[Ppnews] Leaked Guantanamo Document Confirms Routine Use of Isolation

[Political Prisoner News]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=80&ItemID=14320

Leaked Guantanamo Document Confirms Routine Use 
of Isolation as Psychological Torture
by Stephen Soldz; November 18, 2007

On November 7th of this year, a major 2003 
<https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Gitmo-sop.pdf>Guantanamo 
Standard Operating Procedures [SOP] manual was 
posted on the 
<http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure>wikileaks 
web site. Ignored by most major sources for 
nearly a week, 
<http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo>Wired 
and the 
<http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/307964.html>Miami 
Herald picked it up the following Wednesday [the 
<http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/308385.html>Herald 
amplified their reporting the next day. 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1424207020071114>Reuters, 
has picked up on the leak Thursday and the 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&adxnnlx=1195330242-K/tH1ClxRqCZd%20GtREMw%20A&pagewanted=print>New 
York Times on Friday.



The Miami Herald describes the manual and its 
importance 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 
Guantánamo 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 
<http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/dod_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.pdf).>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 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1424207020071114>Reuters 
and the 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&adxnnlx=1195330242-K/tH1ClxRqCZd%20GtREMw%20A&pagewanted=print>New 
York 
Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&adxnnlx=1195330242-K/tH1ClxRqCZd%20GtREMw%20A&pagewanted=print> 
reports, 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 
<http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/leaked-guant%C3%A1namo-manual-shows-red-cross-denied-access-groups-detainees>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 reports:



"It 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." (emphasis added)



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 
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/07/sensory_deprivation/print.html>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 
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361462/>Mohammed 
al-Qahtani were stopped from routine use and 
restricted in 2003 to the so-called 
"<http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117529704337355155-lMyQjAxMDE3NzM1MTIzOTE3Wj.html>varsity 
program." Isolation was one of the interrogations 
techniques authorized by Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld in his 
<http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc9.pdf>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 
documentation 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 documents 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 report, 
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/leave-no-marks.pdf>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 temporary 
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 report argues:



"The medical impact of sensory deprivation and 
prolonged isolation supports 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 
<http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04132007.html>policy 
on psychologist participation in interrogations, 
the APA included clauses in its 
<http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html>2007 
resolution against torture that allows continued 
participation in the use of isolation [and 
sensory deprivation] in certain circumstances:



"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." (emphasis added)



The APA inclusion of this carefully-qualified 
language led many APA critics, as well as certain 
reporters to wonder 
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/21/psychologists/index.html>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 
leadership 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 important 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 
circumstances 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 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/06/21/colonel-larry-james-objects-to-our-open-letter-with-our-reply/>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"  (emphasis added). 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 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/06/21/colonel-larry-james-objects-to-our-open-letter-with-our-reply/>extensive 
evidence from official documents and press 
reports 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 
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 reports 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.





<mailto:ssoldz at bgsp.edu>Stephen Soldz is a 
psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health 
researcher, and faculty member at the 
<http://www.bgsp.edu/>Boston Graduate School of 
Psychoanalysis. He maintains the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm>Psychoanalysts 
for Peace and Justice web site and the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/>Psyche, 
Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the 
Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the 
organizations leading the struggle to change 
American Psychological Association policy on 
participation in abusive interrogations.









Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20071119/e870df5f/attachment.htm>