|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
|
Here's the second in Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's series as they describe Hillary Clinton's years in Little Rock and her narrow escape from federal charges that would have destroyed her political career for ever. PLUS KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY on how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are failing Black America even as they hunt for votes in So uth Carolina's "Black Primary." Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Remember contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now
|
|
Today's Stories September 1 / 2, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn August 31, 2007 Jeff
Gibbs Paul
Craig Roberts Ray
McGovern Robert
Weissman Matt
Vidal Robin
Mittenthal Chris
Kutalik Richard
Forno Binoy
Kampmark Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
August 30, 2007 Gary
Leupp John
Ross Anthony
DiMaggio Jordan
Flaherty Michael
Donnelly Russell
Mokhiber Dennis
Brutus William
S. Lind Martha
Rosenberg Jeff
Leys / Brian Terrell Website
of the Day
Patrick
Cockburn Winslow
T. Wheeler David
Rosen Dave
Zirin Paul
Craig Roberts Diane
Farsetta Ben
Davis Alan
Farago Jenna
Orkin Don
Monkerud Richard
Nasser Website
of the Day
August 28, 2007 Uri
Avnery Bill
Quigley Joshua
Frank China
Hand Firmin
DeBrabander Charles
Peña Andy
Worthington Ramzy
Baroud Anthony
Papa Ashley
Smith Website
of the Day
Jorge
Mariscal Bill
Christison Manuel
Garcia, Jr. Anthony
DiMaggio Bruce
A. Roth John
Walsh Dave
Lindorff Ron
Jacobs Binoy
Kampmark Russell
D. Hoffman Website
of the Day
August 25 / 26, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn James
Petras Jeffrey
Buchanan / Marjorie
Cohn Rev.
William E. Alberts Robert
Fantina Brian
Concannon Ralph
Nader Laura
Carlsen Fred
Gardner David
Michael Green Stephen
Soldz Mike
Ferner Paul
Krassner Ben
Tripp Missy
Beattie Website
of the Weekend
August 24, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Greg
Moses William Schroder Alan
Farago Jackie
Corr Jeff
Ballinger Bill
Quigley Dave
Zirin Richard
Rhames Ryan
Haygood Website
of the Day
August 23, 2007 Kathy
Kelly P.
Sainath Ron
Jacobs Christopher
Brauchli D.K.
Wilson Joshua
Frank Dan
Bacher Brenda
Norrell John
Wright David
Vest Website
of the Day
August 22, 2007 Norman
Finkelstein Marc
Levy Lawrence
R. Velvel Ray
McGovern Norman
Solomon John
Walsh Michael
Dickinson William
S. Lind Bill
Hatch Kenneth
E. Foster and John Joe Amador David
Vest Website
of the Day
Saul
Landau Alan
Farago John
Stauber Phillip
Rizk Debbie
Nathan Binoy
Kampmark Martha
Rosenberg Sunsara
Taylor Website
of the Day
August 20, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Uri
Avnery Rannie
Amiri John
Ross Harvey
Wasserman Robert
Billyard Dave
Lindorff James
Rothenberg David
"DC" Larson Website
of the Day August 18 / 19, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Saul
Landau Ralph
Nader Patrick
Cockburn Robert
Fantina Robert
S. Eshelman P.
Sainath Dave
Lindorff Anthony
DiMaggio Fred
Gardner Ron
Jacobs Tom
Turnipseed Paul
Krassner Ben
Tripp Andrew
Wimmer Nancy
Oden N.D.
Jayaprakash Rick
Smith Missy
Beattie Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
Joanne
Mariner Paul
Craig Roberts Shepherd
Bliss Dave
Lindorff John
Muthyala Patrick
Cockburn Sherwood
Ross Phil
Doe David
Michael Green Website
of the Day
Jonathan
Cook Christopher
Brauchli Norman
Solomon Lee
Sustar / George
Bisharat Binoy
Kampmark Evelyn
Pringle Hugo
Blanco Website
of the Day
August 15, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Michael
Neumann Jordan
Flaherty Sonja
Karkar Felice
Pace Joshua
Frank Dave
Lindorff Carla
Blank David
Vest Harvey
Wasserman Peter
Rost, M.D. Russell
Mokhiber Website
of the Day
August 14, 2007 Paul
de Rooij Winslow
T. Wheeler David
Rosen Gary
Leupp Clifton
Ross Muhammad
Idress Ahmad Jacquelyn
Godin Uri
Avnery Ramzy
Baroud James
McEnteer Website
of the Day
August 13, 2007 Jeremy
Scahill F.
William Engdahl Alexander
Cockburn Kathy
Kelly Chris
Floyd Paul
Craig Roberts William
Blum Kenneth
Couesbouc Rannie
Amiri Brenda
Norrell Fran
Shor Ron
Jacobs Website
of the Day
August 11 / 12, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Stan
Goff Ralph
Nader Vijay
Prashad Greg
Moses Alan
Farago Patrick
Cockburn Ben
Tripp Robert
Fantina John
Ross Seth
Sandronsky Paul
Krassner Website
of the Weekend
August 10, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Stan
Goff Marjorie
Cohn Saul
Landau Chris
Floyd Daniel
Ellsberg Anthony
Papa Farzana
Versey Sgt.
Kevin Benderman Nuri
Nuri Website
of the Day
August 9, 2007 Stan
Goff Paul
Craig Roberts Alan
Farago William
S. Lind Doug
Giebel Harvey
Wasserman Jacob
Hill Raul
Zibechi Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
August 8, 2007 Andy
Worthington Jeff
Halper Greg
Moses Nurit
Peled-Elhanan Sukant
Chandan Robert
Fisk George
H. Strauss D.K.
Wilson Bill
Day Tim
Campbell Website
of the Day
August 7, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Andy
Worthington Kathy
Kelly Stan
Cox Sonja
Karkar Sen.
Russ Feingold Alan
Farago Norman
Solomon Binoy
Kampmark Dave
Lindorff John
Stauber Website
of the Day
Subscribe Online
|
Weekend
Edition A Major Blow Against Human RightsA Sad Day for PsychologistsBy LINDA M. WOOLF Less than two weeks ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) Council of Representatives passed the 2007 Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as "Enemy Combatants." At that same time, the Council of Representatives voted not to support a statement limiting psychologist involvement in interrogations of prisoners defined as "enemy combatants."(a) At first glance, the 2007 Resolution appears to be a strong document and repudiation of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA interrogation sites, and other sites housing individuals detained as part of the "global war on terror." However, I believe it is a flawed document. I am also deeply disappointed by the vote of the APA Council to keep psychologists working, not for the primary welfare of prisoners but largely for the benefit of the state, in contexts defined as "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" under both the 2006 APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 2007 Resolution. I should note that I was not an uninvolved participant in these discussions. I was one of the co-drafters of the 2006 APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I was also initially involved in work on modifications to the 2007 Resolution (full disclosure of my involvement is provided below). I also have deep respect and warm collegial relationships, indeed friendships, with many who worked diligently on the revisions to the Substitute Motion that became the 2007 Resolution. Therefore, it is with great reticence and personal conflict that I share my thoughts. The 2007 Resolution: General Concerns Col. Larry James, a psychologist at Guantanamo Bay speaking before the APA Council of Representatives, stated not once but twice, "If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die." This statement is frightening in its implication. It essentially argues that psychologists are the primary protectors of prisonersthey stand between life and death, between these sites being defined as prison camps or even concentration camps as opposed to death camps. I find this chilling. Rhea Farberman, APA Public Affairs, stated in Newsweek, "We want to have an influence on the issue of torture, and that's why we're staying engaged. Others have divorced themselves from the process altogetherlike the American Medical Association, which has said it won't allow its members to be involved in interrogations in any way. But we think we can have more of an effect if we stay at the table" and "We feel we can play a positive role in maintaining detainee welfare." Unfortunately, history has shown, and I think physicians have learned, that professionals' continued involvement in destructive settings may simply serve as tacit approval of atrocities being committed at such settings. A profession becomes permanently stained by such involvement and, the long-term well-being of prisoners is rarely protected. I recognize that there are individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay and other sites who may wish great harm upon the United States and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I recognize that how we treat our "enemies" says more about who we are as people and a culture than it does about them. This is particularly true when detainees are in positions of relative helplessness and are of little threat to us within the context of their current confinement. Unfortunately, evidence from Abu Ghraib, the CIA sites, and Guantanamo Bay suggests that we have moved down a path to becoming the mirror image of the enemy we so purportedly despise. I also recognize that some of these detainees, particularly those captured in Afghanistan, most likely did nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, without access to due process as guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (cited in both the 2006 and 2007 APA Resolutions), these individuals may never leave Guantanamo Bay and similar sites. Moreover, if released, they will always carry the scars of their abusive detention and perhaps pass these scars on to their children. Unfortunately, those of us associated with the American Psychological Association, due to a policy of collaboration, will have collaborated in great harm. I also recognize that the United States interrogation and incarceration sites maintained as part of the "global war on terror" are uniformly condemned by a range of human rights NGOs, the International Red Cross, and the United Nations Human (UN) Rights Council (2006). In 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council called for the immediate closure of the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and called for an immediate cessation of "all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense" (p. 25). Yet, despite APA's status as a UN NGO, we, as an organization, have turned our back on the fundamental principles of human rights as outlined by numerous UN declarations, conventions, and related documents. Are there psychologists working hard to protect the welfare of prisoners in interrogation settings? I am sure that there are and I respect their efforts. Regardless, significant problems remain. First, situational pressures can overwhelm even the best among us. Second, psychologists are being asked to serve as protection for prisoners, a role generally assumed by legal counsel. The right to legal counsel is a fundamental component of due process and attorneys are best trained to protect our rights and interests in situations of detention. Finally, regardless of the positive motives of psychologists involved in working with the CIA or at sites such as Guantanamo Bay, they are at best treading water. They do not have the power to reform a broad, destructive context. The 2007 Resolution - Relation to the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment The 2007 Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as "Enemy Combatants" is aptly named. It is quite simply a reaffirmation and application of the 2006 APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is very little that is new in the 2007 Resolution but it is a clear explication of the concepts as applied to interrogation settings. The 2006 Resolution:
There are numerous other elements (go to http://www.peacepsych.org for the full text of the 2006 Resolution, justification statement, and FAQ page - scroll down the right hand side of the page) but this list represents some of the major features. The 2007 Reaffirmation Resolution simply repeats all of the above but within the context of interrogations of individuals defined as "enemy combatants" and "illegal enemy combatants" under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There is much that is good in the 2007 Reaffirmation largely due to the efforts of those who worked tirelessly at the 11th hour in an attempt to insure that this new Resolution didn't take a step backwards in relation to human rights. I have deep respect for those who worked to hold the 2007 Resolution to the principles inherent in the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Unfortunately, the last-minute proposal of a deeply flawed Substitute Motion and the resultant process by which that Substitute Motion was revised almost insured that ANY 2007 Resolution would be more press release than substance; it would maintain the status quo. And indeed, this was the outcome. The 2007 Resolution - Specific Concerns It is important to recognize that the 2007 Resolution makes some excellent points such as the statement, "BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention." Moreover, the 2007 Resolution reiterates important points from the 2006 Resolution such as, "there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders." Additionally, the 2007 Resolution reaffirms that contexts can be defined as cruel, inhuman, and degrading and highlights the importance of international documents such as the Geneva Conventions. Regardless, there are several serious problems with the 2007 Resolution and hence, the APA's position regarding interrogations of prisoners detained by the CIA, the U.S. Government, or the U.S. military at sites such as Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. These problems include:
Ultimately, the 2007 Resolution maintains the status quo and prisoners will continue to experience torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment both as a function of perpetrator behavior and as a function of context. It is indeed a sad day for psychologists, a sadder day for human rights, and a day of despair for detainees. Much like those historically who found themselves in similar situations of human rights abuses, psychologists working at Guantanamo Bay, previously at Abu Ghraib, or other detention sites will be forever marked simply by association with these abusive contexts regardless of their individual actions. Psychologist continued involvement in interrogations at these settings will be perceived as and, more importantly I fear, will have functioned as support for these inherently destructive environments. Certainly, the American Psychological Association and the psychology profession has become historically linked to atrocity and images of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the CIA sites. Rhea Farberman argued that we have chosen to "stay at the table." However, I think our presence at that table has come with a price, a stain, and significant shame. Personal Statement of Involvement and Concerns about the Process In 2006, I was one of the primary drafters of the APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and in 2007, I was one of the early members of the group drafting amendments to the Board of Directors Substitute Motion, which resulted in the 2007 Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as "Enemy Combatants." I withdrew my participation from the working group drafting the amendments to the Substitute Motion on Thursday of the Convention due to issues of conscience. In the weeks prior to the Convention, the Board of Director's sent to Council a Substitute Motion that represented, as written, a roll-back of some of the principles outlined in the 2006 Resolution. I do not think this was the intention of those drafting the Substitute Motion but rather the outcome of a hastily drafted documenta proposed alternate motion to a Moratorium Resolution already before Council. Many individuals responded to the Substitute Motion with statements of concern and suggestions for amendments. Moreover, individuals expressed the belief that for the Substitute Motion to genuinely be proffered as an alternative motion, these amendments needed to include a call for a limitation on psychologist involvement in interrogations(a). Work on the amendments began online and then several constituencies came together for intensive meetings during the Convention to work further on the wording of the amendments to the Substitute Motion. Immediately, I became concerned regarding what I perceived to be a pattern of groupthink. There was intense pressure to reach agreement and come out of the meetings with a Resolution that could be taken to Council representing a unified or "collaborative" effort. I originally felt compelled to work on the amendments as I did not want to see the Association move backward and hoped for forward movement representing the principles outlined in the 2006 Resolution. However, it quickly became clear that the goal of a unified draft seemed to take precedence over other concerns and the time crunch precluded extensive, careful consideration of wording, issues of international law, and broader human rights concerns. Moreover, it was clear that any statement involving limitations to psychologist involvement(a) at Guantanamo Bay and similar detention sites for "enemy combatants" was being actively discouraged and marginalized. Indeed, the way in which the potential clause concerning limitations was presented to Council encouraged its marginalization and it was subsequently voted down after a short period of discussion. The time issues both during and prior to the Council meeting and the manner in which Substitute Motion was presented to Council facilitated maintenance of the status quo in relation to psychologist involvement in interrogations at sites such as Guantanamo Bay and the CIA sites. I decided after my first two meetings with those working on the amendments to withdraw my participation. I began to perceive my participation as not "collaborative" in the sense of working together towards a positive goal but rather "collaboration" in the sense of unwitting assistance in destructive endeavors. Therefore, I wrote Dr. Stephen Behnke and others working on the Substitute Motion on the evening of August 16,
Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology and International Human Rights at Webster University. She can be reached at: woolflm@webster.edu More Information Psychologists concerned about the 2007 Resolution or who want to see the proposed amendment added into the Resolution during a future Council meeting should contact their APA Council Representative or members of the Board of Directors: http://cor.apa.org/corlist.cfm For information about the 2006 Resolution, go to http://www.peacepsych.org. Scroll down the right hand side of the page Torture and Terrorism Resources. The 2007 Resolution can be
found at http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html
. Conant, E. (2007, August 20, 2007). Capital sources: Shrinks and torture. Newsweek. United Nations Human Rights Council (2006). Economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political rights, situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay
|
CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy  Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues How the Press Failed The Gang's All Here: Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly...End Times Leaves No Reputation Unstained!  Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal  Click Here to Order!  Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair           The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn   Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont               CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed        Bruce Springsteen On Tour By Dave Marsh                   |
