Psychologists’ Collusion in Ongoing Illegal Detentions

The Status Quo of Torture

Jan. 10, 2012 by TRUDY BOND, ROY EIDELSON, BRAD OLSON AND STEPHEN SOLDZ Counterpunch.org

As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the arrival of the first prisoners at Guantánamo Detention Center, several thousand miles away sits another United States detention facility, less well-known but with a history perhaps even more gruesome. Obscured throughout the decade-long “global war on terror,” the detention center at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan is where two detainees died in December 2002. Initial autopsies at the time ruled both deaths homicides, according to a 2,000-page confidential Army file obtained by the New York Times. Autopsies of the two dead detainees found severe trauma to both prisoners’ legs. The coroner for one of the dead noted, “I’ve seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus.”

In January 2009, to much fanfare, newly-elected President Barack Obama signed a directive authorizing the closing of Guantánamo Detention Center. But a month later the new administration discreetly told a federal judge that military detainees at Bagram had no habeas corpus rights to challenge their imprisonment. At the same time, the Pentagon was moving forward on plans to build a new prison in Bagram, renamed the “Detention Facility in Parwan” (DFIP). This facility was designed to accommodate 600 prisoners under normal conditions and as many as 1,100 during a “surge.”

Today, President Obama has abandoned his inaugural pledge to close Guantánamo and there are more than 3,000 detainees at Bagram — five times the number of prisoners when the president took office — with a scheduled expansion of the facility by the end of 2012 to house up to 5,500 detainees. One troubling constant across the developments at Bagram is the presence and involvement of psychologists at these facilities, which clearly violate international legal standards for the treatment of detainees. Among the military psychologists present during the early years of the Bagram prison were Colonel Morgan Banks, Captain Bryce Lefever, and Colonel Larry James, notable for their key roles in formulating American Psychological Association (APA) much-criticized ethics policy on psychologist-assisted interrogations.

According to Banks’ biographical statement, he “spent four months over the winter of 2001/2002 at Bagram Airfield.” More broadly, Banks provided technical, consultation, and interrogation support to all Army psychologists. He also assisted in establishing the Army’s first permanent SERE training program. As for Lefever’s biosketch, it notes that he also served at the detention center at Bagram Air Base. He “was deployed as the Joint Special Forces Task Force psychologist to Afghanistan in 2002, where he lectured to interrogators and was consulted on various interrogation techniques.”

The third military psychologist, James, was the Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantánamo when, according to his book, Fixing Hell, he flew to Afghanistan to transfer three juveniles who had been forcibly and arbitrarily detained at Bagram. James described these boys as “the most fragile . . . children [he] had ever met,” yet he oversaw their being loaded onto a cargo plane at Bagram Air Force Base, “bound [and] blindfolded,” for a flight that typically lasted over 20 hours. Others who appear to have been transferred from Bagram to Guantánamo that same day reported being chained around the waist, wrists, back and ankles and the intense pain of being unable to speak, see, hear, move, or even stretch or breathe properly. The boys were essentially kidnapped, and were returned home a year later, having never had access to legal counsel and having never been charged with a crime.

Public information about exactly what transpires at Bagram today is scarce. The BBC was allowed a rare, one-hour visit to the new Parwan/Bagram prison in 2010. The report noted that “Prisoners are kept in 56 cells, which the prisoners refer to as ‘cages’. The front of the cells are made of mesh, the ceiling is clear, and the other three walls are solid. Guards can see down into the cells from above.” These detainees were moved around in wheelchairs, wearing goggles and headphones to block sight and sound.

In 2011, Daphne Eviatar, an attorney for Human Rights First, interviewed 18 former detainees from the main facility in Parwan and was permitted to observe seven detainee hearings there. In her detailed report she noted:

After many years of completely denying detainees in Afghanistan the opportunity to defend themselves against arbitrary detention, the United States government has finally implemented a hearing process that allows detainees to hear the charges against them and to make a statement in their own defense. Although a significant improvement, these new hearings fall short of minimum standards of due process required by international law.” [Emphasis added.]

In a subsequent interview with CBS News, Eviatar stated:

[Parwan] is worse than Guantánamo because there are fewer rights…There was no evidence presented, there was no questioning of the government’s evidence, whether this person had done anything wrong, whether he deserved to be in prison. So that’s a real problem — you have a complete lack of due process.

And in 2010 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirmed the existence of a separate, second detention facility at Parwan. Many former prisoners have referred to it as the Tor Jail, translated as “Black Jail.” Nine former prisoners interviewed separately by the BBC spoke of almost identical treatment there: distressingly cold cells, perpetual loud noise, constant light, and, violating any sense of privacy, camera surveillance. One former prisoner said American soldiers made him dance to music to obtain permission to use the toilet.

Today, there are clear indications that psychologists continue to be involved in the detention and interrogation of detainees at Parwan/Bagram. Such activities stand in direct contravention of APA policy based on a 2008 petition resolution. Approved through a member-led referendum, this resolution prohibits psychologists from working in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights” (or if they are providing treatment for military personnel).

Significant evidence that psychologists are working at Bagram/Parwan in violation of APA policy comes in part from a symposium on “Operational Problems in Behavioral Sciences” sponsored by the United States Air Force Medical Service in August 2011. The first slide of the partially redacted powerpoint presentation on the “BSCT Mission” describes the role of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) as providing: “…psychological expertise and consultation in order to assist the command in conducting safe, legal, ethical, and effective detention facility operations, intelligence interrogations, and detainee debriefing operations” (OTSG/MEDCOM Policy Memo 09-053).

A later slide reveals that the current BSCTs at the Parwan Detention Facility are composed of a psychologist or forensic psychiatrist, who must be licensed for independent practice, and a “behavioral science technician.” Further confirming the presence of psychologists, a June 2010 newspaper article about Parwan by the military editor of the Fayettville Observer notes: “Air Force Maj. Colin Burchfield, 34, a clinical psychologist, observes the behavior of both detainees and guards on TV monitors.”

Disturbingly, and contrary to the APA’s 2008 referendum policy, one of the key documents still used to support the ongoing involvement of psychologists at the Parwan facility is an earlier 2005 report from the APA’s “Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security” (the PENS Report). The PENS Report, cited in the Operational Problems powerpoint presentation described above, endorsed psychologists’ engagement in detainee interrogations — despite evidence that psychologists were involved in abusive interrogations and practices that violate international law.

Six of the nine voting members of the PENS Task Force were on the payroll of the U.S. military and/or intelligence agencies. Five of these six served in chains of command that had been accused of the kinds of abuses that led to the creation of the Task Force, including the three psychologists linked to the early Bagram prison: Dr. Morgan Banks, Dr. Bryce Lefever, and Dr. Larry James. The PENS Task Force concluded that psychologists have an important role to play in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective,” and the APA Board approved the PENS Report in a highly unusual emergency vote.

The APA’s claims that it stands strongly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are belied by the organization’s repeated failure to take assertive and meaningful action. There is no clearer example than the continuing participation of psychologists in detention and interrogation activities at the Parwan/Bagram prison — a site where international law itself is seemingly confined indefinitely to a small, dark cell.

But health professionals, human rights advocates, and intelligence professionals of conscience worldwide have refused to accept this status quo. One noteworthy and promising effort is an online petition campaign calling for the annulment of APA’s PENS Report. The initiative has been supported by many distinguished members of APA, as well as non-psychologists such as psychiatrists Robert Jay Lifton and bioethicist Dr. Steven Miles; scholar-activists such as Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky; attorneys who have represented Guantanamo detainees; eminent veterans of the intelligence community; and many other psychologists and human rights advocates. Please consider joining this call and signing the petition at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens.

Trudy Bond is an independent psychologist, steering committe member of Psycholgoists for Social Responsibility, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. For questions, responses or media contact, please contact her at drtrudybond@gmail.com.

Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. Roy can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com.

Brad Olson is an assistant professor and co-director of the Community Psychology Ph.D. Program in downtown Chicago. He is President-Elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) and co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology.

Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He edits the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. Soldz is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and served as a psychological consultant on several Guantánamo trials. Currently Soldz is Past-President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR].

Survey: 1 in 4 women attacked by intimate partner

Dec. 14, 2011 By MIKE STOBBE | Associated Press

ATLANTA — It's a startling number: 1 in 4 women surveyed by the
government say they were violently attacked by their husbands or
boyfriends.

Experts in domestic violence don't find it too surprising, although some
aspects of the survey may have led to higher numbers than are sometimes
reported.

Even so, a government official who oversaw the research called the results
"astounding."

"It's the first time we've had this kind of estimate" on the prevalence of
intimate partner violence, said Linda Degutis of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

The survey, released by the CDC Wednesday, marks the beginning of a new
annual project to look at how many women say they've been abused.

One expert called the new report's estimate on rape and attempted rape
"extremely high" — with 1 in 5 women saying they were victims. About half
of those cases involved intimate partners. No documentation was sought to
verify the women's claims, which were made anonymously.

But advocates say the new rape numbers are plausible.

"It's a major problem that often is underestimated and overlooked," said
Linda James, director of health for Futures Without Violence, a San
Francisco-based organization that advocates against domestic abuse.

The CDC report is based on a randomized telephone survey of about 9,000
women and 7,400 men.

Among the findings:

— As many as 29 million women say they have suffered severe and
frightening physical violence from a boyfriend, spouse or other intimate
partner. That includes being choked, beaten, stabbed, shot, punched,
slammed against something or hurt by hair-pulling.

— That number grows to 36 million if slapping, pushing and shoving are
counted.

— Almost half of the women who reported rape or attempted rape said it
happened when they were 17 or younger.

—As many as 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence or
stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes, compared to about 1 in
10 men.

—Both men and women who had been menaced or attacked in these ways
reported more health problems. Female victims, in particular, had
significantly higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, frequent
headaches and difficulty sleeping.

—Certain states seemed to have higher reports of sexual violence than
others. Alaska, Oregon and Nevada were among the highest in rapes and
attempted rapes of women, and Virginia and Tennessee were among the
lowest.

Several of the CDC numbers are higher than those of other sources. For
example, the CDC study suggests that 1.3 million women have suffered rape,
attempted rape or had sex forced on them in the previous year. That
statistic is more than seven times greater than what was reported by a
Department of Justice household survey conducted last year.

The CDC rape numbers seem "extremely high," but there may be several
reasons for the differences, including how the surveys were done, who
chose to participate and how "rape" and other types of assault were
defined or interpreted, said Shannan Catalano, a statistician with the
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"It is an evolving field, and everyone is striving to get a handle on
what's the best estimate," Catalano said.

The CDC's numbers don't seem surprising to people who work with abused women.

"I think that the awareness is growing," said Kim Frndak, community
educator for the Women's Rescue Center to End Domestic Violence, which
operates a shelter on the outskirts of Atlanta.

"More and more people are really saying, 'Oh, this is something that we
need to pay attention to as well,' because it's your sister, it's your
mother, it's your daughter, it's your son, it's your brother. Someone in
your own circle is being affected by domestic violence, and the effects
can be devastating," she said.

Associated Press Writer Kate Brumback in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Online:

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/

Abu Ghraib on the Allegheny: Sexual and Physical Abuse at Pennsylvania Prison

September 28, 2011 Solitary Watch

by Jean Casella and James Ridgeway

A story out of Pennsylvania reveals the extreme abuse to which some U.S. prisoners are subjected. Yesterday, a suspended prison guard from the State Correctional Institution (SCI)-Pittsburgh was arrested on charges that he sexually or physically assaulted more than 20 inmates–and the district attorney has signalled that there are more arrests to come. As the AP reports:

The 92 criminal charges filed Tuesday include several counts each of institutional sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and official oppression — which amounts to covering up the crimes or allegedly threatening others to do so. The criminal charges mirror allegations contained against [corrections officer Harry] Nicoletti and officials at the state prison in Pittsburgh in two civil rights lawsuits filed by inmates in recent months…

The lawsuits, one filed in 2010 and another on behalf of an anonymous inmate last week, allege the systematic abuse of inmates — especially those convicted of child sex-crimes, or believed to be homosexual —by Nicoletti and other inmates at his direction. The lawsuits say the abuse occurred over the past two years in the prison’s F Block, a reception area where new prisoners are housed for a few days for medical testing and to receive other supplies before they’re moved to permanent cells.

Among other things, Nicoletti is charged with raping inmates, threatening them with other sexual acts, and with having inmates contaminate the food and bedding of his alleged targets with urine and other bodily fluids.

According to the criminal complaint, one of Nicoletti’s victims was a transsexual male who developed female breasts due to hormone treatments. Nicoletti fondled that inmate before raping him, while shouting racial and sexual epithets, including calling him a “weird freaky monkey,” the complaint said.

In another instance, Nicoletti singled out an inmate for abuse by announcing the man’s conviction for a child-sex offense and saying “Make way for the mole,” according to the complaint…

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections professes to be shocked and appalled. But while Nicoletti’s conduct may represent the extreme, this is clearly not a case of a single rogue prison guard. The AP notes: “In April, corrections officials suspended eight guards at the prison, including Nicoletti, and four top prison officials were removed and have since left the department, although officials have declined to say whether they were fired or resigned.” Today, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said this morning that at least 11 other Department of Corrections employees will be charged after a wide-ranging investigation into sexual and physical abuse at SCI Pittsburgh.”

As Matt Stround reported last week in the Pittsburgh City Paper, one of the inmate lawsuits, filed in July by transgender prisoner Rodger Williams, contains “the assertion that [Nicoletti's] abuse ‘occurred with the full knowledge of the superintendent and other high ranking staff at … SCI-Pittsburgh.’ Williams’ lawsuit names as defendant former SCI-Pittsburgh superintendent Melvin Lockett and other prison administrators…In May, the DOC replaced Lockett and three other high-ranking officials at the prison. All three were named in Williams’ lawsuit; none are currently employed by the DOC. At the time, DOC press secretary Susan McNaughton would neither confirm nor deny to CP that the staffing changes had anything to do with the suspensions or grand-jury investigation.”

According to the Pittsburgh-based Human Rights Coalition, which tracks abuse in Pennsylvania’s prisons, the second inmate lawsuit, just filed on behalf an anonymous prisoner at SCI Pittsburgh, “depicts a situation of intimidation, coercion, and physical assault wielded against inmates who tried to refuse the guards or to expose the abuse. Beatings, filing of false charges against inmates, and retaliatory time in solitary confinement were common…All of this transpired with the full knowledge and inaction of the prison management, including Superintendent Lockett. John Doe’s parents made repeated calls to the DOC and the Commonwealth while their son was incarcerated at SCI Pittsburgh, to no avail.”

Prisoner abuse is not limited to SCI-Pittsburgh. Earlier reports by the Human Rights Coalition, based on extensive inmate testimony as well as prison records, show a pattern of what the group calls “institutionalized cruelty” in the solitary confinement “Restricted Housing Units” at SCI-Dallas, SCI-Huntingdon, and throughout the Pennsylvania prison system.

The release of a War Criminal

August 6, 2011 uruknet.com War Criminal Charles Graner was released from prison today. It's amazing to read the candy valentines to him from the press. He got a dishonorable discharge and was sentenced to 10 years (he only served six) after, as CNN noted in real time, being found "guilty of 10 charges, including aggravated assault, maltreatment and conspiracy." It was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- now a part of the distant history because the Iraq War has gone on so long. Graner and those serving with him abused Iraqi prisoners. They physically abused them, they sexually abused them, they humiliated them and they had no real defense for their actions. Though some involved in torturing were young, Graner was neither young nor inexperienced. He was already 34 and he'd previously served in the first Gulf War. His parents stated at the time that he was a fall guy for higher ups. There's little doubt (though no one's been able to prove it in court thus far) that the torture orders came from the White House (that was when Bush occupied it). There was no accountability above Graner. But if his parents want to boo-hoo over that, let's remember that Graner refused to take the stand in his own trial. He was caught. He chose not to implicate the ones above him. He's a War Criminal for his actions and he knows it. After his sentencing, he told CNN, "We were called to violate the Geneva Convention. We were asked to do certain things I wasn't trained to do." He's a War Criminal and he had a choice. So did the military. The military had many choices when it came to Graner. After the Gulf War, Graner became a prison guard. In June 2004 (months after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal news broke), David Finkel and Christian Davenport (Washington Post) reported on Graner and his 'work record' which included: In 1992, he was working at a county prison in Pennsylvania with guards who acknowledge beating up prisoners as a means of control. In 1994, he made a fellow prison guard sick by spraying Mace into his coffee. In 1997, he was accused by his wife of threatening to kill her. In 1998, when he was working as a guard in a state prison, he was accused by one inmate of slipping a razor blade into his food. That's not the end of his legal problems, but how did that record escape the military? Or was it because of that record that Graner was assigned to Abu Ghraib? Graner rejoined the military in 2001. How did that happen and how did he remain in the military? His first wife was Staci Graner. Whatever the marriage was, the separation and divorce were violent. Dennis Cauchon, Debbie Howlett and Rick Hampson (USA Today) reported in May 2004 about after the marriage broke up: Over the next four years, Staci Graner obtained three temporary protection of abuse orders. In an affidavit for the first order, Staci Graner said Charles Graner threatened to kill her and told her "that she could keep his guns, because he did not need them for what he was going to do to the plaintiff." A judge ordered the couple to conduct their child custody exchanges at the police station. For the 1998 order, Staci Graner testified that one night Charles Graner sneaked into the house where she was living with their children and jumped out at her from the laundry room to scare her. "I just don't think this is normal behavior, and he does frighten me," she testified. "I don't want him anywhere near me." Her affidavit said that Charles Graner "set up a video camera in my house without my knowledge and showed me the tapes." In 2001, Staci Graner filed a five-page, handwritten affidavit. She said that Charles Graner had come to her house and "yanked me out of bed by my hair, dragging me and all the covers into the hall and tried to throw me down the steps." Three protection of abuse orders and the military allowed him to re-enlist? Are you getting why women in the military are sexually assaulted so often? No, I'm not accusing Graner of sexually assaulting a fellow soldier (Iraqi detainees, yes) but a military that can overlook three court orders of protection against someone is a military that embraces violence against women and don't pretend otherwise. Looking at the issues involved -- and it's not just War Crimes -- today, I'm really shocked because I keep coming back to that idiotic plan by Maj Gen Anthony Cucolo at the end of 2009 when he wanted to court-martial any female soldier who got pregnant. And if she would say who the father was (and if he was in the military), he'd be court-martialed as well. Like that was going to happen in most cases. The plan was thankfully dropped due to public outrage. But Cucolo thought it was needed. And, reality, not only was it not needed but there was no effort to follow existing rules. Spc Charles Graner used Abu Ghraib as a sexual hookup. How did it help unit cohesion for him to sleep with Megan Ambuhl while both were stationed at Abu Ghraib prison? (He would marry Ambuhl after he was in prison -- with a friend standing in for him in the ceremony.) And do we not grasp how many rules were broken when he entered into a sexual relationship with Pfc Lynndie England? How many rules did that violate and why didn't the military punish Graner for that as well? Lynndie England (in the photo above) was 21 when the story broke. I've stated many times that she needs to take accountability for her role in the abuse and stop making excuses. Her actions were criminal, they were War Crimes. That doesn't mean on other areas, she doesn't have several arguments to make. Certainly she was used and abused by a superior who not only had a sexual relationship with her but also is the father of her child. Graner needed to be punished for the War Crimes. That's not in doubt. But the military allowing him to come in after all his domestic abuse issues and the military's refusal to punish him for his relationship with England (or any of the other women) goes a long way towards explaining why the rate of sexual assault is not declining in the military. When they can make an example, they chose not to. By choosing not to, they repeatedly send a message that sexual assault and misconduct is acceptable and just part of being in the military. They're not the only ones sending that message. Lynndie England immediately became the fact of the Abu Ghraib story. She was a woman so it was 'surprising' to some that she could abuse. She wasn't the only woman involved in the scandal (or in the photos). Long after details began emerging about Charles Graner (who was clearly the ringleader of those who were punished), about his past abuse as a prison guard, about his domestic abuse, long after all of that was in the news, Lynddie was still the shocker. Still the one to glom on. For some sexists. Doubt it? Read this sentence: "Indeed, Charles Granier, one of the abusers at Abu Ghraib and the lover of Linndie England the Trailer Park Torturer, worked as a guard at Pennsylvania's notorious Greene Correctional Unit and has since gone back to work there." Graner (his name is mispelled) is just "one of the abusers" but Lynndie (her name is mispelled) is a "torturer" and, not only that, she's so damn trashy: "Trailer Park". Do you not get the huge pass that's given to Graner in that sentence which demonizes Lynndi who served under him? The sentence acknowledges awareness of Graner's prison work in the US but even that awareness didn't lead to a cute little nickname for Graner like "Trailer Park Torturer," now did it? Who are we quoting? From "May 8/9, 2004," that's "Torture as Normalcy" by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (CounterPunch). And that template can be found in the reports on Graner's release which refuse to hold him accountable or express shock in the way that was repeatedly done in articles on Lynndie England.

:: Article nr. 80282 sent on 07-aug-2011 16:52 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=80282

Link: thecommonills.blogspot.com/2011/08/release-of-war-criminal.html

Top Bush-era GITMO and Abu Ghraib psychologist is WH's newest appointment

March 25, 2011 By Glenn Greenwald Salon.com

parity-inc.org

Dr. Larry James

(Updated below with White House response)

One of the most intense scandals the field of psychology has faced over the last decade is the involvement of several of its members in enabling Bush's worldwide torture regime. Numerous health professionals worked for the U.S. government to help understand how best to mentally degrade and break down detainees. At the center of that controversy was -- and is -- Dr. Larry James. James, a retired Army colonel, was the Chief Psychologist at Guantanamo in 2003, at the height of the abuses at that camp, and then served in the same position at Abu Ghraib during 2004.

Today, Dr. James circulated an excited email announcing, "with great pride," that he has now been selected to serve on the "White House Task Force entitled Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family." In his new position, he will be meeting at the White House with Michelle Obama and other White House officials on Tuesday.

For his work at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, Dr. James was the subject of two formal ethics complaints in the two states where he is licensed to practice: Louisiana and Ohio. Those complaints -- 50 pages long and full of detailed and well-documented allegations -- were filed by the International Human Rights Clinic of Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program, on behalf of veterans, mental health professionals and others. The complaints detailed how James "was the senior psychologist of the Guantánamo BSCT, a small but influential group of mental health professionals whose job it was to advise on and participate in the interrogations, and to help create an environment designed to break down prisoners." Specifically:

During his tenure at the prison, boys and men were threatened with rape and death for themselves and their family members; sexually, culturally, and religiously humiliated; forced naked; deprived of sleep; subjected to sensory deprivation, over-stimulation, and extreme isolation; short-shackled into stress positions for hours; and physically assaulted. The evidence indicates that abuse of this kind was systemic, that BSCT health professionals played an integral role in its planning and practice. . . .

Writing in 2009, Law Professor Bill Quigley and Deborah Popowski, a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, described James' role in this particularly notorious incident:

In 2003, Louisiana psychologist and retired Col. Larry James watched behind a one-way mirror in a US prison camp while an interrogator and three prison guards wrestled a screaming, near-naked man on the floor.

The prisoner had been forced into pink women's panties, lipstick and a wig; the men then pinned the prisoner to the floor in an effort "to outfit him with the matching pink nightgown." As he recounts in his memoir, "Fixing Hell," Dr. James initially chose not to respond. He "opened [his] thermos, poured a cup of coffee, and watched the episode play out, hoping it would take a better turn and not wanting to interfere without good reason ..."

Although he claims to eventually find "good reason" to intervene, the Army colonel never reported the incident or even so much as reprimanded men who had engaged in activities that constituted war crimes.

James treated numerous detainees who were abused, degraded, and tortured, yet never took any steps to stop or even report these incidents. Last year, Steven Reisner -- senior faculty member and supervisor at the International Trauma Studies Program, who also teaches at New York University Medical School and Columbia University -- told Democracy Now: "there is a lot of evidence that has been made public showing that the torture programs in the CIA and at Guantánamo, the Department of Defense, were created and overseen by health professionals, particularly psychologists" and that psychologists were at these facilities "to use their professional expertise to break down the detainees." James, argued Dr. Reisner, was directly implicated because:

Larry James was the chief BSCT starting in January 2003. And when you read the standard operating procedures for mental health, for how to -- behavior protocols for detainees during the time that Larry James was the chief psychologist, you find institutionalized abuse and torture -- isolation for thirty days at a time with absolutely no contact, prohibition of the International Committee of the Red Cross to see these detainees, no access even to religious articles, to the Qur’an, unless they cooperate with interrogations, not to mention frequent interrogation.

For his part, Dr. James claims he attempted to protect the detainees under his care from abuse and psychological injury. Meanwhile, the Louisiana psychology board refused to review the merits of the complaint against James on the grounds that the alleged acts were too old (outside the statute of limitations), while the Ohio board issued a three-sentence, cursory letter which decreed, without any explanation whatsoever, that "it has been determined that we are unable to proceed to formal action in this matter." So while the charges against him have not been formally sustained by either board, neither have they been evaluated or rejected by any apparent consideration of the merits. Judicial review of the Ohio board's decision is still possible (a Louisiana federal court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review the board's Statute of Limitations findings).

Despite the overwhelming evidence against him, James should not be deemed guilty in the absence of a formal adjudication. But the White House's conduct in selecting him is nonetheless baffling, at best. Of all the psychologists to choose from, why would they possibly choose to honor and elevate the former chief psychologist of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib at the height of the Bush abuses? More disturbing still, among those most damaged by detainee abuse are the service members forced to participate in it; why would the White House possibly want to put on a task force about the health of military families someone, such as Dr. James, who at the very least is directly associated with policies that so profoundly harmed numerous members of the military and their families?

This isn't exactly a powerful Task Force, but what this appointment does is have the White House -- yet again -- signal that it does not really take very seriously the Bush torture regime. On appearance grounds alone, the Obama administration should not be embracing and legitimizing the Bush-era Chief Psychologist of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Is there really nobody in the White House who was able to come to that realization on their own, or is this part of some twisted "reaching out" effort to show that they view bygones as bygones when it comes to the war crimes our leaders committed and whom the Obama administration continues to protect? Whatever the explanation, the symbolism here is as ugly as the mindset underlying it.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the email sent by Dr. James, as provided to me yesterday by Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program:

Message from Dean James for the SOPP Community:

Hello Everyone,

It is with great pride and pleasure that I write to the SOPP community and say that I have been appointed by the First Lady to a White House Task Force entitled Enhancing the Psychological Well-Being of The Military Family.

The first meeting will be at the White House next Tuesday (the 29th) and will be hosted by Mrs. Obama and her staff. Indeed, I feel honored and privileged to represent the SOPP, WSU and the APA in this important endeavor.

Next week I will provide a follow-up e-mail to provide more information.

All the best,

Larry C. James, Ph.D., ABPP
Dean & Professor
School of Professional Psychology
Wright State University
3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy
Dayton, Ohio 45435-001
Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

On its own website, HLS’s Human Rights Program reported that James sent this email "to colleagues and students of Wright State University, where Dr. James serves as Dean of the School of Professional Psychology.”

The White House, however, now tells a much different story. In an email to me from the First Lady’s Communications Director, the White House claims:

Several members of the White House staff are convening a meeting with multiple mental health professionals on Tuesday to discuss issues pertaining to the wellness of military families. SAMHSA and the American Psychological Association have both been asked to attend. We understand that Dr. James is involved with these groups and may have been indirectly invited to attend this meeting.

She claims, however, that he now will not be at that meeting, and further states that "Dr. James has not been appointed to serve in any capacity with the White House."

There’s obviously quite a discrepancy between the claims in the James email as provided by HLS' Human Rights Project and the White House’s claims. Calls to Dr. James regarding this matter have not been returned, but if I speak with him, I’ll post his response to the White House's denials.

Safety is an Illusion: Reflections on Accountability

Jan. 8, 2011 Anarchist News

by Angustia Celeste

I was asked by a dear friend to write this piece about accountability
within radical communities- offer some insight in light of the years we've
spent fighting against rape culture. Except I don't believe in
accountability anymore. It should be noted that my anger and hopelessness
about the current model is proportional to how invested I've been in the
past. Accountability feels like a bitter ex-lover to me and I don't have
any of those... the past 10 years I really tried to make the relationship
work but you know what?

There is no such thing as accountability within radical communities
because there is no such thing as community- not when it comes to sexual
assault and abuse. Take an honest survey sometime and you will find that
we don't agree. There is no consensus. Community in this context is a
mythical, frequently invoked and much misused term. I don't want to be
invested in it anymore.

I think its time to abandon these false linguistic games we play and go
back to the old model. I miss the days when it was considered reasonable
to simply kick the living shit out of people and put them on the next
train out of town- at least that exchange was clear and honest. I have
spent too much time with both survivors and perpetrators drowning in a
deluge of words that didn't lead to healing or even fucking catharsis.

I am sick of the language of accountability being used to create mutually
exclusive categories of 'fucked up' and 'wronged.' I find the language of
'survivor' and 'perp' offensive because it does not lay bare all the ways
in which abuse is a dynamic between parties. (Though I will use those
terms here because its the common tender we have.)

Anarchists are not immune to dynamics of abuse, that much we can all agree
on but I have come to realize more and more that we cannot keep each other
safe. Teaching models of mutual working consent is a good start- but it
will never be enough: socialization of gender, monogamy- the lies of
exclusivity and the appeal of "love" as propriety are too strong. People
seek out these levels of intensity when the love affair is new, when that
obsessive intimacy feels good and then don't know how to negotiate soured
affection.

That's the thing about patriarchy its fucking pervasive and that's the
thing about being an anarchist, or trying to live free, fierce and without
apology- none of it keeps you safe from violence. There is no space we can
create in a world as damaged as the one we live in which is absent from
violence. That we even think it is possible says more about our privilege
than anything else. Our only autonomy lies in how we negotiate and use
power and violence ourselves.

I really want to emphasize: there is no such thing as safe space under
patriarchy or capitalism in light of all the sexist, hetero-normative,
racist, classist (etc) domination that we live under. The more we try and
pretend safety can exist at a community level the more disappointed and
betrayed our friends, and lovers will be when they experience violence and
do not get supported. Right now we've been talking a good game but the
results are not adding up.

There are a lot of problems with the current model- the very different
experiences of sexual assault and relationship abuse get lumped together.
Accountability processes encourage triangulation instead of direct
communication- and because conflict is not pushed, most honest
communication is avoided. Direct confrontation is good! Avoiding it
doesn't allow for new understandings, cathartic release or the eventual
forgiveness that person to person exchanges can lead to.

We have set up a model where all parties are encouraged to simply
negotiate how they never have to see each other again or share space. Some
impossible demands/promises are meted out and in the name of
confidentiality lines are drawn in the sand on the basis of generalities.
Deal with your shit but you can't talk about the specifics of what went
down and you can't talk to each other. The current model actually creates
more silence- only a specialized few are offered information about what
happened but everyone is still expected to pass judgment. There is little
transparency in these processes.

In an understandable attempt to not trigger or cause more pain we talk
ourselves in increasingly abstracted circles while a moment or dynamic
between two people gets crystallized and doesn't change or progress.
"Perps" become the sum total of their worst moments. "Survivors" craft an
identity around experiences of violence that frequently keeps them stuck
in that emotional moment. The careful nonviolent communication of
accountability doesn't lead to healing. I've seen these processes divide a
lot of scenes but I haven't seen them help people get support, retake
power or feel safe again.

Rape breaks you- the loss of bodily control, how those feeling of
impotence revisit you, how it robs you of any illusion of safety or
sanity. We need models that help people take power back and we need to
call the retribution, control, and banishing of the current model for what
it is- revenge. Revenge is OK but lets not pretend its not about power! If
shaming and retaliatory violence is what we have to work with then lets be
real about it. Let's chose those tools if we can honestly say that is what
we want to do. In the midst of this war we need to get better at being in
conflict.

Abuse and rape are inevitable consequences of the sick society we are
forced to live under. We need to eviscerate and destroy it, but in the
meantime, we can't hide from it- or the ways it affects our most personal
relationships. I know in my own life an important process in my struggle
for liberation was making my peace with the worst consequences of my
personal assault on patriarchy. Dealing with being raped was an important
part of understanding what it meant to chose to be at war with this
society.

Rape has always been used as this tool of control- proffered up as a
threat of what would happen if I, in my queerness and gendered ambiguity,
continued to live, work, dress, travel, love or resist the way that I
chose to. Those warnings held no water for me- in my heart I knew it was
only a matter of time- no matter what kind of life I chose to live because
my socially prescribed gender put me at constant risk for violation. I was
raped at work and it took me a while to really name that assault as rape.
After it happened mostly what I felt, once the pain, rage and anger
subsided was relief. Relief that it had finally happened. I had been
waiting my whole life for it to happen, had had a few close calls and
finally I knew what it felt like and I knew I could get through it.

I needed that bad trick. I needed a concrete reason for the hunted
feelings that stemmed from my friend's rape, murder and mutilation a few
years back. I needed to have someone hurt me and realize I had both the
desire to kill them and the personal control to keep myself from doing it.
I needed to reach out for support and be disappointed. Because that's how
it goes down- ask the survivors you know most people don't come out of it
feeling supported. We've raised expectations but the real life experience
is still shit.

I was traveling abroad when it happened. The only person I told called the
police against my wishes. They searched the "crime" scene without my
consent and took DNA evidence because I didn't dispose of it. Knowing I
had allowed myself in a moment of vulnerability to be pressured and
coerced into participating in the police process against my political will
made me feel even worse than being violated had. I left town shortly
thereafter so I didn't have to continue to be pressured by my 'friend'
into cooperating with the police any more than I already had. The only way
I felt any semi-balance of control during that period was by taking
retribution against my rapist into my own hands.

I realized that I also could wield threats, anger and implied violence as
a weapon. After my first experience of 'support' I chose to do that alone.
I could think of no one in that moment to ask for help but it was OK
because I realized I could do it myself. In most other places I think I
could have asked some of my friends to help me. The culture of nonviolence
does not totally permeate all of the communities I exist in. The lack of
affinity I felt was a result of being transient to that city but I don't
think my experience of being offered mediation instead of confrontation is
particularly unique.

In the case of sexual assault I think retaliatory violence is appropriate,
and I don't think there needs to be any kind of consensus about it.
Pushing models that promise to mediate instead of allow confrontation is
isolating and alienating. I didn't want mediation through legal channels
or any other. I wanted revenge. I wanted to make him feel as out of
control, scared and vulnerable as he had made me feel. There is no safety
really after a sexual assault, but there can be consequences.

We can't provide survivors safe space- safe space, in a general sense,
outside of close friendships, some family and the occasional affinity just
doesn't exist. Our current models of accountability suffer from an
over-abundance of hope. Fuck the false promises of safe space- we will
never get everyone on the same page about this. Let's cop to how hard
healing is and how delusional any expectation for a radical change of
behavior is in the case of assault. We need to differentiate between
physical assault and emotional abuse- throwing them together under the
general rubric interpersonal violence doesn't help.

Cyclical patterns of abuse don't just disappear. This shit is really
really deep- many abusers were abused and many abused become abusers. The
past few years I have watched with horror as the language of
accountability became an easy front for a new generation of emotional
manipulators. It's been used to perfect a new kind of predatory maverick-
the one schooled in the language of sensitivity- using the illusion of
accountability as community currency.

So where does real safety come from? How can we measure it? Safety comes
from trust, and trust is personal. It can't be mediated or rubber stamped
at a community level. My 'safe' lover might be your secret abuser and my
caustic codependent ex might be your healthy, tried and true confidant.
Rape culture is not easily undone, but it is contextual.

People in relation to each other create healthy or unhealthy exchanges.
There is no absolute for 'fucked up', 'healed' or 'safe'- it changes with
time, life circumstance, and each new love affair. It is with feelings of
unease that I have observed the slippery slope of 'emotional' abuse become
a common reason to initiate an accountability process...

Here is the problem with using this model for emotional abuse: its an
unhealthy dynamic between two people. So who gets to call it? Who gets to
wield that power in the community? (And lets all be honest that there is
power in calling someone to an accountability process.) People in
unhealthy relationships need a way to get out of them without it getting
turned into a community judgment against whomever was unlucky enough to
not realize a bad dynamic or call it abuse first. These processes
frequently exacerbate mutually unhealthy power plays between hurt parties.
People are encouraged to pick sides and yet no direct conflict brings
these kinds of entanglements to any kind of resolve.

Using accountability models developed all those years ago to deal with
serial rapists in the radical scene has not been much to help in getting
people out of the sand pit of damaging and codependent relationships.
Emotional abuse is a fucking vague and hard to define term. It means
different things to every person.

If someone hurts you and you want to hurt them back- then do it but don't
pretend its about mutual healing. Call power exchange for what it is. Its
OK to want power back and its OK to take it but never do anything to
someone else that you couldn't stomach having someone do to you if the
tables were turned.

Those inclined to use physical brutality to gain power need to be taught a
lesson in a language they will understand. The language of physical
violence. Those mired in unhealthy relationships need help examining a
mutual dynamic and getting out of it- not assigning blame. No one can
decide who deserves compassion and who doesn't except the people directly
involved.

There is no way to destroy rape culture through non-violent communication
because there is no way to destroy rape culture without destroying
society. In the meantime let's stop expecting the best or the worst from
people.

I am sick of accountability and its lack of transparency.
I am sick of triangulating.
I am sick of hiding power exchange.
I am sick of hope.

I have been raped.
I have been an unfair manipulator of power in some of my intimate
relationships.
I have had sexual exchanges that were a learning curve for better consent.
I have the potential in me to be both survivor and perp- abused and
abuser- as we all do.

These essentialist categories don't serve us. People rape- very few people
are rapists in every sexual exchange. People abuse one another- this abuse
is often mutual and cyclical- cycles are hard but not impossible to amend.
These behaviors change contextually. Therefore there is no such thing as
safe space.

I want us to be honest about being at war- with ourselves, with our lovers
and with our "radical" community because we are at war with the world at
large and those tendrils of domination exist within us and they affect so
much of what we touch, who we love and those we hurt.

But we are not only the pain we cause others or the violence inflicted
upon us.

We need more direct communication and when that doesn't help we need
direct engagement in all its horrible messy glory. As long as we make
ourselves vulnerable to others we will never be safe in the total sense of
the word.

There is only affinity and trust kept.
There is only trust broken and confrontation.
The war isn't going to end anytime soon
Let's be better at being in conflict.

--------------------------------------

If you would like a copy of the zine please email downtothis@riseup.net