assistance of doctors and behavioral health specialists, like psychologists, are totally antithetical to existing law, and amount to torture and/or cruel, inhumane treatment of prisoners."
Kaye contends that, "In many senses, isolation is the essence of U.S. detainee abuse. All else follows. Isolation can cause serious mental deterioration in many individuals."
He adds that "This deterioration can occur within days, well under the 30-day initial period allowed by Appendix M. This 30 days can be followed by additional periods, if the proper approval is obtained."
While ostensibly banning it, the AFM also allows sensory deprivation, he says. "As a last resort, when physical separation of detainees is not feasible, goggles or blindfolds and earmuffs may be utilized as a field expedient method to generate a perception of separation."
In the Bush administration's only admission that it inflicted torture on a prisoner, a senior Pentagon official recently disclosed to the Washington Post that a combination of permissible techniques used on a Guantanamo detainee, plus the intensity and duration of these techniques, seriously endangered the health of a prisoner and constituted torture. She declined to refer him to Guantanamo Military Commission authorities for trial.
During the Bush administration, a number of leading medical organizations called on the president to end the participation of health care professionals in detainee interrogations. The American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a resolution opposing "participation by physicians in the torture or inhuman treatment or punishment of individuals in relation to detention and imprisonment."
Similar positions have been adopted by other organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Nurses Association.
However, there is ample evidence that some military medical personnel have participated in torture and abuse of detainees. Reports indicate, for example, that so-called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams - known as "biscuit" teams - included medical personnel who were aware of prisoner abuse but failed to report or properly document it; that interrogators were given access to detainees' confidential medical records; that health professionals participated directly in the development and implementation of abusive interrogation plans; and that doctors, other medical personnel, and "biscuit" teams of psychiatrists and psychologists may have facilitated abuse by giving interrogators information about detainees' mental health and vulnerabilities.
The International Committee of the Red Cross described what it observed at the U.S. military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in June 2004 as a "flagrant violation of medical ethics".
- Posted in



10 Comments so far
Show AllI have a bad feeling that we've just elected AIPAC's other sockpuppet...
Jeevee
I hope your feeling is caused only by negative thinking and can be tossed—or banged—out of your mind, by whatever techniques work for YOU.
Close ALL secret prisons. Release or Try ALL prisoners. Those who cannot be put on trial but have been in prison should be paid reparations.
The use of the Army Field Manual should be prohibited.
Now if we can get these clowns in Washington to stop the community watch cointel pro gang stalking torture nation wide, we might find America has a soul governed by real constitutional laws.
BornFreeMen
Community watch, cointel pro gang stalking torture victim 24/7 for 2 years and running by christian right wing republican lunatics,Bradenton Florida.
By changing the legal meaning of torture you can ensure it continues for ever. Similarly, you can just invent new ways of torturing, ones that aren't covered by any legal definition.
The absence of torture would symbolize a civilization that is moral, fair, and has integrity. None of those words describe our current civilization.
It is unlikely they will in the future either which will ensure that wars for imperialism and profit will continue forever. Surprised?
www.dangerouscreation.com
The following article is highly relevant to this subject:
http://www.friendsjournal.org/torture-and-impunity
I've long been a member of PHR, and I'm proud that professionals--doctors, nurses, lawyers and others--are taking a strong, principled stand on this issue. Torture is deontologically wrong, and attempts to justify it with improbable scenarios and sophistry cannot succeed.
What is urgently needed is a comprehensive definition of torture and, especially, one that eliminates the wiggle-room under just what constitutes "extreme" pain or suffering. I would suggest some such wording as:
"Torture is intentional infliction of physical or mental pain or suffering, whether to obtain information, cooperation, or for punishment or for the sadistic pleasure of the torturer or for any other reason."
Not the absence of the word "extreme." Thus defined, torture is determined not by degree but by the intent of the torturer and is along a continuum for the very mild to the extreme.
First question: behind the "Biscuit' (Behavioural Science Consultation)teams, I sense the monstrous transmigration of a decades-long epistemological/scientific debate in human psychology disciplines: that on 'Behaviourism', i.e. the total determinism of the human psyche and behaviour by the outside influence of its sensorial 'environment', an idea tending to be held in common by both western and soviet psychiatrists at the height of the Cold Waz... A ferocious theoretical avatar whose main impulse is to negate the very essence of the human in favour of collective and/or supra-individual organisational structures, the ultimate paper trail for which must lead back to some well-funded, smarmy university department... True or false?
Second question: can torture, and torturers, be discussed 'objectively', dispassionately? Is this not already the first, most fundamental capitulation?
Regarding the “Torture and Impunity” article from the link above, I would say that a great deal of the transition to society's acceptance of torture would come about by the media's refusal to publish that it is going on, and what little is portrayed is glorified and given logical sounding justifications, key word being sounding. With much of American citizens transformation into mindless lemmings (redundant?) the transition to acceptance of torture is already complete. An example of this is the popularity of the Fox tv show 24. As for the power to declare a citizen beyond the protection of the law, this has happened, such as with Mr. Muhajir (aka Padilla, an American Citizen, born, not naturalized, not that that should make a difference), and as we have seen regularly during my lifetime, officials in high, elected office easily get away with their misdeeds and general lawbreaking. Has Las Vegas or Atlantic City given odds on whether Bush will be even investigated thoroughly, much less prosecuted?