

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With the release of a previously top secret document - made public thanks to
With the release of a previously top secret document - made public thanks to a legal victory by the ACLU - disclosing the role of the Office of Medical Services (OMS) in the CIA's torture program, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reminds health professionals that torture, in all its forms, is one of the most serious human rights violations and is absolutely prohibited under U.S. and international law, and that any collusion in its implementation - from planning through monitoring - is a gross violation of professional ethics.
The 90-page document provides a chilling account of how CIA health professionals willingly participated in torture. The "Summary and Reflections" of an unnamed chief of CIA Medical Services narrates the decision-making process that led to health professionals signing off on, and participating in, interrogation and detention practices that clearly constituted torture. The document provides a cascade of self-justification and minimization of the risks and harm to detainees.
"While much of the information in this document was already known, the step-by-step internal process it details shows how health professionals continually acceded to the demands of those running the interrogation regime, relied on flawed legal interpretations of torture definitions, and failed to live up to their duty to 'do no harm,'" said Scott Allen, MD, FACP, professor emeritus at University of California Riverside School of Medicine and PHR medical advisor.
The document further describes how certain techniques, such as confinement in a coffin-sized box, forced nakedness, near-hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, and waterboarding were not considered to be torture because they were deemed not to cause "prolonged (mental) harm lasting months or years." It is now clear that these determinations were based on the Office of Legal Counsel's faulty interpretation of torture that elevated physical and mental pain thresholds and the condition of specific intent to cause such pain.
"The document makes the claim that OMS personnel served to protect detainees and ensure safe, legal, and effective interrogations, but provides no evidence that detainees were evaluated appropriately. In fact, it states that psychological assessments did not include the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder, the most common psychological condition following torture. The document also fails to mention the OMS practice of forced rectal feeding, for which there is no medical indication and which represents a form of sexual assault" said PHR Senior Medical Advisor Vincent Iacopino, MD, PhD.
In addition, the document's conclusion that the interrogation techniques did not cause long-lasting harm has been proven wrong. Some detainees subjected to these torture techniques who are still held in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remain severely traumatized, according to PHR medical experts who have examined them. Detainees who have been evaluated after their release from Guantanamo, and elsewhere, also continue to show long-lasting harm, as described in reports such as PHR's Broken Laws, Broken Lives.
The document refers to OMS practices being in compliance with American Psychological Association (APA) policies, but fails to acknowledge collusion between the APA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense in establishing those policies. These policies have since been abandoned. The document also attempts to defend against criticism of breaches of medical ethics by indicating that OMS participation was voluntary, that its practices were considered "legal" by the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, and that actionable intelligence was obtained and lives were saved. The author of the document rejects international medical ethical principles of "do no harm" as well as legal prohibitions against participation in torture by asserting that "saving lives" takes priority over respect for human dignity. We have learned since, from a 2014 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, that no actionable intelligence was ever obtained using "enhanced interrogation" techniques that could not otherwise have been gathered.
This document is a revealing self-indictment of U.S. torture practices and the critical role of CIA OMS personnel in participating in and concealing torture. It shows health professionals' disregard for core ethical principles, including the World Medical Association's Declaration of Tokyo, requiring that they remove themselves from all forms of participation in torture or ill-treatment.
"This document shows that within the CIA OMS culture in the post-9/11 years, there was a lack of understanding of the moral and ethical issues involved in the presence and cooperation of health professionals in interrogations and their willingness to preside over the deliberate infliction of pain on detainees," Iacopino said. "The author of the document expresses continual concern for the physical safety of detainees, but he shows no qualms about OMS personnel participating in the interrogations that caused great pain and suffering to the detainees. This was an improper role for health professionals and OMS shows that it was blind or indifferent to ethical concerns raised by their participation," he added.
Based on the new details in this document, PHR renews its call on the U.S. government, especially all CIA medical professionals, to take immediate action to make structural and procedural reforms to ensure that such human rights abuses - including the collusion and cover up of health professionals, in violation of their professional ethics - never happen again. As an organization of health professionals, PHR looks forward to those in positions of authority recognizing the important role played by doctors, psychologists, therapists, and others who practice medicine to ensure that torture tactics are never enabled by professionals whose primary obligation is to their patients, and that all agency operations respect the right to dignity and care for the individual.
Torture is absolutely prohibited under U.S. and international law at all times, and preventing the torture of those in custody is integral to the ethical duties and culture of health professionals. Torture violates everything that health professionals stand for and PHR will continue to advocate to ensure the U.S. government never engages in torture again.
PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical duties, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human rights violations and work to stop them. PHR mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."