<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>The Seven Paragraphs<br><br>
</b></font></h1><h2><b>Released Binyan Mohamed Abuse Evidence Poses
Problems for Both British and US Governments</b></h2><font size=3>By
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephensoldz">Stephen
Soldz</a><br>
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/the-seven-paragraphs-by-stephen-soldz" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-seven-paragraphs-by-stephen-soldz<br>
<br>
</a>Thursday, February 11, 2010<br><br>
In a major development in the struggle to curb the abuses committed as
part of the War on Terror, the British government today released under
court order previously redacted information on the abuse of Binyan
Mohamed by US interrogators. Here are the
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-evidence-paragraphs">
seven paragraphs</a> that were released which summarizes intelligence
information which both the British and US governments fought hard to
suppress:<br><br>
"It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by
the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new
strategy designed by an expert interviewer.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>"v) It was reported that at some stage during that further
interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been
intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of
the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.<br>
<dd>"vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation,
threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from
United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.<br>
<dd>"vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these
deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his
interviews<br>
<dd>"viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of
the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under
self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect
upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.<br>
<dd>"ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to
the SyS [security services] made clear to anyone reading them that BM was
being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect
upon him of that intentional treatment.<br>
<dd>"x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf
of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the
undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not
necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily
be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment by the United States authorities."<br><br>
</dl>This case has aroused tremendous attention in Britain, as it clearly
revealed British intelligence agents', and the British Government's,
complicity in abuse of a British citizen. The British public, unlike much
of the American, finds complicity in torture by its intelligence agents
to be deeply disturbing. <br><br>
The court decision ordering the release of this material is causing
additional outrage because it violated
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libertycentral/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-legal-principle-representations">
hundreds of years of legal precedent</a> in allowing only one side, the
British government, to suggest changes in the decision. These changes
were made without an opportunity of the defense to object. The
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-annotated-letter">
letter to the court</a> from the government lawyers requesting the
changes was released, however. That letter gives a sense of what was
excluded:<br><br>
"The Master of the Rolls's observations… will be read as statements
by the Court (i) that the Security Service does not in fact operate a
culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive
interrogation techniques; (ii) that this was in particular true of
Witness B whose conduct was in this respect characteristic of the service
as a whole ('it appears likely that there were others'); (iii) that
officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and
Security Committee on this point; (iv) that this reflects a culture of
suppression in its dealings with the Committee, the Foreign Secretary and
indirectly the Court, which penetrates the service to such a degree as to
undermine any UK government assurances based on the Service's information
and advice; and (v) that the Service has an interest in suppressing
information which is shared, not by the Foreign Secretary himself (whose
good faith is accepted), but by the Foreign Office for which he is
responsible."<br><br>
Thus, the British government is afraid that the lies they perpetrated in
the Binyan Mohamed case will disincline future courts from believing
claims that the British government can be trusted when it asserts that
they are opposed to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In
other words, the court might correctly understand that the British
government, like the US and many other governments, is a serial liar
when it comes to abuses committed by its agents.<br><br>
What may be less clear to US citizens is the potential enormous impact of
the released information to the anti-torture struggle in the US.
<a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/02/10/cruel-inhuman-and-degrading-treatment-by-the-united-states-authorities-before-the-bybee-memo/">
Marcy Wheeler</a> [emptywheel] has pointed out the major significance of
the apparent timing of Binyan Mohamed's abuse. It is reported to have
occurred before a visit by an MI5 officer on May 17, 2002. The
significance of the date is that it is before the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html">memos</a>
providing a legal cover for torture were issued in august, 2002.Thus,
Binyan Mohamed's abuse, unlike later abuses, cannot be justified as being
conducted in good faith under an authoritative legal opinion from the
OLC. <br><br>
Thus, this information just might provide an opportunity for prosecuting
some of the torture perpetrators. And if the perpetrators are culpable,
so may be those officials, however high they may be, who authorized the
abuse.<br><br>
Wheeler also points out that it is likely that the "expert
interviewer" who designed the "new strategy" used on
Binyan Mohamed was likely one of the CIA's chief torture psychologists,
<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable=true&currentPage=all">
James Mitchell</a> or
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true">
Bruce Jessen</a>, or at least an
<a href="http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=204358">
associate</a> of theirs. Thus, these architects of the CIA's torture
techniques may sweat a bit more after the release of these seven
paragraphs.<br><br>
The material released today also has several phrases that suggest that
Binyan Mohamed was being experimented upon. As the material staes, tThe
interrogations were "<i>part of a new strategy designed by an expert
interviewer</i>." And "<i>The effects of the sleep deprivation
were carefully observed.</i>" Why were these effects being
"carefully observed" unless to determine their effectiveness in
order to see whether they should be inflicted used upon others? That is,
the observations were designed to generate knowledge that could be
generalized to other prisoners. The seeking of "generalizable
knowledge" is the official definition of "research,"
raising the question of whether the CIA conducted illegal research upon
Binyan Mohamed.<br><br>
Last summer Physicians for Human Rights
<a href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/aiding-torture.pdf">
suggested</a> that materials in the then released CIA
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/oigreport">Inspector General's report</a> on
the "enhanced interrogation" program suggested that the CIA had
an systematic program of research. Such research is patently illegal and
violates the rules that have governed human research since the Nuremberg
Trials convicted German doctors for illegal research. This CIA research
also violates rules of the US government regulating all research on
people.<br><br>
Similarly, bioethicist Steven Miles argued in an appendix to the second
edition of his classic
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Oath-Betrayed-Americas-Torture-Doctors/dp/0520259688/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265838242&sr=8-2">
Oath Betrayed: America's Torture Doctors</a> that the detailed
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantnamo_bay_detainee_63_Mohamed_Mani_Ahmad_al-Kahtani_interrogation_log_2002">
interrogation log</a> of Mohammed al-Qahtan only made sense as the notes
for a research protocol. <br><br>
This new evidence on the torture of Binyan Mohamed adds to the
considerable evidence that, as part of its torture program, the CIA also
had a program to systematically study the effectiveness of torture
techniques. Last summer, Physicians for Human Rights called for an
independent investigation of this potential CIA research. The new
evidence suggesting that Binyan Mohamed may have been an unwitting
research subject only adds to the urgency of an investigation. <br><br>
In addition to the usual human rights advocates, all those who conduct
research on people -- psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and
biomedical researchers among others -- should join the call for an
investigation. For torture effectiveness research violates all the
principles that guide our work, that our efforts should improve human
welfare rather than degrade and destroy. We cannot allow the possibility
that our society will remain one where inhumane research can be conducted
with total impunity. <br><br>
<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 edits 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 working to change American
Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive
interrogations. He is President-Elect of
<a href="http://psysr.org/">Psychologists for Social Responsibility</a>
[PsySR].<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<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>