quote:

Thursday, March 8th, 2007 The Private War of Women Soldiers: Female Vet, Soldier Speak Out on Rising Sexual Assault Within US Military On International Women’s Day, we look at the ongoing global struggle for gender equality and equal rights within the US military. Specialist Mickiela Montoya came face to face with the dangers of rape by her male comrades when she was deployed to Iraq with the National Guard. Eli Painted Crow served in the Army for 22 years including time in Iraq in 2004, facing challenges both as a woman and a Native American. And Columbia professor Helen Benedict is author of a forthcoming book about women veterans of the Iraq war. Today is March 8th, International Women’s Day. Millions around the world are marking the day by celebrating advances made by women and to honor the ongoing global struggle for gender equality and equal rights. One of those struggles is taking place within the US military. In the United States, there are more women serving in the Armed Forces than in any other period in American history. More than one hundred sixty thousand female US soldiers have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East since 2003, which means one in seven soldiers is a woman. At least four hundred fifty women have been wounded in Iraq, and seventy one have died -- more female casualties and deaths than in the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf Wars combined. With the increased number of women serving in the US military, something else is on the rise too: rape and sexual assault by their male comrades. To make matters worse, female soldiers say they can’t trust the US military to protect them. Helen Benedict. Professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. She is author of three books on sexual assault, including “Recovery: How to Survive Sexual Assault,” and “Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes.” She currently working on a book about women veterans of the Iraq war. Her latest article, on Salon.com, is “The private war of women soldiers.” Spc. Mickiela Montoya. She came face to face with the dangers of rape by her male comrades when she was deployed to Iraq with the National Guard in 2005. Eli Painted Crow. She served 22 years in the Army retiring at the rank of sergeant. In 2004 she served in Iraq and Kuwait. She is member of the Yaqui Nation in Tucson, Arizona. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Today is March 8th, International Women’s Day. Millions around the world are marking it by celebrating advances made by women and to honor the ongoing global struggle for gender equality and equal rights. One of those struggles is taking place within the US military. In the United States, there are more women serving in the Armed Forces than in any other period in American history. More than 160,000 female US soldiers have served in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East since 2003, which means one in seven soldiers are women. At least 450 women have been wounded in Iraq, seventy-one have died -- more female casualties and deaths than in the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf Wars combined. With the increased number of women serving in the US military, something else is on the rise, too: rape and sexual assault by their male comrades. To make matters worse, female soldiers say they can’t trust the US military to protect them. Specialist Mickiela Montoya came face to face with the dangers of rape by her male comrades when she was deployed to Iraq with the National Guard in 2005. She joins me on the line from California. Joining me in our firehouse studio is Helen Benedict, a professor of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. She’s author of three books on sexual assault, including Recovery: How to Survive Sexual Assault and Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes. She is currently working on a book about women veterans of the Iraq war. Her latest article at salon.com is called "The Private War of Women Soldiers." And in San Francisco, we’re joined by Eli Painted Crow. She served in the Army for twenty-two years, including time in Iraq in 2004. She’s the mother of two sons who served in the military and has seven grandchildren. She is also a member of the Yaqui Nation in Tucson, Arizona. And we welcome you all to Democracy Now! Helen Benedict, why don’t we begin with you? What is the private war of women soldiers? HELEN BENEDICT: It’s partly to be treated equally, but it’s mostly to feel safe. The harassment is almost universal -- sexual harassment -- throughout the military. Sometimes it’s more severe than others, but it mounts up, the stress of being constantly pressured for sex and constantly teased -- makes it very hard to do one’s job. And it’s something that the men, very few men, have to put up with. But there’s also the danger of sexual assault and rape. And all the soldiers I’ve talked to are very well aware of that. So they not only have to worry about the dangers of war, incoming fire and so on, but the danger of assault from the very people they’re supposed to trust. AMY GOODMAN: In your survey of women, what have you found in terms of numbers? How pervasive is this? HELEN BENEDICT: The numbers are very hard to assess, because so few people wish to come forth. There is a study of earlier veterans of war that indicates 30% of women are sexually assaulted and/or raped. There are other studies that put the numbers less and some that put them high. The military itself only counts reported rapes by women while they’re still in the military, so their numbers are much lower, because the climate’s very difficult to report in. Sexual assault is higher, because -- more -- which includes attempted rape, but not fully completed, and sexual harassment is up to 90%, is what I found in my studies. AMY GOODMAN: Eli Painted Crow, how long have you been in the Army altogether? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: A total of twenty-two years. I retired in November of 2005. AMY GOODMAN: You served in Iraq and Kuwait in 2004? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: What did you find when it came to sexual abuse, to rape? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: What I saw was a lot of inequities in terms of how female soldiers are treated. There was an actual rape case on the base that I was assigned to, and the way that they handled it was they moved the perpetrator to another site, and, unfortunately, I didn’t get to stay on that base camp to find out what ultimately happened to the female. I know that she reported it, and it was supposed to be private, and before you knew it, everybody knew what was going on. So it wasn’t as confidential and private, in terms of investigating or protecting her as a soldier there. And so, it was shaming, you know? AMY GOODMAN: Describe the overall climate in Iraq. What kind of tone is set, and how did you deal with it, Eli Painted Crow? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, I think that every base has its own climate, depending on what’s going on in the area. I was able to stay in a base camp for a very short time, that there were plenty of females to at least -- you know, they tell you you have to have a battle buddy, and you have to go to the latrine. You can’t go alone. And when I moved to another base camp, what I found -- it was a transitional base camp, where soldiers would come in, refuel, spend the night -- and I found companies coming in with just one female for the whole company, and she had no battle buddy, and nobody even bothered to look at that for these females that were moving in and moving out with these other, you know, male soldiers. There was no support for them, and nobody considered that. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Benedict, you write about the number of women that you surveyed, and particularly, for example, walking to the latrine. HELEN BENEDICT: Yes, quite a few of them told me that they were ordered to not go out at night alone and not to go to the latrines or the showers without a buddy, without another woman. This was not being told to the men, and the problem was that there often weren’t other women to choose, as Eli Painted Crow just said, or it entailed waking somebody up in the middle of the night to get them to go with you. And, you know, the soldiers are working twelve hours a day, on the whole, out there. They’re getting almost no sleep. They wake up all night long for one reason or another. So having to wake somebody up because you need to go to the bathroom is not as light as it may sound. But also, they felt that -- it was a universal recognition that it was dangerous for women out there. And they weren’t talking about danger from the Iraqis, they were talking about, as I’ve said, danger from their fellow soldiers. AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip of Colonel Janis Karpinski. She’s best known for her role as commander of the Abu Ghraib prison, but she has also spoken out on the treatment of female soldiers in Iraq. Last year, she testified at a mock trial known as the Bush Crimes Commission Hearings. COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Because the women, in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the portoilets or the latrines, were not drinking liquids after 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. And in 120-degree heat or warmer, because there was no air conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep. And rather than make everybody aware of that, because that’s shocking -- and as a leader, if that’s not shocking to you, then you’re not much of a leader -- so what they told the surgeon to do was, “Don’t brief those details anymore. And don’t say specifically that they’re women. You can provide that in a written report, but don’t brief it in the open anymore.” MARJORIE COHN: Was there a commander who saw dehydration listed as a cause of death of a woman, a woman female US soldier, and after that he said "Do not list dehydration as a cause of death anymore”? COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: Yes. MARJORIE COHN: Who was that? COL. JANIS KARPINSKI: General Sanchez. MARJORIE COHN: General Sanchez. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: That was Colonel, formerly Brigadier General, Janis Karpinski being questioned by the law professor Marjorie Cohn. The general she’s referring to is Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who served as the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq. Professor Benedict, you write about what Janis Karpinski, what the former Brigadier General demoted after the Abu Ghraib scandal, had to say. HELEN BENEDICT: Yes. We talked about it, actually, because I wanted to check with her, because the Army has said that her claims were unsubstantiated. And she described sitting there with the doctor while he explained why these women had died of dehydration. AMY GOODMAN: They died of dehydration. HELEN BENEDICT: They died of dehydration, which -- I mean, it’s quite common for soldiers out there to have serious health problems because of the heat and dehydration. You have to drink liters of water every day to be alright. It’s so hot. AMY GOODMAN: And they were simply afraid to go out alone to get the water, being harassed? HELEN BENEDICT: Yeah. And she told me -- and this is something more detailed than came out in what you just showed -- that there were men who were waiting out there, and they were pulling women into the latrines and abusing them and raping them there. And that’s -- word had spread about this, and that’s why the women were afraid to go out. And I went to the site, the Iraq casualty site, which lists all the deaths, and I did indeed find three deaths of women in the year she was talking about attributed to non-hostile causes, which the Army never seems to really explain, so I think it’s very possible those are three she was talking about. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Professor Helen Benedict, also to Sergeant Eli Painted Crow. And we’re also joined on the phone by Specialist Mickiela Montoya, deployed to Iraq with the National Guard in 2005. Thanks very much for joining us. SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Thank you for having me. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your own experience in Iraq? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Well, it sounded really familiar to, similar to the experiences that you explained. I didn’t know that it was that climate at the time. I kind of just got used to it and dealt with it and tried to figure out a way around the restroom issue. AMY GOODMAN: How did you figure out your way around going to the bathroom? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I would still drink the three liters of water usually every day, but I would -- a lot of the females were, like, cutting off the tops of the bottles and in the middle of the night peeing in that and waiting ’til the morning to dump it out, so that we would prevent having to wake up in the middle of the night and go out in the dark, because it’s so dark at night. AMY GOODMAN: You carried a knife with you? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Yeah, and I would carry a knife with me later on. AMY GOODMAN: For what purpose? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Just to feel safe, because, I mean, you can’t -- I don’t know. I don’t know, I just felt safer that way. AMY GOODMAN: Safe from the Iraqis? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: No, safe from the other soldiers. I never intended on using the knife for an Iraqi. I had my M-16 for that. But my knife, I always just kept it for another soldier, because any time I would have any type of strong sexual harassment words spoken, I just mainly felt a little bit more secure, and it was visible, too, to the other soldiers. AMY GOODMAN: Did anything specifically happen to you? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Yeah. That’s why I would carry the knife. I remember it was really late, and over there they don’t have electricity, so we run off generators, and if you scream or if you were to yell for help or anything like that, nobody could hear you, because you’re not going to shoot a comrade, because these are your supposed battle buddies. So I would just use the knife as, I guess, a scare tactic, and it worked for me, because after that I never really had a problem. AMY GOODMAN: Eli Painted Crow, who could determine the environment for the women? What could ultimately affect it, change it, for a woman soldier? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I think it would be -- I think the -- being able to report something anonymously would help -- AMY GOODMAN: Mickiela Montoya. SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I’m sorry? AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Oh, I think that being able to help -- I mean, being able to report things anonymously would help, because it would make you feel a little bit more secure on reporting things. But I don’t really know. I can’t think of a good solution. AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break. Then I’m going to put that question to Sergeant Eli Painted Crow, and also to Dr. Helen Benedict: what can make the difference and what kind of climate is set at the top, at the Pentagon. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, on this International Women’s Day. Back in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: As we talk today on this International Women's Day about women at war -- in fact, that’s the title of the forthcoming book of Professor Helen Benedict, professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, who has written three other books on sexual assault and abuse. We’re also joined on the telephone from Los Angeles by Specialist Mickiela Montoya, who was deployed to Iraq with the National Guard in 2005. Sergeant Eli Painted Crow joins us in San Francisco. She served twenty-two years in the Army, has served in Iraq and Kuwait in 2004. The setting of the climate, Sergeant Painted Crow, who could determine how a unit, an atmosphere, for women would be? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Who could determine -- the women themselves. It’s very difficult to even -- for me to address that question. You just go in. There’s so much disorganizing, that’s probably the last thing on anybody's mind, any commander’s mind, in terms of the women and how they’re going to be treated. There’s such a lack of education on sexual assault by the commanders, by the soldiers, and even a lot of the times by the female, as to why that happens. And we’re in a hostile environment, so to imagine that when you teach a soldier to hate and to be violent, that you can control that on any level is very difficult. You have to remember that we’re going over there to kill. We lose a lot of values, when you’re out there, and so you become this predator, this aggressor, this whole thing that just doesn’t work out, what you consider the enemy. It just becomes who you are. So what can you expect? I mean, there are no measures there that speak about women having to -- I mean, nobody thinks about you have to protect yourself from your peers, but nobody thinks about that. But you really end up -- they end up being a lot of the times, you know, what you have to take care of yourself from the most, more than what you’re dealing with outside the base camp. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Helen Benedict, what is the Pentagon doing about this? HELEN BENEDICT: They have set up a sexual assault website, which gives directions to soldiers on how to report a sexual assault either anonymously or not anonymously, and it defines it. And they also are now holding classes on what sexual harassment is. Very often if there is a report of an assault, the first response is to hold one of these classes. The trouble is, all the soldiers I’ve talked to say, that this is just a kind of cosmetic. The reality is you can’t report it anonymously. These are closed societies full of gossip. Everybody knows what’s going on, as you’ve already heard. And also, the leadership don’t really want to hear about this, because it disrupts the chain of command, it undermines morale. So the result is that most soldiers don’t say anything, and when they do, they’re shut up. AMY GOODMAN: You talk about the tone being set in Iraq and what a difference it makes when a commanding officer says no in his entire unit. HELEN BENEDICT: Yes, I’ve talked to quite a lot of soldiers who did feel perfectly alright. I mean, I don’t want to suggest that everybody’s being assaulted. I think almost everybody is being harassed, but not every woman is assaulted. The majority aren’t. And there are a lot of soldiers out there who -- male soldiers -- who treat the women as their sisters, just as they treat the other men as their brothers, and who are wonderful and reliable people. And the majority of them are like that. But the tone of that is really affected very strongly by the tone of the commanders. I mean, it does come from the top down a lot. And if the commanders and women are just as bad at this as men, turn a blind eye to it or refuse to take it seriously, or even indulge in it themselves -- “it” being assault and harassment -- then the message gets spread pretty fast that it’s OK. And vice versa, if there’s no toleration of that -- “I want my women in my platoon treated with the same respect and equality as the men, and I won’t put up with anything else” -- that can help a lot. AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to what you describe as the most shocking case of military sexual assault, that of Army Specialist Suzanne Swift. She was arrested and confined to base for going AWOL in 2006, after charges of sexual harassment and assault went unaddressed by the military. She says she was sexually harassed and abused by her commanders in Iraq and here at home. We interviewed Suzanne Swift in September. She spoke about what happened to her. SPC. SUZANNE SWIFT: There's an equal opportunity representative for every company in the Army. They all have one. And they are supposed to report it. And everything that you tell them that has to do with equal opportunity, they are supposed to report it, no matter what. No matter what happens, even if there's no action taken, they have to report it. AMY GOODMAN: Did they report it in your case? SPC. SUZANNE SWIFT: No. AMY GOODMAN: So what did you do? SPC. SUZANNE SWIFT: Nothing. I didn't know. I was brand new to the Army and just basically got thrown into the mix of this company and then sent to Iraq. I had no idea what to do. AMY GOODMAN: Was there more than one officer involved? SPC. SUZANNE SWIFT: Right. Well, the one that I tried to report was my platoon sergeant. And, you know, looking back now, I had a squad leader who literally singled me out to be the person that he was going to have sex with during the deployment. And, you know, I did. I was nineteen. I fell for it, and for months I was like his little sex slave, I guess. It was disgusting and it was horrible, and I didn't know what to do. AMY GOODMAN: And so, ultimately, what happened? SPC. SUZANNE SWIFT: Ultimately, I stopped it. I told him that I didn't want to continue this relationship. And he made my life hell. I mean, a squad leader in the Army is basically -- that's your boss. Everything that you do -- eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, when you go to work, everything -- they can tell you when to do it and how to do it. And he made my life miserable, because I wouldn't have sex with him anymore. AMY GOODMAN: Specialist Suzanne Swift. When she came back from Iraq, she was then going to be redeployed, and she was getting ready to go, but then, as she was making her way to the car, she said to her mother she just couldn’t do it, and she went AWOL. The Eugene police came to her house, to her mother's house, and they arrested her. They handcuffed her, and then she was put back on the base in Fort Lewis. She called her mother, and she said she was put under the supervision of one of the officers who had abused her. Professor Helen Benedict, the latest in Suzanne Swift’s case, she was court-martialed. HELEN BENEDICT: She was court-martialed. She was offered a deal initially. If she would sign a statement saying that she had never been raped in the Army, they would just give her a summary court-martial, which means a reprimanding letter in the file. She refused to sign that, saying she wouldn’t let them make her lie. And so, she was court-martialed. She served a month in prison, December, and she was told she had to stay in the Army for another two years. She was moved to Fort Irwin, I believe, which is very far away from her family, and she may be redeployed. AMY GOODMAN: This is International Women's Day. Sergeant Eli Painted Crow, I wanted to take this a little broader. Why did you join the military twenty-two years ago? And not only as a woman, as a Native American woman, your experiences? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, economic reasons was a very big factor for me in joining the military, and it’s also something that Native people find great honor and great pride in. And it’s very hard to find things that, you know, bring honor to your family and things like that, and so when you join the military, it’s a very -- it feels very good for the family. And it was also a way for me to raise my children and to provide for them. AMY GOODMAN: How high a percentage of Native Americans join the military? Is it a big number? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, as far as indigenous people go, it’s a very big number, proportionate, you know, as far as Natives go. That’s like what all of us do. That’s our entryway to take care of our families. That’s our way to -- our last resort of holding onto that idea of being a warrior, being a provider, being a protector, and so that is a really big deal for Native. I mean, you go to any ceremony, as far as pow-wows go, things like that, the first thing they do is they call a veterans group to come in and post the colors as a way to honor Native soldiers who are serving and have served. AMY GOODMAN: Why did you feel it was important to join the military? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, at the time, it was very, very difficult for me to realize how I was going to raise my children, and I always felt like I needed to be in a place that I could learn some discipline and, you know, really finish something that I had started. And so, I decided to do that. And, actually, it was very encouraged. When I went to see my recruiter, I was divorced at the time, and my recruiter suggested very strongly, he said, "You need to be married or you need to give your children up." Well, I couldn’t give my children up. He goes, “Well, if you have a piece of paper that says you’re married, then you can join.” And so, I looked for my ex-husband, and we remarried so that I could do this, so that I could become part of this military thing. And the illusion around that, as far as what I thought I was getting -- I joined the military to get off of welfare. And after twenty-two years of service and coming home from Iraq and not being supported by the VA or by any of the things that they said I was going to have as a retired soldier, I ended up on welfare. So I went full circle here. I ended up on general assistance coming home, on $258 a month, is what I had to live on. And I had to literally write letters to, like, so many places just to get any kind of help, just to get some doors opened. And I can tell you that most people give up. Most people give up, because it’s so hard to get help. And what I had going for me was that I just had skills in terms of knowing systems. And after twenty-two years, you learn a thing or two about systems, and you really look at language. So that is what helped me. And I developed a support system of women who also encourage me to work on this. But I was ready to lose my house. I lost all my friends initially, when I first came back, because nobody could understand what was wrong with me, and nobody could hear me, and I couldn’t speak it, and I couldn’t participate in the world. So it was really difficult. This whole joining of the Army for me, the military, I thought was going to be this -- I mean, so great. I mean, I had my sons sign up for it. That was like -- my youngest son did eleven years, and my oldest son did two years. And in the end, we’re all broken. My son is broken behind that. He was in an accident and almost died, and in a wheelchair. And I have had to fight for services for him at our VA office, because they refused to help him in so many ways. He doesn’t fit the criteria that the VA designs for certain types of help. They have all this criteria, and then they make memos to budget the money for that VA based on that regulation. But they just redesign it to help themselves, and unless you know that and challenge that, they just say, “Oh, well, you can’t get this help.” And soldiers, who are so used to taking orders and accepting, you know, you’re used to that. They tell you, do this, do that, you do it. And if they tell you you can’t do it, you can’t have it, you don’t argue it. And so, even when you get out, you’re in that frame of mind. And so, many soldiers, young soldiers who don’t know the rules, who don’t know the laws, who don’t know what their rights are, accept what is given to them, as far as, “Oh, you don’t qualify for this.” So there’s just so much. AMY GOODMAN: How did you end up becoming a peace activist, Sergeant Painted Crow? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, this is very important for me, because being Native, I don’t see this as a war, number one. I see this as an invasion that’s committing a genocide to a nation, to a people. I see that we are over there and we are doing the same thing that we did here with the indigenous people of this land, calling it democracy, calling it freedom. Well, it isn't freedom if it’s imposed. And what I learned about the Iraqi people, while I was there, was they're very much like the indigenous people here. They have clans, they have circles, they have their ceremonies, they have their drum. There are so many similarities, and it just really hurt me to realize that here I’m a survivor of this attempted genocide on my people -- and I say “attempted,” because we're still here, even though they want to say we're not, we're erased, we’re not even in the history books -- and here I am over there doing the same thing that was done to me, and so I -- AMY GOODMAN: You said that in the military they refer to Iraq as “Indian country”? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, they referred to -- what they said in the briefing, they called enemy territory “Indian country.” And I’m standing there, just listening to this briefing, and I’m just in shock that after all this time, after so many Natives have served and are serving and are dying, that we are still the enemy, even if we're wearing the same uniform. That was very shocking for me to hear. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask, Specialist Mickiela Montoya, why you joined the military. SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I joined when I was seventeen. They had a lot of recruiters at my school, and I wasn’t doing too great in school, and I needed some type of guidance and I needed a way to pay for college. And I decided to join. I was pretty satisfied in the beginning, until later. I joined the National Guard to get the feel of the military, because I wasn’t sure if I was ready to be active-duty. And now I find myself -- I’ve been in four years, and I’ve been active-duty more than half of the time that I’ve been in. And it’s not what I signed up for. But I just pretty much joined for the, I guess, direction. AMY GOODMAN: You are seven-and-a-half months pregnant now? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: How much longer will you be in the military? SPC. MICKIELA MONTOYA: I put my paperwork in to get out of the military when I was four months, and I’m still waiting on the paperwork. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Helen Benedict, you have some remarkable statistics in the article you did for salon.com, “The Private War of Women Soldiers.” Can you talk about the statistics from Vietnam to now of sexual assault? HELEN BENEDICT: Yes, most of the statistics have been gathered through studies with veterans, who feel freer to talk than when they’re still in the military. And a lot of the studies gathered women who have come to the VA for help for various things, who are veterans of the Vietnam War and all the wars up through now. And that’s where I found the 30% said they were raped. I found a 71% -- AMY GOODMAN: From Vietnam through the first Gulf War, 30% said they had been raped in the military? HELEN BENEDICT: Yes, so that includes Bosnia and the other places. AMY GOODMAN: 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all the wars since, who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder, found 71%? HELEN BENEDICT: Said they were sexually assaulted, yeah. AMY GOODMAN: Sexually assaulted or raped while in the military. And a third study conducted ’92, ’93, with female veterans of the Gulf War and earlier wars, 90% said they had been sexually harassed? HELEN BENEDICT: Harassed, yes. There are no statistics on Iraq alone at the moment. Those are still being studied, but that’s from previous wars and combinations of wars. AMY GOODMAN: What protection does the military provide? HELEN BENEDICT: There is no protection. I can’t think of a single thing that I would call protection, realistically. AMY GOODMAN: And how did you decide to write this book? You have written books on sexual assault before. How did you come to this? HELEN BENEDICT: Through Mickiela, who we’ve just been talking to. Originally, I met her and another young soldier, and the first thing they said to me was, there are only three things the men let you be in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke. And then they immediately started talking about how they were harassed and how they were treated by men and how the world in general doesn’t recognize them or respect them for what they’ve done as soldiers. And that’s what ignited my interest. My book isn’t just about sexual assault. It’s going to be about the whole arc of experience, including why people sign up in the first place and their consciences, which is a very important part of it. But this element is making it so horrendously unfair and so much harder on women, in a situation that’s already horrible, that something has to be done about it. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Helen Benedict, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Specialist Mickiela Montoya, thank you. Sergeant Eli Painted Crow, I wanted to ask where your son is seeking help, at which VA? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Fresno VA. AMY GOODMAN: And so, as you watch these hearings and listen to the news coming out around them, have you been able to contact them to let people know what your own son is going through? SGT. ELI PAINTED CROW: Well, I have written many letters. I have written letters to Capitol Hill. I have written letters to -- I’ve contacted my congressman. I’ve even written letters to the governor. I’ve had meetings with the director of the Fresno VA. I mean, my son is finally getting the help that he needs, the mental health help, the medication, because he has a closed-brain injury, the transportation. But it took me months to do it. And it’s in between the time that I need for healing myself. So, I mean, Fresno is just a very small, minute, you know, VA in comparison to the Fort Bliss medical hold, Walter Reed -- AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Eli Painted Crow, we’re going to have to leave it there, but we will definitely continue to follow your story, as well as the story of your son. Thank you all for joining us.

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Reports says FBI abused power to get private records Fri Mar 9, 2007 7:05 PM GMT By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters)- The FBI abused its power by illegally or improperly obtaining telephone, financial and other secret records in investigations of terrorism or espionage suspects, the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general said on Friday. A report by Inspector General Glenn Fine's office sharply criticised the FBI for how, without a court order, it demanded and received records such as customer information from telephone companies, Internet service providers, financial institutions and consumer credit companies. "We believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," Fine said in releasing the report. National security letters allow the FBI to compel the release of private information without getting authority from a judge or grand jury. Vowing to investigate, Democrats in Congress seized on the report, which comes as they step up criticism of President George W. Bush's administration for weakening civil liberties protections in its war on terrorism. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales praised the report for uncovering "serious problems" in the FBI's use of national security letters, his spokeswoman said. Gonzales told FBI Director Robert Mueller the past mistakes "will not be tolerated" and ordered new safeguards be set up at the FBI, Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said Mueller called the finding of deficiencies "unacceptable". "While we've already taken some steps to address these shortcomings, I am ordering additional corrective measures to be taken immediately," he said. The use of national security letters has grown dramatically, mainly as a result of powers granted to the FBI under the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law that Congress approved after the September 11 attacks in 2001. According to the report, requests by the FBI went from about 39,000 in 2003 to about 56,000 in 2004 and about 47,000 in 2005. In investigating abuses of authority, the report found 26 possible violations, including requesting information without adequate authorisation, improper requests under the law and unauthorised collection of telephone or e-mail records. Of the 26 cases, 22 were the result of FBI errors and four were caused by mistakes by those who received the request for the information, the report said. In reviewing 77 investigative files in FBI field offices, the report found that 17 of them, or 22 percent, contained one or more possible violations not identified by the field office or reported to FBI headquarters as required.

The Main Page

The rest is about the "TELEPHONE RECORDS"

The Source

Last edited by M.Johan on Mar-11-2007 at 14:22

Well, that's one way of getting a "reliable confession."

quote:

Tuesday, March 27th, 2007 David Hicks Becomes First Guantanamo Prisoner to Plead Guilty The Australian citizen David Hicks has become the first Guantanamo prisoner to plead guilty under the Military Commissions Act passed last year. Hicks entered the guilty plea Monday as part of a deal with military prosecutors. Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay for the past five years. We speak with Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [rush transcript included] The U.S. government had originally accused Hicks of conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to engage in acts of terrorism, attempted murder and aiding the enemy but only ended up charging him with a single crime -- providing material support for terrorism. Pentagon officials say Hicks will likely serve his sentence in Australia. Hicks has said he was sodomized, beaten, and subjected to forced injections while in U.S. custody. The military denies the allegations. Hicks appeared in the courtroom wearing khaki prison fatigues and with hair down to his chest - grown, his lawyer said, to pull over his eyes at night to keep out the light and allow him to get to sleep. Before the hearing, Hicks was allowed a two-hour reunion with his father and sister. As the proceedings got under way, Hicks was formally charged and initially deferred entering a plea. But later on his lawyers told the judge he was pleading guilty. Air Force colonel Moe Davis, chief prosecutor for the tribunals. Hicks' guilty plea came after a military judge barred two of Hicks' lawyers from the court proceedings. One of the attorneys had refused to sign a document pledging to follow court rules that hadn't been defined. Legal observers are criticizing the decision. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights which has represented dozens of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He is author of the book, "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know." He joins me now in the firehouse studio. AMY GOODMAN: David Hicks guilty plea came after a military judge barred two of hicks' lawyers from the court proceeding. One of the attorney’s had refused to sign a document pledging to follow court rules that hadn’t been defined. Legal observers are criticizing the decision. Michael Ratner is President of the Center for Constitutional Rights which has represented dozens of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He is also co-author of the book Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. He joins us now in the firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! Michael. MICHAEL RATNER: Good morning Amy. AMY GOODMAN: So David Hicks was your first client at Guantanamo Bay? MICHAEL RATNER: The first person represented by any organization was David Hicks, who was represented by me and the Center for Constitutional Rights. He went to Guantanamo January 11, 2002. We read his name in the paper, we called his attorneys in Australia. And we began what was called—we began a petition on his behalf in court to try and get him what we lawyers call the right of Habeas Corpus, to go into court and say to the government, “why are you holding me?” Now some five years later we actually never got him that right in the end. You know twice we won in the Supreme Court, twice the government--the administration went to Congress and took away that right and then Hicks unlike most the others at Guantanamo; there’s still 385 other people there. Hicks and two others have now been charged before this military commission which was established under the Military Commission Act after it had been held unconstitutional in a prior case. So we no longer represent Hicks in front of the commission. We did represent him for purposes of trying to get him for fundamental rights early on in Guantanamo. AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what happened in this case? Yes, he pled guilty, but who his attorneys were, how two got thrown out? MICHAEL RATNER: It's a bit complex in a way. I mean Hicks had been charged early, before the Military Commission, that Military Commission was held unconstitutional, illegal really in the supreme court. Congress then wrote some new rules which many of us are still very critical of which allow evidence from coercion and other-other kinds of illegal evidence in our view would be used for the Commission. So then he goes down, he's in Guantanamo and they put him up for this new Military Commissions trial. He has one military lawyer, Colonel—I mean Captain Michael Mori who was this military lawyer, and had two civilian lawyers, on of them being Josh Dratel. They go down yesterday, or they're there yesterday to represent him. Josh Dratel and the other civilian lawyer eventually aren't allowed to represent Hicks. Josh Dratell said that he was asked to sign a piece of paper adhering to rules and the rules in his view didn’t allow him to have private meetings with his attorney -- with his client. So he then refuses to sign the paper. Then, of course David Hicks is still then represented by Captain Michael Mori and eventually, as you said pleads guilty to this one count, and which people should understand is very different than what he was originally charged with, which included attempted murder and you know all these kinds of things. AMY GOODMAN: Why is that significant, being ultimately only charged with this one count? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, you know, you could argue that initially in these cases the government originally overcharged him tremendously. That they included things like conspiracy to murder, you know fighting against the Americans, all these types of things. In the end, he pleaded guilty to, or he pled to a count saying he materially aided a terrorist organization. I think that we have to look at what happened in the context of Guantanamo. I mean Guantanamo is in the Center’s view and in many people’s view around the world, is a moral and legal and political outrage. You have a man there for five years and the first thing that’s said after he takes this guilty plea is that he's going to be able to serve his sentence in Australia. So you have to say to yourself, how do you get out of Guantanamo? You get out either becuase your country fights hard to get you out, which in this case Australia did not put up a very big battle to get David Hicks out. If you look at how the English citizens got treated, they're back in England. If you look at how the French got treated, they're back in France. So everybody--a number of people were critical of the Howard government in Australia for not fighting to get him back. So Hicks is sitting there saying, well how do I get back? I mean that’s my imagination, I’m imagining that’s what the lawyers have essentially said. This is a way -- this sentence will be served in Australia is what it appears, and therefore he will get back to Australia. Otherwise he's sitting there, conceivable could get a long sentence, whatever he gets and have to serve it in Guantanamo. So this is a way back to Australia and it’s a way out of Guantanamo which as far as I can see right now, most people still don't have. AMY GOODMAN: This is from Reuters, his lawyer saying that they couldn't discuss what prompted David Hicks his decision until after the agreement is final; his decision to plead guilty. But David Mcleod had said on Sunday, Hicks was convinced he could not get a fair trial and expected to be convicted even if he defended the charges. MICHAEL RATNER: Mcleod and others have basically said that this was not going to be a fair process, and that he was going to be convicted. So you are looking at one of the factors here, may well have been as – as going back to Australia. That's something he’s wanted for a long time according to his father. AMY GOODMAN: What about these charges of David Hicks, that he was sodomized, beaten and subjected to forced injections while in US custody? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the lawyers filed a series of affidavits, particularly in his attempt to get British citizenship. His mother was apparently born in England. And as part of that they filed papers that said that he had been abused, not at Guantanamo, interestingly enough, but after he was picked up in Afghanistan, he was taken to Kandahar, he was taken onto a ship, he was taken off a ship and on to land and the statements in these affidavits are that he was beaten, he was sodomized, etc. And of course apparently the investigation of those abuse allegations according to the US government said that they weren't proven. It seems, considering the context of what happened to a lot of our other clients at the center that there were a lot of credibility in my view to that kind of charge for what happened to people picked up in Afghanistan and in other places. AMY GOODMAN: And the fact Michael Ratner, that his attorneys said that he had grown his hair down to his chest to pull over his eyes at night to keep out the light and allow him to sleep? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it tells us something about the conditions at Guantanamo, it tells us about having the light on 24 hours, it tells us about really being kept in an offshore penal colony with what the government asserts are no rights. AMY GOODMAN: His father, Terry Hicks, who went down there with his stepsister and had a two-hour reunion with David, said that David has not been able to exercise because he's abused by other prisoners. He said the detainees yell out abuse at him, they say he’s being paid by the CIA, and all this sorta business to spy on them, and that sorta thing. So he's under quite a bit of stress, he won't go out because he's been abused verbally by the rest of the detainees? MICHAEL RATNER: Right, and his father I think goes on to say that David was severely depressed. So you look at this situation and you have, and again, I’m not his lawyer at this point, I don’t know why he actually entered the plea. But if you look at his situation, his father says he's severly depressed or he’s being abused, where he's in conditions where, that are Guantanamo -- are essentially abusive conditions, where if he's convicted he’s going to be spending a long time in Guantanamo. It just seems to drive a situation where you want to get yourself out of Guantanamo really any way you can. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Michael Ratner, President for The Center for Constitutional Rights. Michael, the Military Tribunals Act that has allowed this to go forward, where does it go from here? Who's the next to be tried and what about this prisoner who was just brought in? Supposedly from one of the secret CIA prisons overseas. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it's the Military Commission Act and of course its set up a structure for trying people at Guantanamo. Many human rights people, as well as the Center considers many parts of that structure not to be legal, it allows evidence from torture and coercion, it allows hearsay evidence, a number of the charges aren't charges under military law. So there are challenges going on to that Military Commission Act. And challenges, I think there's one right now by Hamdan who was one of the accused, I think of being a driver for Bin Laden. His case is the one that went to the Supreme Court which said that they were illegal in the prior incarnation and the question is whether they say that again after congress has set up the rules. So these are still going to be challenged. But one thing I should say is that the Military Commissions is only a small part of what's going on at Guantanamo. Today there's 385 people at Guantanamo. Fourteen are the so-called high-valued detainees and then there's a 15th person who apparently was brought there. But 385 people, and most of them will never have a chance, if you want to call it that, to ever be tried because the government asserts they can be held indefinitely, forever as enemy combatants without any right to Habeas Corpus. So the governement is focusing us all on Military Commissions, etc., but while we're all sitting here, there's some 385 people or more, being held at Guantanamo without even the right to have an attorney and go to court. So -- in the way that David did. So, we're talking about a situation that in my view is still completely outside of any kind of law. AMY GOODMAN: What do you make of the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates saying Guantanamo should be closed, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telling reporters, she agrees with bush's desire to shut down Guantanamo? MICHAEL RATNER: You know, Bush said this before 2004, before he went to court in the Supreme Court case and won, he said, well, it's in the courts now, we'll wait and see what the Supreme Court says and I want to close Guantanamo. That's almost 2 1/2 years ago, three years ago close. So the question is, is he just saying these words, which is what it sounds like to me, for public consumption, to say yeah I want to close it and then is he coupling it with people like our Attorney General who then says, well the reason that Guantanamo is still open and people are still there is because of what the attorneys are doing. So these guys are saying this in a way for public consumption, but they obviously don’t mean it. If Bush wanted to close Guantanamo, he could close it tomorrow. AMY GOODMAN: How? MICHAEL RATNER: He could simply bring the people into the United States or he could bring them in and give people their fundamental right to go to court on a writ of Habeas Corpus. If he did that, if people got that right to challenge their detention at court, which is what Habeas Corpus is, if they got that right I can guarantee you that the majority of people would not be in Guantanamo, would not be in prison. But there there's no reason, you could run a prison in the United States and give people their constitutional and legal rights . AMY GOODMAN: And Habeas Corpus being stripped by the Military Commission Act, what does that mean and do you see that changing? MICHAEL RATNER: You know when the Center first started thes cases, the key to us was the right to go into court and challenge your detention, it’s a right that we think every human being should have. It's called the right of Habeas Corpus or the writ of habeas corpus. It goes back to 1215. Twice in the Supreme Court has said Guantanamo detainees and others have that right. Twice Bush has gone to Congress and stripped-stripped that right out of the statute books and now we're really going to have to go to the Supreme Court again. In fact we're waiting this week to see whether the Supreme Court is willing to take that case. Possibly we'll hear by Friday whether they’ll take that case and we can have a hearing again before the end of the year in the Supreme Court. I'm hopeful that the court will restore that right of habeas corpus to people. It's the right, it's the distinction between what makes essentially a tyranny vs. a democracy because it tells you whether the government can pick you up and just toss you in a prison. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, Alberto Gonzalez, the firing of the US attorneys and whether he should be resign or be fired? MICHAEL RATNER: I’ve felt, and I’ve said many times that Gonzalez has his hands deep in the blood of the torture conspiracy and program in this country and he does. He's the one that said we shouldn't have Geneva Conventions apply to people. He's one that apparently approved various interrogation techniques. He’s the one that said the president essentially, or approved memos that said you could torture in the name of national security. This is the man that's Attorney General. Yes, they're getting him for the attorney scandal, the prosecutor scandal. But this guy is deeply involved in much deeper violations of fundamental rights in this country. He should not just be resigning. We have tried to actually get him criminally investigated in Germany, in the Rumsfeld case. That's what should be happening to somebody like him. He should be held accountable for his deep role in the torture program in the United States. AMY GOODMAN: And finally, the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against Rumsfeld, the complaint you brought in Germany has just added two more detainees part of the lawsuits? MICHAEL RATNER: Well no the -- the two additional detainees, I don’t think are part of our Rumsfeld case right now. Those are people we are now suing civilly on behalf of -- against Rumsfeld and others in the United States for damages for what happened to them at Guantanamo. So there's these civil suits in the u.s. And there's an attempted criminal investigation we are trying to do against Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and the other people that were authors of the torture program in the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Among them General Jeffrey Miller who was the Commander at Guantanamo? MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, Jeffrey Miller is essentially the link. He's the one who after the Guantanamo interrogation techniques were authorized by Rumsfeld, he implemented them at Guantanamo and then “they somehow migrated into Abu Ghraib and the prisons in Iraq”. And of course how did they migrate? They migrated in the person of General Jeffrey Miller who was sent to Iraq to actually “Gitmo-ize” the interrogation, prison facilities in Iraq . And that’s what led to Abu Ghraib. It's a line you can follow from one to two to three to four, it's just that the American people haven't been informed that that line goes from the very top chain of command from Afghanistan, to Guantanamo, to Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, thanks so much for joining us, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 How ignorant. It's convienent to have the whole thing right here to read. I took the 40 minutes to read it all and found it interesting. If this is how the average American is, I'll be very proud when I'm no longer a citizen of this so-called 'free country' that is the US.

let us know when you denounce your citizenship, and we can all through you a TA forum congrats party.

it's BS. what torture? there is no torture...

>JM<

LOL, JM got 'NeoConed' bigtime.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Amnesty International Guantánamo: conditions getting worse A new facility at Guantánamo Bay is creating even harsher conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation for detainees, according to a new Amnesty International (AI) report. Conditions at Camp 6, which opened in December 2006, are described as "cruel and inhuman". Detainees are confined for 22 hours a day to individual, steel cells with no natural light and minimal human contact. No activities are provided, with detainees subjected to 24-hour lighting and constant observation by guards. According to the Pentagon, 165 men had been transferred to Camp 6 within a month of its opening. Many were previously held in Camp 4, where detainees lived communally in barracks with access to a range of recreational activities. Camp 4 is now reported to house just 35 detainees, down from 180 in May 2006. Despite the US authorities describing Camp 6 as a "state-of-the-art modern facility" that is "more comfortable" for detainees, the conditions appear more severe than the most restrictive levels of "super-maximum" custody in the US. There is growing concern they could have a serious adverse effect on the psychological and physical health of many of the detainees. A further 100 detainees are held in solitary confinement at Camp 5, while there may be as many as 20 on Camp Echo, a facility set aside from the others where conditions have been described as "extremely harsh". In all, it appears that 80 per cent of detainees are held in isolation. AI is calling for Guantánamo to be closed and for detainees to be brought to fair trial, or else released. In the meantime, the US government must take immediate steps to improve conditions in the camp. For the full report, see: USA: Cruel and inhuman – Conditions of isolation for detainees in Guantánamo Bay For more information about AI's campaign to Close Guantánamo, visit www.amnesty.org/closeguantanamo Amnesty International © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

This is not and nor was it ever torture. Enemy forces get can tortured, terrorists cannot be.

Terrorist do not fall under the Geneva convention so they have no rights when captured. I still say that "we" are too east on terrorists. Be like Jack Bauer on "24."


Oh yes, "Demofags" should all be kicked out of the us. They are too much of a pussy when it comes to defense/offense. Would you rather be fighting this war on US soil?

Stop being hippies and grow the fuck up. See what is happening in the real world and dont listen to those hate groups. All of them that are quoted here and full of shit. Every single one of them.

___________________
I luv trance

quote:

Army Suicides at 26-Year High In military news, a new Pentagon report shows Army suicides are at their highest rate in twenty-six years. At least ninety-nine service members took their own lives last year. More than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Lovely...

quote:

Friday, August 17th, 2007 Dissident Members Challenge American Psychological Association on Role in CIA Interrogation, Torture Democracy Now! broadcasts from San Francisco, where the American Psychological Association is set to hold a historic vote at its annual convention. Following a string of exposes revealing that psychologists have played a key role in designing the CIA’s torture tactics, outraged APA members have introduced a moratorium calling for an outright ban on psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations. We speak with two psychologists at the forefront of the campaign for an interrogation ban, Dr. Stephen Soldz of the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis and Dr. Steven Reisner of New York University. [includes rush transcript] Here in San Francisco, a group of psychologists are planning to hold a protest today over the refusal of the American Psychological Association to bar its members from participating in interrogations at military and CIA prisons.The protest is occurring on the opening day of the 115h annual APA convention. Unlike the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association allows its members to participate in detainee interrogations. APA representatives argue that the presence of psychologists keeps interrogations safe and prevents abuse. But in recent months, a string of exposes in Salon.com, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker have revealed that psychologists have played a key role in designing the CIA’s torture tactics. Outraged APA members have introduced a moratorium resolution to be voted on this weekend. It calls for an outright ban on psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations. Dr. Stephen Soldz and Dr. Steven Reisner have been at the forefront of this effort. They are both members of the Coalition for an Ethical APA. They co-wrote an open letter to APA President Sharon Brehm in June of this year urging her to support the moratorium resolution. We invited the APA on the program but they declined our request. Dr. Stephen Soldz. Psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and professor at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He is a founder of Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice and maintains the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. Dr. Steven Reisner. Psychoanalyst and a member of the American Psychological Association. He is a faculty member at NYU Medical School and a faculty adviser at the International Trauma Studies Program at Columbia University. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We are here in San Francisco, where a group of psychologists are planning to hold a protest today over the refusal of the American Psychological Association to bar its members from participating in interrogations at military and CIA prisons. The protest is occurring on the opening day of the 115th annual APA convention. Unlike the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association allows its members to participate in detainee interrogations. APA representatives argue the presence of psychologists keeps interrogations safe and prevents abuse. But in recent months, a string of exposes in Salon.com, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker have revealed that psychologists have played a key role in designing the CIA’s torture tactics. Outraged APA members have introduced a moratorium resolution to be voted on this weekend. It calls for an outright ban on psychologist involvement in detainee interrogations. Dr. Stephen Soldz and Dr. Steven Reisner have been at the forefront of this effort. They are both members of the Coalition for an Ethical APA. They co-wrote an open letter to APA President Sharon Brehm in June of this year, urging her to support the moratorium resolution. Dr. Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and professor at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He’s founder of Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice and maintains the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. Dr. Steven Reisner is a faculty member at New York University Medical School and a faculty adviser at the International Trauma Studies Program at Columbia University. We invited the APA on the program. They declined our request. So we welcome our guests here in San Francisco, just before you head out to APA convention. You'll both be participated in debates this weekend. Dr. Stephen Soldz, talk about how we have gotten to this point. And there is a growing pressure on the APA. What is the background of this story? DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: OK, well, let me try and tell you in brief, because we could go on for hours on it. But I know you’ve provided great coverage over the years, which we really appreciate. Going back since the days -- was it, three, four years ago -- when we started getting hints in the press that conditions in American detention facilities were not quite ideal, that abuse, that treatment that probably meets the legal definition of torture was occurring in many of them, there started to be increasing numbers of reports that health professionals, psychologists among them, were participating in those abusive interrogations and the other abuse that’s non-interrogation-related abuse at these facilities. As a result, the professional associations -- the American Medical, the American Psychiatric, the American Psychological -- were under pressure to do something. The two medical associations eventually, though somewhat belatedly, adopted policies that said that their members do not belong in interrogations. As health professionals, their obligation is to help and do no harm. The American Psychological Association has not done that. They appointed a presidential task force on ethics and national security, the so-called PENS Task Force, in 2005. When their report came out, it was not signed by the members of the committee. However, it later was revealed that six of the nine members of this committee, investigating -- forming policy on the ethics of involvement in interrogations, were themselves from the military and intelligence communities, most with direct ties to interrogations. In other words, these were precisely the people whose behavior was potentially being reported upon in the press as being problematic, were those who the APA chose to formulate its policy. And then they had them not sign their report. Since when does one hear a report where you can't read a list of the members? I’ve never seen such a thing. And since then, the pressure on the APA has grown intensely to change its policy. They maintain this -- psychologists involvement in interrogations will make them safe, legal, ethical and effective. This mantra has been repeated by every APA leader over and over again, and yet the evidence is, as you said, in those articles, in many other articles going back now a number of years, is just -- and perhaps most critically from the Department of Defense itself, where in May they declassified a report by the Office of the Inspector General, the OIG report, that explicitly said that military psychologists from the military SERE program -- Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape -- that trains US soldiers to resist torture if they're captured by countries which torture, that these techniques were reverse-engineered to develop the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, by the military at Guantanamo and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. The OIG report is conclusive evidence from the military itself that the psychologists were central to this whole business. Over the years, the APA has not said one single word of concern about the role of psychologists, the role of psychology in abusive interrogations, in torture. They passed resolutions: “Psychologists do not torture,” you know, and, “Of course, everyone's against -- President Bush is against torture. Alberto Gonzales is against torture. The APA is against torture.” But like President Bush and Alberto Gonzales, the APA has never seen torture. They have never acknowledged psychologists’ role in torture. They have never acknowledged that the torture is occurring. So, again -- so that's the background. They seem to be feeling incredible pressure this year, and there is a lot of parliamentary maneuvering going on. And we can get into the details there, but that's the background there. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we wanted to host a debate this morning on the moratorium resolution, but the APA declined our invitation. The Director of Ethics at the APA is Dr. Stephen Behnke. He was unable to join us, he said. But this is an excerpt from a debate that he had yesterday with our other guest, with Dr. Steven Reisner, on the San Francisco public radio station KQED. DR. STEPHEN BEHNKE: We feel it is very clear for the American Psychological Association to be absolutely clear on what is an ethical interrogation and what is not an ethical interrogation. And if one takes a look at the current debate in the administration, there is a debate over whether harsh techniques are ethical or effective. The American Psychological Association's position is clear: harsh interrogation techniques are neither ethical nor are they effective. We believe that it’s very important to have that message very clear, wherever interrogations take place. AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Steven Reisner, you were the one in the debate with Dr. Behnke yesterday on KQED. Your response? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, there are two aspects of it: whether harsh techniques are ethical and whether harsh techniques are effective, and what the APA’s position has actually been on both of those aspects. The trouble is, as Stephen Soldz said, the APA has stated over and over again that they are against torture, they're against harsh techniques. They have a new campaign in favor of rapport-building interrogations and rapport-building interrogations which do not coerce, which do not torture. The trouble is that they have yet to articulate ethical principles which prohibit interrogations that are harmful, that are coercive, that are abusive. And so, they change the subject and make the claim that the APA is against these things, but when you read the ethical protocols and when you read the resolutions, there are so many loopholes and there are so many openings -- AMY GOODMAN: Like what? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, let's take the -- right now the APA is offering a substitute resolution to the moratorium, and in it, they do something which I think is a major step forward: they ban fourteen of the harshest techniques. They come out against any psychologist participating in an interrogation in fourteen of the harshest techniques, as established by Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First. And that is a major step forward. However, what is left out is the fact that psychologists are not only guiding and supervising interrogations at sites like Guantanamo, they also consult on the conditions that detainees are kept in. The interview with Jose Padilla's lawyer showed so clearly what the effect of the conditions is on a detainee, not only how the interrogation is handled. So what the APA does not prohibit in its ethical principles or in the board’s substitute resolution is a psychologist recommending isolation over an extended period of time for a detainee as a way of, you know, breaking him down for an interrogation. They don't prohibit sensory deprivation in the general circumstances that the detainee is held in, only in terms of an active interrogation. So the loopholes are tremendous. They also don't say that you cannot do other abusive or enhanced techniques, apart from the fourteen. They just mention fourteen that cannot be done. They don't align with a higher principle, the Geneva Conventions, the UN principles of human rights. So that's why I’m saying that Stephen Behnke can argue that the APA opposes abuse, but they haven't put it in writing and made it clear. AMY GOODMAN: Let me play another excerpt. This is of the interview we did with Dr. Angela Hegarty yesterday, the forensic psychiatrist who examined Jose Padilla after he was released from military detention last year. And I asked her about the difference between the positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association on the question of participating in coercive interrogations. DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: Well, the American Psychiatric Association principles of ethics essentially follow the AMA’s, which is -- AMY GOODMAN: American Medical Association. DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: American Medical Association, yes -- is, no psychiatrist is involved in torture ever under any circumstances. Period. Torture -- there is no caveat that opens up the possibility by mentioning the Bush administration's qualifications on the definition of “torture.” That the psychologists are protesting and debating this is great news. Clinicians -- our entire professional identity is clinicians. And if psychologists -- psychologists certainly see themselves as clinicians, people who care for people. Our entire professional identity as people who help people is obviated by such involvement. And I entirely disagree with any caveat that would allow a clinician to be involved in torture at any time. AMY GOODMAN: What about the argument that those who don't want the moratorium are making, and especially high-level staff of the American Psychological Association, that for psychologists to be there is to bring ethics to the situation, to explain what is going too far? DR. ANGELA HEGARTY: Well, you know, I asked Mr. Padilla about that. He’d said that there were some decent people that he had come in contact with, you know, over the -- especially in the latter part of his stay at the brig. And I asked him, I said, “You know, if I were in a situation like this as a clinician and I abhor what’s being done to you, would you want me to stay, knowing that there’s somebody who cares about you, who’s ideally, hopefully, ethical? Or would you -- albeit powerless -- or would you want me to leave?” And he actually gave me one of the first and only immediate and straightforward and direct answers: he would want me to leave. He would not want me there, because for him my presence endorses what’s going on, even though, as I said, in my scenario I would be powerless to do anything to change it. AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Angela Hegarty, the forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Jose Padilla for twenty-two hours. Dr. Reisner, your response? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, I think there are two issues here. One is the clinical issue, whether psychologists in a setting like the brig or Guantanamo can or should offer therapeutic aid to the detainees, when their very presence seems to support the existence of such places. And the other side of the issue is whether psychologists in such places should participate in the action of interrogation or the purposes -- the governmental purposes, the military purposes -- of those sites. I think, without any question, it is clear that if a psychologist participates in the interrogations or supervises the interrogations or supervises the conditions in an arena where there are no human rights and no due process, that that psychologist is contributing to the violation of human rights. And so, there should be an absolute prohibition. On the other hand, whether a psychologist should or should not offer therapeutic aid is a complex ethical decision, and you have to weigh whether the aid offered outweighs the support -- the possibility of being perceived as supporting the circumstance. But the APA is not really addressing that. We're trying to address the second contingency of whether psychologists should be actively participating in the military and intelligence aims and intentions in breaking down these prisoners or interrogating these prisoners at those sites. And we are saying that that is, in effect, a violation of human rights, no matter how ethically you ostensibly do that. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the debate is changing this weekend at the APA, the American Psychological Association? And why also is the staff of the APA so committed to continuing what the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association have said no to? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, I think that the debate is changing, because a year ago we had rumors that psychologists were involved. It seemed logical. Psychologists were involved in the SERE program. The techniques were SERE techniques. It seemed likely that psychologists could be doing this, and we wanted ethical principles that prohibited it. Between last year and this year, it’s not a question of a likelihood. It’s a question of revelations that these things have been going on and psychologists have been behind it from the beginning in the CIA, as Katherine Eban revealed in Vanity Fair. Mitchell and Jessen, with the obvious approval of people higher than they are, because it continued for a long time, used SERE tactics to torture detainees. AMY GOODMAN: These are two psychologists. DR. STEVEN REISNER: Two psychologists. And then after that, the DOD got into the act. Psychologists were brought in -- SERE psychologists were brought in to train other psychologists to use the same methods, to use SERE methods to interrogate. The Department of Defense itself has acknowledged this. We know that this has happened. Psychologists have been responsible for the abusive interrogations. So the membership is much clearer in what’s going on and what we have to change. So the debate has changed very significantly. AMY GOODMAN: We have to break, but we're going to come back. We’re talking with Dr. Steven Reisner and Dr. Stephen Soldz. They are both involved with Psychologists for an Ethical APA. We're here in San Francisco at the annual gathering of the American Psychological Association, with debates culminating on Sunday, with one or two votes around the issue possibly of a moratorium on psychologists involved in detainee interrogations or with some kind of amendment to the previous resolution on this issue. We'll talk more about it in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're broadcasting today and on Monday from San Francisco to be at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, a real showdown happening this weekend. Today at 4:00 there’s going to be a protest against psychologists’ involvement in abusive interrogations and torture. On Sunday, major votes taking place by members of the APA. We will cover that and bring it to you Monday. I want to play an excerpt of an older interview that we did with Dr. Stephen Behnke, the director of the APA’s ethics office. He appeared on Democracy Now! two years ago, shortly before the APA convention of 2005. I asked Dr. Behnke whether the reports of psychologists' involvement in detainee abuse at Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, had led him to question whether psychologists should participate in interrogations. DR. STEPHEN BEHNKE: I would say that for us, the question is not whether psychologists may be involved. We believe that there is an ethical role for psychologists to play. The question is, what are the ethical boundaries within which psychologists must remain when they are engaged in these activities? AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Dr. Steven Reisner and Dr. Stephen Soldz. They’re both with Psychologists for an Ethical APA. Dr. Soldz, respond. DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: Well, notice, you asked him about concrete reports that abuses were occurring. He has nothing to say. He, you know, not -- he will -- again, no one from the APA will ever say, “This is horrible. Psychologists have done horrible things. We need to do something about it.” All he says is, “We will set rules that say they shouldn't do this.” Well, they don’t follow these rules. AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Koocher, the former head of the APA was also on Democracy Now! And he said, “Give me some names.” Talk about someone, for example, like John Leso. DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: Well, John Leso is a psychologist at Guantanamo, one of these behavioral science consultation teams that are called “biscuits” -- Major Leso. It’s been documented that he participated in the torture of a detainee, Mr. al-Khatani, that occurred in fall of 2002 and early 2003. Time magazine obtained the interrogation log, about eighty pages, of this interrogation, or partial log. There’s a log kept. I mean, that’s part of -- this is a very bureaucratic torture regime. Every fifteen minutes, there is a notation of what was done to the person. “Maj. L,” as he’s often referred to, is in that log. He was present in the torture room. This is documented. So after this business about names, at least four people have filed ethics complaints against Dr. Leso, four that I’m aware of, going back to last August. I still looked. Dr. Leso is still a member of the APA a year later. So if these ethics -- whatever these processes are, they seem to take forever and ever and ever, if there’s ever going to be any resolution. Of course, they're all in secret, so that -- which, you know, for individual ethics business, this is protection. But it’s not so much around individuals. It’s about policy. That's one of the tricks that Dr. Koocher and Dr. Behnke use, is to turn it into individuals. “Give us the name of individuals.” This is classified activity. This is deliberately secret. Yes, we occasionally get a name here or there. But when we raise a name and raise concerns, we're accused of being unethical, because we don't have total evidence. It’s about policy. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read from the Spokesman Review in Spokane, very interesting piece, “Expert Has Stake in Cryptic Local Firm: Consultants Tied to CIA Interrogations.” It says, “The former president of the American Psychological Association is a partner in a Spokane-based firm linked to the CIA's reported use of harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists at secret detention centers around the world. “Joseph Dominic Matarazzo, an 81-year-old former psychology professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said in a statement Friday that he serves on the board of Mitchell Jessen & Associates and owns 1 percent of the firm. “According to public records, Matarazzo is one of five ‘governing people’ in the Mitchell Jessen firm, which does secret interrogation consulting work for the CIA. “Matarazzo refused repeated interview requests but said in an e-mailed statement that he ‘is not and never has been involved in the company's operational decisions,’ and that he only ‘attends brief and infrequent company meetings.’ […] “The statement was relayed by a spokesman at the Portland medical school where Matarazzo taught behavioral neuroscience for 50 years before his retirement in June.” Dr. Steven Reisner? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, here is an example of -- the APA has tried many ways of deflecting the issue of psychologists participating, organizing, running these abusive and torture regimes. And the APA’s response has been, “Well, they're not members of the APA.” And the APA’s response has been, “Give us names of members so we can bring them up on charges.” Now we have an implication of a former president of the APA, who owns 1% of a company of two psychologists who are clearly implicated in the torture of detainees, and the APA's response has been, ‘Well, we don’t really -- we're not concerned about what Dr. Matarazzo does outside of APA administrative positions or politics.” So the APA has managed to avoid taking a responsible position on where psychologists ought to be in terms of the ethical principles of torture, abuse, what psychologists have done, what our standards are, and done an accounting for all psychologists. AMY GOODMAN: What would it say to President Bush if the American Psychological Association said no to participation in detainee interrogations? DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: I think that it would be a very strong public statement, especially after the American Medical and the American Psychiatric, the American Nursing Association, the American Anthropological Association, the American Ethnomusicological Association have all made -- and just last week the American Translator Association, have all made very strong statements. If the American Psychological Association, the largest mental health organization in the world, said, “No, this is not right. We will not participate,” I think it would be a message that will be heard. Whether the Bush administration would hear it, you never know, but I think Congress would hear it, the press would hear it, and we know, after the psychiatrist and medical associations said no, that the military said, “From now on, we prefer psychologists for our behavioral science consultation teams. We prefer psychologists to psychiatrists, because of the positions of their respective associations.” So we know the military listens to this. DR. STEVEN REISNER: Also -- AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Reisner. DR. STEVEN REISNER: What the American Psychological Association would be doing would be acknowledging that the torture has been primarily psychological torture and that this would be an abuse of the principles of psychology. The Association of Ethnomusicologists has come out against the use of music as torture. But the American Psychological Association hasn’t yet come out and acknowledged that psychology has been perverted into an instrument of torture and has finally said that that would be against the ethical principles of this American Psychological Association, and it would call into question the complete regime of abuse and torture of the detainees. AMY GOODMAN: Does the American Psychological Association give these interrogations cover? Does it legitimatize them? Could they go on if psychologists weren’t there? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Could they go on? They could go on, because there are professional interrogators. Why psychologists have tried so hard to position themselves in the field of interrogation is a question that I think ought to be investigated and ought to be questioned. DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: Jane Mayer, on your show a couple weeks ago, I think, put it very clearly. There’s two parts of this. One is the supposed expertise of the SERE program, which is bogus, because SERE was designed to help people from breaking, not from giving information, but from becoming collaborators. You know -- AMY GOODMAN: How to keep American soldiers strong if they're captured -- DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: Yeah. Yes. AMY GOODMAN: -- and if they’re tortured. DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: And so, it's not about -- so they didn’t -- but it’s partly about that, but the other thing is that the administration, from the beginning, has known that their activities are illegal, and they’ve been concerned about the possibility of future war crimes trials. One way to avoid -- they reinterpreted “torture,” that basically you could do anything, as long as the intent wasn't to harm, you know, as long as the intent -- so to have a psychologist say, “This is a good way to get information” gives the prestige of the profession of psychology to say that this -- that, yes, we can use these techniques, because this is what science says how we can get information. AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to talk about the schedule of this weekend and the track that’s going to be happening, as, Dr. Reisner, you're going to go right off from this show to participate in the first session, “What are psychologists doing in US military detention centers?” a track of the APA weekend. But I notice that more than half of these, it seems, will be taking place during or after the vote on Sunday. Can you explain how that works? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Well, we have not gotten the impression that the APA board and administration has wanted there to be such full coverage of the mini convention on psychologist participation in interrogations. We asked them to put a brochure out and let the membership know. It arrived maybe a day before members were leaving for the convention, so that they had already made their schedules for it. The town meeting to discuss members’ feelings about and opinions about this participation is after the vote. Half of the meetings are after the vote. And this is supposed to be an education for the council members in order to help them vote. In fact, the board wanted the vote to take place on Thursday's meeting, yesterday’s meeting, before any of this took place. We fought them and fought them and fought them. But I believe that there is enough, especially with the coverage that it’s been getting here and elsewhere and with the rally, I think that there will be enough opportunity for the council members to be educated. AMY GOODMAN: Where will the rally take place today at 4:00? DR. STEVEN REISNER: At the Buena Vista Gardens? No, Yerba Buena Gardens, the Stone Stage, today at 4:00. AMY GOODMAN: Here in San Francisco. DR. STEVEN REISNER: Here in San Francisco. AMY GOODMAN: And just to clarify, as we wrap up, do you expect there to be or are you demanding a vote on moratorium on psychologist participation in torture on Sunday? DR. STEVEN REISNER: We are demanding a vote on both. We want there to be an up-or-down vote on the moratorium so that psychologists go on record, you know, whether they are supporting or not supporting psychologist presence in these sites. And we would like a vote on the board's resolution, because it adds important caveats to the entire issue. I just also want to say that the events are listed on the website ethicalapa.com, and a lot of the issues are laid out more clearly on that website. AMY GOODMAN: Are an increasing number of psychologists withholding dues from the APA? DR. STEVEN REISNER: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to continue this story on Monday. Last comment, ten seconds, Stephen Soldz. DR. STEPHEN SOLDZ: This is a very important chance for the APA to finally do the right thing, and I hope that they do so. AMY GOODMAN: We're going to leave it there. Thank you both, Dr. Steven Reisner, Dr. Stephen Soldz, with Psychologists for an Ethical APA.

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Just to make sure that it might be possible to press any actual charges or present any actual evidence against the prisoners... after x years... since we have no fucking clue how many more years of their life will be stolen for the sake of enduring brutal conditions and more torture:

quote:

Court Blocks Release of Chinese Guantanamo Prisoners A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a judge’s decision to immediately free seventeen Chinese Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. The judge’s initial ruling had marked the first time an American court has ordered the release of a Guantanamo prisoner. US District Judge Ricardo Urbina said the administration has failed to provide proof the prisoners were so-called enemy combatants or security risks.

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller