
Psychologists Shielded U.S. Torture Program, Report Finds - mcgwiz
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/psychologists-shielded-us-torture-program-report-finds.html?_r=0
======
littletimmy
It is enlightening to see that the Joseph Mengeles and Shiro Ishiis of our
times are not subject to any sanction.

Remember folks, this is only the torture that we know. There are dozens of CIA
black-sites around the world about which we know next to nothing. It is not
too hard to imagine a regime that can torture people via waterboarding can
also torture people by, say, forced heroin withdrawal and then just kill them.

Just goes to show, the only morality is that of the victor.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_It is enlightening to see that the Joseph Mengeles and Shiro Ishiis of our
times are not subject to any sanction._

Mengele was actually pursued, but Shiro Ishii is (in)famous precisely for
getting away scot-free in the most nonchalant manner possible: simply by
releasing the data.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Ishii also threatened to break a jar of cholera in a room full of people. Dude
was evil but at least he understood himself.

~~~
tomjen3
Really? Then he was stupid. Breaking a jar of cholera in a room full of people
does jack shit and nothing, at most the people would need to shower. At best
they should wash their hands before eating.

Cholera causes diarea, but that is about it. It is only dangerous when you
don't have access to clean drinking water. Also it spreads orally.

~~~
natermer
If his threat worked then it doesn't mean he is stupid. The people that were
stupid were the ones that took it seriously.

------
c_prompt
A few related articles of interest:

Why I Am Not a Member of the American Psychological Association -
[http://www.chalquist.com/apa.html](http://www.chalquist.com/apa.html)

EMAILS REVEAL CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY GROUP AND CIA -
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/30/emails-show-
cl...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/30/emails-show-close-
relationship-psychology-group-cia/)

------
nickbauman
Before anyone gets into the morality of torture. Can anyone even point to
_open, independently verifiable evidence_ that shows that torture yields good
human intelligence?

~~~
colechristensen
Of course, people sometimes miss the forest for the trees and forget about the
obvious.

Torture is very effective when you are certain the subject actually knows the
target information and the information is easily verifiable.

For example, I have a copy of your encrypted hard drive (a copy to prevent
self-destructs) and I beat you with a rubber hose until you give me a password
that works. This is pretty simple and obviously effective. The ease of
verification and quick consequences eliminates the value of lying. If I'm
mistaken and it isn't your hard drive, this is treated as a separate failure.

I can even see (a very small number of) morally justifiable situations in
which this is acceptable.

There's a difference when you can't be certain the subject knows the
information you want – or if that information isn't easily verifiable.
(Where's the leader of your cell going to be next Thursday?)

It's often the case that being nice to folks is a whole lot more effective.
Especially with the "death to America" kinds of subjects. Kind words, a soft
bed, and a hot meal given to a person who was raised in an environment where
Americans were believably depicted as monsters can do a lot to make a person
cooperative. Especially if you show it as an opportunity to 'get out'. You can
hear compelling stories to this effect in many places.

~~~
itistoday2
The point is that torture:

1\. Is not helpful or useful even if, by chance, accurate information is given
[1,2].

2\. Hurts our national security [2].

3\. Is unnecessary. Given that torture is one of _the most harmful_ options to
pick from, it's likely there are other, less harmful options available, and if
so, the logical and ethical action is to pursue those instead.

On that third point I challenge you to prove me wrong. You won't be able to,
however, because we have no meaningful oversight of these practices.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9867266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9867266)
[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9868400](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9868400)

~~~
colechristensen
In the vast majority of cases I have no argument. In both cases which have
come public and those which have not. The support by both the executive and
legislative branches as well as military and intelligence is not only morally
abhorrent but both in the grand scheme and in small scales is in practice
ineffective. The price, that is, is not worth paying.

But I am also practical. Looking at the big picture in the long term, I
recognize that people in power will face very difficult decisions. I recognize
that the world is an ugly complicated place and the best leaders making the
best decisions will have to take morally reprehensible actions.

If you rally against it, make absolute laws against it, enforce them perfectly
with the most terrible punishments – it's still going to happen. People are
still going to make those choices.

But if you are capable of even the slightest sympathies to the realities of
the world – you might be able to minimize the damages.

Moral absolutes and prohibitions don't work. You don't design bridges and
airplanes not to fail, you design them to fail well.

It is not a defensive of horrible acts, but a recognition of the tiniest
exceptions. The arts and literature are full of these topics probing questions
about ethically wrong actions being the right decision, and they have a point.
Rarely, but surely. There's a wide gulf between never and almost.

------
jimrandomh
Go straight to page 12 of the report, the section titled "key players". Every
person named in that section should be brought before a court of law, to
determine the truth or falsehood of the accusations in this report. The US
criminal justice system has taken a lot of blows to its credibility recently;
this is a chance to demonstrate that it still does what it's supposed to... or
that it doesn't.

> The APA official who led this behind-the-scenes coordination with the DoD
> officials was the Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke, and the key DoD official
> he partnered with was Morgan Banks, the chief of psychological operations
> for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and the head of the Army SERE
> Training program at Ft. Bragg. During the task force’s premeeting
> communications, during its three-day meetings, and in preparing the task
> force report, Behnke and Banks closely collaborated to emphasize points that
> followed then-existing DoD guidance (which used high-level concepts and did
> not prohibit techniques such as stress positions and sleep deprivation), to
> suppress contrary points, and to keep the task force’s ethical statements at
> a very general level in order to avoid creating additional constraints on
> DoD. They were aided in that regard by the other DoD members of the task
> force (who, for the most part, also did not want ethical guidance that was
> more restrictive than existing DoD guidance), and by high-level APA
> officials who participated in the meeting.

> Other leading APA officials intimately involved in the coordinated effort to
> align APA actions with DoD preferences at the time of PENS were then-APA
> President Ron Levant, then APA President-Elect Gerald Koocher, and then-APA
> Practice Directorate chief Russ Newman. Then-APA Board member Barry Anton
> participated in the selection of the task force members along with Levant,
> Koocher, and Behnke and in the task force meeting, but was involved
> substantially less than the others. Other members of the APA executive
> management group—namely, CEO Norman Anderson, Deputy CEO Michael Honaker,
> General Counsel Nathalie Gilfoyle, and communications director Rhea
> Farberman were involved in relevant communications, as described below.

> The other DoD official who was significantly involved in the confidential
> coordination effort was Debra Dunivin, the lead psychologist supporting
> interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay at the time who worked closely
> with Banks on the issue of psychologist involvement in interrogations. At
> times, they were coordinating their activities with the Army Surgeon
> General’s Office. There is evidence that Banks was consulting with other
> military leaders, likely in the Army Special Operations Command and the
> Joint Task Force – Guantanamo, although this was not the focus of our
> investigation, in part because of our limited ability to access DoD
> documents and personnel. Another important DoD official involved in some
> coordination with Behnke was PENS task force member Scott Shumate, a former
> CIA official who was head of behavioral sciences for a newly-created counter
> intelligence unit (CIFA) within DoD, which reported to the Under Secretary
> of Defense for Intelligence.

> For Banks, Dunivin, and others at DoD, the attention on the abusive
> treatment of detainees as a result of the media disclosures of Abu Ghraib,
> the torture memos, the DoD working group report, and other related events
> created uncertainty and worry about whether the involvement of psychologists
> in interrogations would be deemed unethical. Some in DoD, such as civilians
> Shumate and Kirk Kennedy at CIFA, were pushing APA to move forward with
> action that would show support for national security psychologists and help
> end the uncertainty by declaring that psychologists’ participation in
> interrogations (with some then-undefined limits) was ethical. Others, like
> military officers Banks and Dunivin, reacted to APA’s movement toward the
> creation of the task force with concern that APA could head in a negative
> direction if the task force was not properly set up and controlled, and with
> awareness that this was an opportunity for DoD.

Stephen Behnke. Morgan Banks. Ron Levant. Gerald Koocher. Russ Newman. Barry
Anton. Norman Anderson. Michael Honaker. Nathalie Gilfoyle. Rhea Farberman.
Debra Dunivin. Scott Shumate. Kirk Kennedy.

~~~
stfu
Thing is, in that industry being known for bending the rules is most likely a
badge of honor. If you really want to go after them you need to use their
tactics back on them, e.g. drag their families out of anonymity etc.

~~~
Zigurd
That is the question: When we are fairly certain justice won't happen. What to
do?

------
chrisbennet
What ever happened to "do no harm"?

~~~
stefantalpalaru
Psychologists are not psychiatrists, so they are not really part of the
medical world. And, anyway, we already gave up this principle when we started
doing live donor transplants.

~~~
itistoday2
It's one thing to rationalize "live donor transplants", quite another to make
excuses for torture.

~~~
dalke
More specifically, medical ethics work under the Declaration of Helsinki, and
not "first, do no harm".

For example, the Declaration says "In medical practice and in medical
research, most interventions involve risks and burdens." That is not the same
as "do no harm."

Also, "While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new
knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests
of individual research subjects." and "Appropriate compensation and treatment
for subjects who are harmed as a result of participating in research must be
ensured." and "No national, ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be
allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects set
forth in this declaration."

On the specific topic of the medical ethics of live donor transplants, see
[http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/1089.full](http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/1089.full)
.

~~~
Semiapies
The Declaration of Helsinki has to do with medical _research_ ethics
specifically, not the broad field of medical ethics.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki)

~~~
dalke
Thanks for the correction.

------
coldcode
When people in charge of ethics have no ethics where does that leave us?

------
louithethrid
Im wondering, if this could be prevented by providing acountability across
generations. If we where to store the names of torturing individuals - and
generate a civilian resistance- by refusing to employ, buy and sell to those
who engage in torture and everyone decending from them, pressure could be
applied.

"Im not going to the prom with you, cause your father/grandfather was a
torturer" \- sounds like something that could hit home. And goverment seems to
have escaped all (self)controll otherwise.

~~~
steve19
So don't punish the individuals but punish their grandchildren because they
share 1/4 of thier grandparents DNA. Sounds fair.

Now how about we make a family tree of all the anti gay marridge activists so
we can punish thier great-grandchildren in 80 years time. That will teach them
not to be born share DNA with thier great-grandparents.

------
shadowmoses
American style corruption.

------
itistoday2
I would like to take this moment to point out that John Kiriakou is doing an
Indiegogo campaign:

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-whistleblower-who-
won...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-whistleblower-who-won-t-be-
silenced#/story)

It's because of people like him that we know about this at all.

He put his life on the line for us. Only he was imprisoned. The torturers
[1,2] are still free.

Until there are consequences to torture it will continue to happen, and
Kiriakou's sacrifice will be in vain.

Think about what the pizza delivery man has done for you, and compare that to
what Kiriakou did for us all.

Consider sending him a monetary thank you for his service to you, to our
country, and to humanity. I did.

[1] [http://www.ibtimes.com/who-cia-torture-report-george-
tenet-h...](http://www.ibtimes.com/who-cia-torture-report-george-tenet-hassan-
ghul-6-other-names-know-senates-1745209)

[2] [http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/12/12/15221/whos-
respons...](http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/12/12/15221/whos-responsible-
cias-torture-policy)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
My word. That is embarrassing. This guy spent years in prison on our behalf,
and his campaign is getting nowhere.

~~~
meowface
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm going to (partly) side with the CIA
here. He was not charged due to his reveal of CIA torture in the form of
waterboarding.

[http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/local-
news...](http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/local-news/john-
kiriakou-cia-officer-turned-whistleblower-shares-his-story.php)

>Months after the ABC interview, a reporter working on a book about the CIA’s
rendition practices asked Kiriakou to confirm the name of a covert officer.
The book was never published, but the reporter passed the name to an
investigator who worked for lawyers defending Guantánamo detainees. Radack
maintains that the operative’s name was already an open secret among
journalists and human-rights advocates.

Revealing the name of a covert agent can jeopardize their life and the lives
of others. The claim that it's an "open secret" doesn't exactly hold water
(being an oxymoron and all).

>John. A. Rizzo, a former lawyer at the Agency, says: “My sense is [Kiriakou]
is not a bad man. But he did a bad thing and a stupid thing. The bad thing is
that he disclosed the name of at least one covert CIA operative to a reporter
via e-mail. The stupid thing is that he lied to the FBI about having done so.
These are not trivial criminal offenses.”

Kiriakou alleges that his prosecution was retaliation for his leaking of the
CIA's waterboarding tactics. And that's certainly possible. Waterboarding is
wrong, and I do think he was in the right for admitting that the CIA used
waterboarding. But if you reveal the name of someone undercover, you should be
aware of the consequences. He served 23 months for leaking the name and for
perjuring himself, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

~~~
hackuser
I don't know much about the story, but a couple thoughts:

1) High-level officials disclose classified information with no or little
consequence. For example, someone in the Bush administration outed CIA agent
Valarie Plame for political reasons, and General Patraeus disclosed classified
information and got a slap on the wrist. And they leak it to the media
regularly.

2) It could be that they didn't care about the leak but wanted to prosecute
him and found a reason, found in his years of service and in his actions
something they could charge him with.

My point is, I wouldn't take it at face value.

~~~
cmdkeen
To slightly adjust a British military saying, you need to remember your
irregular verb "to leak":

The soldier commits a Federal crime. The junior officer displays a marked lack
of integrity. The senior officer delivers an off the record briefing to the
favoured reporter.

------
fredgrott
Now for a little more background..you may not like to hear this...

The reason for all this is the NSA and CIA and DCI, etc can only brute force
break 5% of the Elliptical keys used to encrypt messages.

No I will not explain the math behind this as it is very long and long-winded,
suffice it to say that instead of the RSA style prime key being the one-way
function some characteristics of the curve also become the the one-way
function which is why its harder to brute force Elliptical keys than RSA
keys..

That being said when dealing with real hard bad guys and gals its often the
ugly parts of military that are used to meet the treat.

This 'torture' processes were approved under Reagan, including using black
sites some what 40 years ago just after a brief rise in terrorism in the
1970s.

