[Ppnews] Obama's Afghan Torture Center

[Political Prisoner News]

The "Black Jail"



Obama's Afghan Torture Center and the American Psychological Association

By <http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephensoldz>Stephen Soldz

Friday, May 21, 2010

Change Text Size 
<http://www.zcommunications.org/the-black-jail-by-stephen-soldz#>a- 
| <http://www.zcommunications.org/the-black-jail-by-stephen-soldz#>A+
<http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephensoldz>Stephen Soldz's ZSpace Page
<http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/signup>Join ZSpace


A recent pair of articles by Marc Ambinder of the 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/10/05/inside-the-secret-interrogation-facility-at-bagram/56678/>Atlantic 
has shed new light upon activities in the secret 
so-called "black jail" on the Bagram Air Base in 
Afghanistan. Among other aspects, these new 
revelations suggest that psychologists may be 
playing a major role inside the facility, raising 
questions about the reasons for American 
Psychological Association (APA) lobbying 
activities in support of the agency that Ambinder 
reports is running the detention center.

In recent months the 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112703438_pf.html>Washington 
Post, 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29bagram.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print>New 
York Times, and 
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm>BBC 
reported on a secret prison on the fringes of the 
Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Referred to by 
former prisoners as the "black jail," this 
institution is reportedly a site where prisoner 
abuse is regular and systematic. The 
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm>BBC 
reported that all nine former prisoners they interviewed

"told consistent stories of being held in 
isolation in cold cells where a light is on all day and night.

"The men said they had been deprived of sleep by 
US military personnel there."

Thus, we can assume that 
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2005-may.html>psychological 
torture techniques of isolation, sleep 
deprivation, and hypothermia are routine aspects 
of treatment inside the facility.

The 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112703438_pf.html>Washington 
Post provided additional details through 
interviews with two youths imprisoned in the 
black jail. As one young man, Rashid, who is "younger than 16" described:



"At the beginning of his detention, he was forced 
to strip naked and undergo a medical checkup in 
front of about a half-dozen American soldiers. He 
said that his Muslim upbringing made such a 
display humiliating and that the soldiers made it worse.

"'They touched me all over my body. They took 
pictures, and they were laughing and laughing,' 
he said. 'They were doing everything.'

"He said he lived in a small concrete cell that 
was slightly longer than the length of his body. 
Food was tossed in a plastic bag through a slot 
in the metal door. Both teenagers said that when 
they tried to sleep, on the floor, their captors 
shouted at them and hammered on their cells.

"When summoned for daily interrogations, Rashid 
said, he was made to wear a hood, handcuffs and 
ear coverings and was marched into the meeting 
room. He said he was punched by his interrogators 
while being prodded to admit ties to the Taliban; 
he denied such ties. During some sessions, he 
said, his interrogator forced him to look at 
pornographic movies and magazines while also 
showing him a photograph of his mother.

"'I was just crying and crying. I was too young,' 
Rashid said. 'I didn't know what a prison looks like or what a prison is.'"

Ambinder received confirmation from the Defense 
Department of the existence of this secret 
detention center at Bagram that the Department 
had previously 
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8674179.stm>consistently 
denied existed. [Ambinder has a picture of the 
facility 
<http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2010/05/FacilityDSCN0175-26493.php>here.] 
He reports that the center is run, not by the 
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), as was 
<http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/hbc-90006166>previously 
reported, but by the Defense Intelligence 
Agency's (DIA) Defense Counterintelligence and 
Human Intelligence Center (DCHC) in the course of 
its providing intelligence services for Task 
Force 714. For those with long memories, DCHC is 
essentially where the Defense Department stuffed 
the old Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) 
after the latter was "disbanded" due to several 
major scandals involving 
<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0318-02.htm>spying 
on Americans 
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-16-tkc-CIFA_x.htm>and 
<http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14898>fraud 
connected with former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

It isn't clear if it really makes a difference if 
the "black jail" is run by JSOC or DCHC. After 
all, Task Force 714, which DCHC is serving, is 
itself a 
<http://washingtonindependent.com/67136/special-operations-chiefs-quietly-sway-afghanistan-policy>JSOC 
special ops force:



"McRaven runs a secretive detachment of Special 
Forces known as Task Force 714 -- once commanded 
by McChrystal himself -- that the NSC staffer 
described as 'direct-action' units conducting 
'high-intensity hits.' In an email, Sholtis said 
that because Task Force 714 was a 'special ops 
organization' he 'can't go into much detail on 
authorities, etc.' But the NSC staffer -- who 
called McRaven 'McChrystal Squared' -- said Task 
Force 714 was organized into 'small groups of 
Rangers going wherever the hell they want to go' 
in Afghanistan and operating under legal 
authority granted at the end of the Bush 
administration that President Obama has not revoked."

[Scott Horton has made a similar point 
<http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007044>here.]

As Ambinder reports, the Defense Department now 
admits that this secret Afghan prison uses 
interrogation techniques from the 
<http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf>Army 
Field Manual's 
<http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/how_the_u.s._army%27s_field_manual_codified_torture_--_and_still_does/>infamous 
Appendix M. This appendix 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2010/01/24/alexander-close-tortures-loopholes-amend-army-field-manual/>authorizes 
abusive techniques, 
<http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/14/dods-latest-black-site/>including 
sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and 
"environmental manipulation" [think freezing 
someone or blinding light] that often amount to torture.

Consistent with the multitudinous reports of 
severe abuse in the "black jail," Ambinder 
reports that there is a top secret Special Action 
Program authorizing DCHC interrogations. As Jeff 
Kaye pointed out in an 
<http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/14/dods-latest-black-site/#comment-235268>emptywheel 
comment, if only Appendix M-based techniques -- 
which are covered by the Army Field Manual -- are 
used, why the need for a Special Action Program? 
Thus, we must wonder what, exactly, DCHC is doing 
at Bagram and other sites. Whatever it is, it 
apparently isn't something they want us, the public, to know about.

For those who think that President Obama banned 
torture centers like this, think again. Obama's 
Executive Order only banned CIA secret prisons. 
This administration thus apparently intended from 
the beginning to maintain its torture facility, 
only under a Defense Department rather than CIA label.

Further information about the black jail is 
provided in a 
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/bagram-what-appendix-m-says-about-interrogation/56772/>follow-up 
post, where Ambinder provides this description of the "black prison":



"From what information I've been able to gather, 
the interrogation environment is much like a 
social science laboratory, with psychologists and 
experts in human behavior looking for clues to 
see who might know more than they do, alternating 
with interrogators trained to ferret out 
actionable intelligence information." [emphasis added]

If the detention facility is being run as a 
"social science laboratory," it raises concerns 
that the psychologists and others may be 
conducting research on the detainees without 
these detainees' consent. As a result of the 
abusive research of the Nazi doctors and research 
on poor black men in this country denied by the 
US Public Health Service well-known treatments 
for syphilis as they got sick and died in the 
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, informed consent 
has been a requirement in this country for all 
but the most benign research for decades. Thus, 
Ambinder's report raises the prospect that 
detainees in the "black jail" may be subjects of 
otherwise banned research procedures.

Wherever psychologists are involved in national 
security work, links to the APA are seldom hard 
to find. In this case, the APA has regularly 
lobbied for funding for DCHC while a former top 
APA research scientist was until very recently at 
CIFA and its successor, DCHC, investigating 
"deception detection,"  like that reportedly occurring inside the "black jail."

Over the years, the APA has devoted considerable 
lobbying resources to maintaining Congressional 
funding for CIFA. Thus, in a 
<http://www.apa.org/about/gr/science/spin/2008/06/advocating.aspx>report 
on APA lobbying for fiscal year 2009, the APA 
ignored all the issues regarding corruption and 
illegal spying at CIFA as they advocated for protecting the agency's funding:



"Dr. Boehm-Davis concluded her testimony by 
noting another APA concern -- the potential loss 
of invaluable behavioral science programs within 
DoD's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) 
as it reorganizes and loses personnel strength. 
APA's testimony urged Congress to provide ongoing 
funding in the next fiscal year for CIFA's 
behavioral research programs on cyber security, 
insider threat, and other counter-terrorism and 
counter-intelligence operational challenges."

After CIFA was folded into DCHC in the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, the APA lobbied Congress for 
money for "behavioral science" to support the 
DIA's activities, including the 
counterintelligence work now located in DCHC. 
Here is a section from the written APA testimony 
to the US Senate Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense regarding appropriations 
for the Fiscal Year 2010 budget:


"APA... is concerned with maintaining invaluable 
human-centered research programs formerly within 
DoD's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) 
now that staff and programming have been 
transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency. 
Within this DIA program, psychologists lead 
intramural and extramural research programs on 
counterintelligence issues ranging from models of 
'insider threat' to cybersecurity and detection 
of deception.  These psychologists also consult 
with the three military services to translate 
findings from behavioral research directly into 
enhanced counterintelligence operations on the ground.

"APA urges the Subcommittee to provide ongoing 
funding in FY10 for counterintelligence 
behavioral science research programs at DIA in 
light of their direct support for military intelligence operations."

There have been strong personal contacts between 
APA and CIFA/DCHC psychologists. The former 
Director of Behavioral Science for CIFA, Scott 
Shumate, was selected for the 
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/26/interrogation/>APA's 
2005 PENS [Psychological Ethics and National 
Security] taskforce, where he and the majority of 
other members from the military-intelligence 
establishment proclaimed it ethical, even 
essential, for psychologists to aid Bush-era 
interrogations at Guantánamo and elsewhere. 
Shumate had previously served with the CIA's 
Counterterrorism Center and was present for at 
least part of the 2002 torture of Abu Zubaydah; 
Shumate claims to have 
<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable=true&currentPage=all>left 
in disgust, but the New York Times' Scott Shane 
reports skepticism about this claim. He quotes 
"[o]ne witness [who] said he believed that 
'revisionism' in light of the torture controversy 
had prompted some participants to exaggerate their objections."

More recently, Susan Brandon -- a former APA 
Senior Scientist who brought together 
psychologists and "operational personnel" from 
the intelligence community and later served as 
<http://www.apa.org/about/gr/science/spin/2004/02/brandon.aspx>Assistant 
Director for Social, Behavioral and Educational 
Sciences for the Bush White House -- 
<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/383/74a#name>landed 
at CIFA and after the reorganization 
<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12854&page=95>at 
DCHC. Brandon was one of the silent observers at 
the PENS taskforce 
<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/20/1628234>described 
by dissident taskforce member Jean Maria Arrigo 
as exerting pressure on members to adopt a likely 
pre-approved policy in favor of participation in 
Guantánamo, CIA, and other interrogations. 
Throughout her career, including her time at 
CIFA/DCHC, Brandon worked on "deception 
detection" and other matters relevant to interrogations.

Thus, personal ties as well as a general desire 
to curry favor with the military-intelligence 
establishment likely influence APA support for 
CIFA and counterintelligence efforts within DIA 
-- that is, for DCHC.  While these agencies 
employ a number of psychologists -- 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/18/AR2005121801006_pf.html>CIFA 
reportedly employed 20 psychologists when Shumate 
was director of behavioral sciences there -- the 
numbers of psychologists potentially affected by 
budget cuts alone cannot explain APA support over the years.

In pursuit of influence and a seat at the table 
with the national security apparatus, the APA has 
usually bought into unsubstantiated claims that 
these and other military-connected intelligence 
psychologists were opposed to torture and abuse, 
even as evidence mounted that many intelligence 
psychologists were participants in torture and 
other abuses that permeated much of US detention 
operations at Guantánamo, Bagram, and Iraq in 
recent years. That is, claims that psychologists 
were preventing abuses 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Soldz_ClosingEyesToAtrocities_HLS_Book.pdf>were 
cover for the fact that APA's leadership 
<http://blog.aclu.org/2009/06/24/can-the-american-psychological-association-break-with-torture-collusion/>apparently 
never cared what it was that these psychologists might be doing.

Given this history of APA's leadership turning a 
blind eye to reports of psychologist involvement 
in abuses, we shouldn't hold our breath expecting 
the APA to change its position on DIA/DCHC 
funding now that the Defense Department admits 
that DCHC runs a detention facility using 
techniques like sleep deprivation that the APA 
itself has 
<http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html>proclaimed 
unethical and amounting to either 
<http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/amend022208.html>torture 
or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. After 
all, for the APA leadership in recent years, 
professional opportunities for psychology have 
always trumped professional ethics, at least in the national security sector.

Psychology as a profession is at a crossroads. As 
the connections discussed here illustrate, the 
profession has long-standing ties to the 
military-intelligence establishment that, outside 
of the awareness of many members, permeate much 
of its public policy making. While it is, 
perhaps, too much to expect that these relations 
will totally end, they must become more 
transparent and subject to public discussion and 
debate. A first step would be for APA leaders to 
express concerns and call for an independent 
investigation of the possibility that 
psychologists are studying or otherwise aiding 
abuses at the "black jail." That, alas, is a 
simple step that is extremely unlikely from the 
profession's current leadership.


<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 edits 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 working to change American 
Psychological Association policy on participation 
in abusive interrogations. He is President-Elect 
of <http://psysr.org/>Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR].




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/20100521/87c544a9/attachment.htm>