<html>
<body>
<dl>
<dd><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=80&ItemID=14320" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=80&ItemID=14320<br>
<br>
</a></font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5>Leaked Guantanamo Document
Confirms Routine Use of Isolation as Psychological Torture<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>by Stephen Soldz; November 18,
2007</b> <br><br>
<dl>
<dd>On November 7th of this year, a major 2003
<a href="https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Gitmo-sop.pdf">Guantanamo
Standard Operating Procedures</a> [SOP] manual was posted on the
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure">
wikileaks </a>web site. Ignored by most major sources for nearly a week,
<a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo">
Wired</a></i> and the
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/307964.html">Miami
Herald</a></i> picked it up the following Wednesday [the
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/308385.html">Herald</a></i>
amplified their reporting the next day.
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1424207020071114">
Reuters</a></i>, has picked up on the leak Thursday and the
<a href="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</a> on Friday. <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The Miami Herald</i> describes the manual and its importance and give
a flavor of its bureaucratic contents:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"No hair dye, it says on one page. But a double amputee got to
keep a bucket in his cell, it says."<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/dod_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.pdf).">
denied</a> the American Civil Liberties Organization [ACLU] access under
the Freedom of Information Act.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1424207020071114">
Reuters</a></i> and the
<a href="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</a></i>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&adxnnlx=1195330242-K/tH1ClxRqCZd%20GtREMw%20A&pagewanted=print">
</a>reports, is that, despite claims to the contrary, the US was hiding
detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]. As
Reuters</i> puts it:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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."<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Each detainee is assigned to one of four ICRC visitation levels.
Level A is:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes
the delivery of ICRC mail." [p. 17.1]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>This denial of ICRC access was in violation of the Geneva
Conventions, which state, as the
<a href="http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/leaked-guant%C3%A1namo-manual-shows-red-cross-denied-access-groups-detainees">
Center for Constitutional Rights</a> 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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The second major revelation from the SOP, mentioned in passing by
Reuters, </i>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 </i>reports:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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.'"<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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</i> 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):<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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</b> 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:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(1) Restricted contact: No ICRC or Chaplain contact<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(2) No books or mail privileges<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(3) MREs for all meals.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(4) Basic comfort items only:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(a) ISO Mat<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(b) One blanket<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(c) One towel<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(d) Toothpaste/finger toothbrush<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(e) One Styrofoam cup<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(f) Bar of soap<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(g) Camp Rules<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(h) No Koran, prayer beads, prayer cap.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(5) Mail writing and delivery will be at the direction of the
J-2.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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</b>. Until the JIG Commander
changes his classification, the detainee will remain a Level 5 with the
following:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(1) Continued MSU<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(2) Koran, prayer beads and prayer cap distributed by
interrogator<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(3) Contacts decided by interrogator<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"(4) Interrogator decides when to move the detainee to general
population." (emphasis added)<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Isolation has long been a preferred measure of abuse in US
detentions. As Mark Benjamin pointed out last July in Salon</i>,
isolation and the associated sensory deprivation, not waterboarding or
other more commonly discussed techniques, is
<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/07/sensory_deprivation/print.html">
the CIA's favorite form of torture</a>. 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
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361462/">Mohammed al-Qahtani
</a>were stopped from routine use and restricted in 2003 to the so-called
"<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117529704337355155-lMyQjAxMDE3NzM1MTIzOTE3Wj.html">
varsity program.</a>" Isolation was one of the interrogations
techniques authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his
<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc9.pdf">April
16, 2003 memo</a>. However, that memo gives a sense that isolation is a
severe, possibly illegal, technique:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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."<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Isolation is as damaging as other, more prominent, abusive
interrogation techniques. The recent Physicians for Human Rights-Human
Rights First report,
<a href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/leave-no-marks.pdf">
Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of
Criminality</a>, details the negative effects of isolation and sensory
deprivation:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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'....<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"Prolonged isolation has been demonstrated to result in
increased stress, abnormal neuroendocrine function, changes in blood
pressure and inflammatory stress responses....<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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].<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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.'"<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Of relevance to those of us struggling to change American
Psychological Association
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04132007.html">policy </a>on
psychologist participation in interrogations, the APA included clauses in
its
<a href="http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html">
2007 resolution against torture</a> that allows continued participation
in the use of isolation [and sensory deprivation] in certain
circumstances:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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</b>." (emphasis
added)<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The APA inclusion of this carefully-qualified language led many APA
critics, as well as certain reporters to wonder
<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/21/psychologists/index.html">
will psychologists still abet torture?</a> It is therefore essential that
the APA clarify the meaning of these apparent
"loopholes."<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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:<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"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."<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/06/21/colonel-larry-james-objects-to-our-open-letter-with-our-reply/">
Colonel Larry James</a>, 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</i></b>" (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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/06/21/colonel-larry-james-objects-to-our-open-letter-with-our-reply/">
extensive evidence</a> 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.]<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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?<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd><a href="mailto:ssoldz@bgsp.edu">Stephen Soldz</a> is a
psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member
at the <a href="http://www.bgsp.edu/">Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis</a>. He maintains the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm">Psychoanalysts for
Peace and Justice</a> web site and the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/">Psyche, Science, and
Society</a> 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.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
</dl>
</dl><font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>