Torture Memos Link Lawyers and Psychologists
by Katherine Eban
April 17, 2009, 4:25 PM
In the four newly released memos from the Bush Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, the argument for using psychological torture tactics against al-Qaeda detainees is made in scientific terms
But the science underlying the decision was dubious at best.
In the memos, Justice Department lawyers Jay S. Bybee and Steven Bradbury conclude that tactics such as slamming detainees against walls, confining them in coffin-like boxes, denying them sleep for up to 11 days, and even inducing a drowning sensation through waterboarding do not legally qualify as torture, because the tactics don’t create severe pain and suffering or lasting medical or mental harm.
That conclusion relied heavily on the advice of two psychologists, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen.My July 2007 article, “Rorschach and Awe,” gave the first detailed account of the two psychologists’ role as the architects and teachers of the coercive interrogation methods used by the C.I.A. and, later, the Department of Defense. “Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged harm would result from the use of the waterboard,” Bybee writes in a memo dated August 1, 2002
But what, if anything, did Mitchell and Jessen—both devout Mormons—know about real-world interrogations and the art of eliciting accurate, actionable intelligence from hostile foreign fighters? Absolutely nothing, according to Steve Kleinman, an Air Force Reserve Colonel and expert in human-intelligence operations. In 2007, Kleinman told Vanity Fair he found it astonishing that the C.I.A. “chose two clinical psychologists who had no intelligence background whatsoever, who had never conducted an interrogation … to do something that had never been proven in the real world.”
(More here.)
April 17, 2009, 4:25 PM
In the four newly released memos from the Bush Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, the argument for using psychological torture tactics against al-Qaeda detainees is made in scientific terms
But the science underlying the decision was dubious at best.
In the memos, Justice Department lawyers Jay S. Bybee and Steven Bradbury conclude that tactics such as slamming detainees against walls, confining them in coffin-like boxes, denying them sleep for up to 11 days, and even inducing a drowning sensation through waterboarding do not legally qualify as torture, because the tactics don’t create severe pain and suffering or lasting medical or mental harm.
That conclusion relied heavily on the advice of two psychologists, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen.My July 2007 article, “Rorschach and Awe,” gave the first detailed account of the two psychologists’ role as the architects and teachers of the coercive interrogation methods used by the C.I.A. and, later, the Department of Defense. “Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged harm would result from the use of the waterboard,” Bybee writes in a memo dated August 1, 2002
But what, if anything, did Mitchell and Jessen—both devout Mormons—know about real-world interrogations and the art of eliciting accurate, actionable intelligence from hostile foreign fighters? Absolutely nothing, according to Steve Kleinman, an Air Force Reserve Colonel and expert in human-intelligence operations. In 2007, Kleinman told Vanity Fair he found it astonishing that the C.I.A. “chose two clinical psychologists who had no intelligence background whatsoever, who had never conducted an interrogation … to do something that had never been proven in the real world.”
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home